Food Safety and Inspection Service
Rural Housing Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Care Financing Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
Thrift Supervision Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) is revising its application processing guidelines and procedures. These changes update OTS rules to reflect existing practices; to provide more predictable procedures for applicants; and to provide greater flexibility to OTS and applicants in the processing of applications. OTS has also rewritten the rules in “plain language” to make them easier to understand.
April 1, 2001, except 12 CFR 516.290, which is effective July 1, 2001.
Lane Langford, Regulatory Analyst, Examination Policy, (202) 906-7027; Celeste Anderson, Program Analyst, Compliance Policy & Specialty Examinations, (202) 906-7990; Robyn Dennis, Manager, (202) 906-5751 and Josephine Battle, Program Analyst Trainee, (202) 906-6870, Supervision Policy Division; John P. Harootunian, Senior Counsel for Special Transactions, Business Transactions Division, (202) 906-6415, and Koko Ives, Counsel (Banking and Finance) Regulations and Legislation Division, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 906-6661, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
On November 2, 2000, OTS proposed to revise its OTS application processing guidelines and procedures at 12 CFR part 516.
Most of the proposed changes clarified existing procedures. The proposed rules, for example, presented current information in user-friendly charts; explained how OTS computes time periods; and explained how an applicant may determine whether an application should be filed with the Regional Office and OTS headquarters. OTS also proposed to add a new provision codifying OTS's policy protecting confidential information.
In addition, OTS proposed to remove some technical requirements from the existing regulations and to incorporate this information into individual application forms. OTS has revised its forms and application-processing handbook to reflect these changes. These forms and the handbook will be available on the effective date of today's final rule.
OTS proposed only a few substantive changes to the existing rules. These included new provisions that address pre-filing procedures for certain complex applications, permit OTS to extend certain processing time frames, and allow OTS to deem certain long-pending applications to be withdrawn.
The comment period on the proposed rule closed on January 2, 2001. OTS received five comments from two community organizations, one law firm representing financial institutions, one federal savings bank, and one trade association. Generally, the commenters supported the proposed rule, but objected to certain provisions. These issues are summarized in the following analysis.
As noted above, the proposed rule included new pre-filing procedures. Proposed § 516.15 would have required applicants to meet with OTS and submit a draft business plan before filing certain complex applications. These applications included:
• An application for permission to organize a de novo savings association.
• An application to convert an existing financial institution or credit union (other than a state-chartered savings association regulated by OTS or a state-chartered savings bank that is regulated by the FDIC) to a federal savings association.
• An application to acquire control of a savings association filed by an insurance company, an investment company, a securities firm, a commodities firms or a pension fund.
Several commenters addressed these pre-filing procedures. One commenter agreed that pre-filing meetings could be useful in expediting application processing under certain conditions. The commenter, however, argued that a pre-filing meeting might not always be necessary. Instead, the commenter suggested that OTS should require pre-filing meetings on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the Regional Offices or upon the request of the applicant.
OTS has reconsidered whether it should require a pre-filing meeting and draft business plan for all applications that fall within the three categories described in the proposed rule. Based on the types of issues that are commonly presented by these applications, OTS has revised the final rule to impose different requirements for each category of applications.
OTS believes that a pre-filing meeting and draft business plan are essential for an application for permission to organize a
Conversion applications filed by a commercial bank or credit union may involve significant changes to the way the institution conducts business. A credit union, for example, is not FDIC-insured, will probably have a different asset mix than a typical savings association, may not be familiar with savings associations' asset limitations, Qualified Thrift Lender (QTL) requirements and Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requirements, will not have previously paid taxes, and will have focused on serving a particular group or community, rather than the general public. Similarly, commercial banks typically may not be familiar with QTL requirements, asset limitations applicable to savings associations, and other restrictions that apply to savings associations. For these reasons, OTS believes that it is appropriate to require credit unions and commercial banks to meet with the Regional Office before they may file a conversion application. On the other hand, these applications involve existing entities that have conducted banking operations, are generally familiar with safe and sound banking practices, and have previously been supervised by another banking regulator. Accordingly, OTS does not believe that a draft business plan must always be required for these applications. The final rule provides the Regional Office with discretion to determine whether a conversion applicant must submit a draft business plan or other relevant information before the pre-filing meeting.
Change of control applications may or may not involve significant modifications to the way the institution conducts business, and may or may not raise other major issues.
The proposed rule would have permitted a Regional Office to require, or an applicant to request, a pre-filing meeting for any type of application if doing so would help resolve issues or expedite the process. The final rule continues to encourage all applicants to contact the Regional Office before filing an application. This process will allow the Regional Office and the applicant to determine whether a meeting and the submission of information will help expedite the application review process. Even where no pre-filing meeting is conducted or information submitted, these contacts will serve to expedite processing by providing an opportunity to discuss the application before it is filed.
1.
The proposed rule indicated that the applicant must meet with OTS at least 30 days before it files an application. Several commenters asserted that the proposed 30-day time frame was too inflexible. These commenters noted that 30 days may be sufficient in some instances, but that a shorter or longer time period may be appropriate for other transactions.
Rather than establish a fixed time period for the meeting, the final rule provides the Regional Office with discretion regarding scheduling. OTS anticipates that the Regional Office will consider such factors as the nature of the application, the parties' schedules, expected review time, and staff resources. OTS notes that it is up to the applicant to contact the Regional Office a reasonable period in advance of the filing. If the applicant fails to do so, the filing of the application may be delayed.
2.
Two commenters considered the business plan requirements too detailed. They argued that it is unrealistic to expect applicants to submit much of this information at the pre-filing stage. Specifically, the commenters noted that a description of the projected operations of the savings association, including financial projections for a minimum of three years, may not be available for some transactions at the pre-filing stage. One of the two commenters would require financial projections and capital matters only when a complete application is filed. One commenter argued that the draft business plan should address only the proposed management and the board, the applicant's proposed operating strategy, and its compliance with relevant laws. Another commenter urged OTS to develop a description of the draft business plan that is more flexible. Such a business plan might include an overview of the general areas such as operations, risks, management, and service to community.
OTS has not significantly revised the content requirements for the draft business plan in the final rule. For example, the final rule continues to require an applicant to provide financial projections for a minimum of three
OTS has made one minor adjustment to one of the proposed business plan requirements. Proposed § 516.20(b)(3) would have required the applicant to identify all proposed directors and senior executive officers of the savings association and demonstrate that these individuals have the expertise to prudently manage the operations and activities described in the plan. OTS recognizes that an applicant may not have identified all of its directors and senior executive officers before submitting the proposed business plan. Accordingly, the final rule requires draft business plan to include this information for only a majority of the proposed directors and for key senior executive officers.
One commenter mistakenly believed that OTS approval of the business plan at a pre-filing meeting is a precondition of an accepted application and opposed this concept. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, OTS will review in certain circumstances, but will not approve, the business plan at the pre-filing stage.
3.
OTS does not believe that it is appropriate to allow the public to attend or review discussions that take place at the pre-filing meeting. The purpose of the pre-filing meeting requirement is to permit OTS and the applicant to identify legal or policy issues before the application is filed, and to enable the applicant to address these issues early in the process. For this process to work effectively, the applicant must be free to discuss all aspects of the application with OTS staff, including protected business information and confidential information about potential securities filings.
Proposed part 516 did not impose substantive requirements regarding the content of applications. Some commenters urged OTS to codify application requirements relating to antitrust matters, CRA issues, management issues and fair lending matters in the final rule. Commenters argued that these requirements would help the general public to make informed comments. The commenters urged OTS to state that an inadequate CRA plan would result in an OTS determination that the application is materially deficient and ineligible for further review.
OTS has not changed the final rule to codify requirements relating to these matters. Specific application requirements are contained in substantive regulations and in other guidance affecting particular notices and applications, appropriate forms, and instructions. Applicants may obtain guidance affecting particular notices and applications from any OTS Regional Office or, as of April 1, 2001, the OTS web site at www.ots.treas.gov.
Proposed § 516.35 is new, but would restate current OTS policy protecting confidential information. Under this proposed section, OTS would make submissions under part 516 available to the public. An applicant, however, may request that OTS keep portions of the application confidential consistent with the standards of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.) (FOIA) and OTS regulations implementing FOIA.
Several commenters agreed that CRA plans should not be confidential. One commenter observed that other parts of the application may address management issues or antitrust considerations that may relate to a CRA plan. The commenter urged OTS to make
The FOIA requires OTS to disclose information to the public, unless the information falls within certain exempt categories. While the FOIA does not prohibit OTS from publicly disclosing any information, various other laws may do so.
Under the final rules, an applicant may request confidential treatment for those portions of the application that the applicant believes would be exempt from disclosure if OTS were asked for the information under FOIA. 5 U.S.C. 552. The FOIA exemptions most likely to apply to portions of an application are Exemption (4) and Exemption (6). Exemption (4) may protect from disclosure “privileged or confidential” material consisting of “trade secrets and commercial or financial information.” 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). If the applicant requests confidential treatment of a portion of the application based on FOIA Exemption (4), the applicant must describe how it will suffer competitive
Under proposed § 516.35(c), OTS would advise an applicant before disclosing to the public information for which the applicant has requested confidential treatment consistent with paragraph (b) of this section. One commenter urged OTS to adopt pre-disclosure notice requirements that are consistent with OCC rules governing confidential commercial information.
OTS complies with FOIA regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) at 31 CFR part 1, subpart A, and OTS supplemental FOIA regulations at 12 CFR part 505.
OTS has made a technical change to the text of 12 CFR 574.6(f)(4), which addresses the procedural requirements for disclosure of confidential information contained in an application for acquisition of control of a savings association. Under existing § 574.6(f)(4), OTS must give the applicant five business days notice of its intent to disclose information for which confidential treatment has been requested. The technical change will conform § 574.6(f)(4) to § 516.35. OTS will comply with the advance notice required under the FOIA regulations.
Under proposed § 516.35(d), if OTS issues a public statement with its decision on the application, the agency may comment on confidential submissions in the application without notifying the applicant. OTS has decided to delete § 516.35(d) as unnecessary. It is not OTS practice to comment on confidential submissions in the application in a public statement without first notifying the applicant.
The final rule adds § 516.47 to clarify how an applicant may amend or supplement an application. Under the final rule, an applicant must file the amendment or supplemental information at the appropriate OTS office(s) along with the number of copies required under § 516.40. Any amendment or supplemental information must also be appropriately captioned and meet the exhibit requirements at § 516.30(b).
OTS proposed only minor revisions to the publication and comment procedures at existing subpart B and C. The proposed rule made two revisions to existing § 516.130, which governs where commenters should file their comments on an application. Proposed § 516.130 would require commenters to file their comments with the appropriate OTS Regional Office and, where an application involves a significant issue of law or policy, with OTS headquarters. In addition, commenters would also be required to simultaneously provide a copy of the comment directly to the applicant.
OTS has decided that it is too burdensome to require a commenter to determine whether an application involves a significant issue of law or policy in order to file its comments properly. Instead, the final rule merely requires a commenter to file its comment with the appropriate Regional Office. The Regional Office will forward a copy of the comment to OTS headquarters where appropriate.
Several commenters urged OTS to delete the proposed requirement that commenters must send their comments directly to the applicant. These commenters noted that the other banking agencies do not require this submission.
OTS disagrees. All comments are public information and, in the past, OTS has forwarded copies of comments to applicants to permit them to address the concerns raised. As a result, applicants know the substance of all comments and the identity of the commenters. Requiring commenters to provide comments directly to the applicant is therefore unlikely to intimidate community groups. OTS acknowledges that providing a copy to the applicant may impose costs on commenters. If providing a copy of a comment to an applicant imposes a significant burden on the commenter, OTS may on a case-by-case basis waive the requirement and forward the comment on the commenter's behalf.
Under existing § 516.140, commenters must file comments with OTS within 25 calendar days after the application is filed. OTS will consider a late-filed comment, if within the comment period, the commenter demonstrates good cause for the untimely comment, and OTS determines that the comment addresses a significant regulatory concern and will assist in the disposition of the application. OTS is changing § 516.140 to permit OTS greater flexibility in accepting late-filed comments. The final rule will allow OTS to consider late-filed comments if the commenter demonstrates good cause within the comment period for the untimely comment
OTS did not propose changes to the formal and informal meeting procedures in Subpart D, but sought comment on how these meeting procedures are operating in practice.
One commenter noted that the informal and formal meetings are valuable opportunities to make views known to OTS and applicants. Another commenter, however, suggested several changes to these procedures. This commenter noted that the existing rules do not address the timing of the informal or formal meetings. The commenter argued that time is of the essence for many corporate transactions. Accordingly, this commenter asserted that the regulation should require all parties to be available to meet within 10 days after the submission of a comment.
OTS has decided not to impose these time frames in order to retain maximum flexibility in scheduling. It is, however, OTS's practice to schedule the meetings as soon as possible taking into account
Under § 516.170, OTS will conduct an informal meeting whenever a commenter requests such a meeting.
OTS has not revised the informal meeting process. This process ensures that all allegations of harm to individuals and communities are fully explored and that OTS may issue an informed decision on the merits of an application. While the commenter feared that some individuals or community groups may request an informal meeting solely to suspend the application processing time periods, OTS knows of no situation where this has occurred. In addition, the rules permit OTS to suspend processing time frames only for a limited time,
If a meeting has been arranged, the application processing time periods will resume only when OTS determines that a record has been developed that sufficiently supports a determination on the issues raised by the commenters.
OTS believes that a fixed time frame would limit its ability to develop a thorough record. In some instances, two weeks may be insufficient to develop a record. Accordingly, OTS will resume the time periods when the record is developed. It will not impose a rigid time period that will unnecessarily inhibit its flexibility.
OTS processes applications under part 516 using two procedures—expedited treatment and standard treatment. Like the current rule, the proposed rule would base the decision to process an application under expedited treatment, in part, on the association's condition, as reflected in the composite Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, the CRA performance rating, and the most recent compliance rating.
One commenter asserted that OTS should not revise the proposed rule to incorporate these other ratings because such a change would be inconsistent with the other banking agencies' procedures. The commenter argued that any proposed changes to the criteria for expedited treatment of an application should be based on interagency consensus.
OTS has decided not to incorporate other ratings in its decision to process applications under expedited treatment. OTS monitors new developments for each thrift and updates the CAMELS rating, as needed, so that the rating is a current indicator of the institution's condition. As part of this monitoring, OTS examiners are authorized to make off-site changes to the management score (the M component) of the CAMELS rating to reflect the scores received under the other rating systems. As a result, the CAMELS rating used in § 516.5 determinations already reflect other ratings and considerations.
OTS received the following comments on OTS review under standard treatment:
1.
One commenter supported the proposed provision permitting OTS to extend its review period. Another commenter, however, argued that the rules should require OTS to explain why the extension is necessary. The final rule adds the requirement that OTS must briefly explain why the extension is necessary.
2.
One commenter argued that OTS should always grant a new comment period when it requires the applicant to submit additional information. OTS disagrees. The purpose of the new comment period is to ensure that the public has adequate notice and opportunity to comment on applications that change substantially after the initial comment period. Not all revisions, new information, changes in circumstances, or issues of law are of a sufficient magnitude to merit the delays, expense, and burden inherent in the republication of a notice. Accordingly, OTS has left this provision unchanged in order to retain its discretion in
3.
The current rule, however, includes one standard governing the review of applications.
Two commenters opposed this deletion, arguing that the change may lead regulators to discount or limit consideration of CRA factors. The final rule follows the proposed rule on this point. OTS continues to believe that the review standards in the applicable substantive statutes and regulations sufficiently address these matters. OTS will not limit or discount CRA or other consumer-related compliance requirements as a result of the deletion because an applicant is still subject to these underlying substantive statutes and regulations.
OTS has made miscellaneous technical changes to the text of several rules. For example, OTS has revised the chart at § 516.40 to update the addresses of the OTS Regional Offices. The chart, however, does not reflect the new address of the West Region Office, which is expected to move later this year. OTS will update the address in its end of the year technical amendments. OTS has also made other minor editorial changes to §§ 516.5, 516.15, 516.40, 516.45, 516.120, 516.220 and 516.230.
OTS has also made a technical change to 12 CFR 545.92(d)(2) to make the publication requirements for a branch office consistent with the publication requirements in subpart B of part 516. In 1997, OTS amended the application processing rules to consolidate the publication notice provisions in other OTS regulations in a single regulation under part 516. At that time, OTS intended to include the branching regulation in the amendment but inadvertently omitted this change.
The Director of OTS has determined that this final regulation does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OTS certifies that this final regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule generally restates the existing rule in plain language and clarifies existing procedures. These changes should make it easier for all applicants to file applications and for OTS to review applications expeditiously. These changes should, therefore, assist all potential applicants, including small businesses. While the final rule would make several minor changes, only two of these changes would impose additional burden on certain applicants. Under the final rule, certain applicants may be subject to a possible pre-filing meeting requirement and may be required to provide a draft business plan or other relevant information before the meeting. OTS believes that the pre-filing meeting is generally consistent with existing procedures and imposes only a minimal burden. Moreover, most applicants should already have drafted business plans to provide to the agency.
The information collection requirements in this final rule have previously been approved by OMB under the substantive regulations or under the application forms; or involve technical changes that do not affect the overall burden of compliance. To the extent that this regulation imposes new burden, OTS has filed applications to update the information collection requirements in the underlying forms. These have been submitted under 1550-0005, 1550-00015, and 1550-0037.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Act), requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. The final rule generally restates the existing application processing procedures in plain language and clarifies existing procedures. These changes should make it easier for all applicants to file applications and for OTS to review applications. While the final rule makes several minor changes, OTS has determined that the final rule will not result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments or by the private sector of $100 million or more. Accordingly, this final rulemaking is not subject to section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Government contracts, Individuals with disabilities, Minority businesses, Women.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Accounting, Consumer protection, Credit, Electronic funds transfers, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Savings associations, Trusts and trustees.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
Accounting, Consumer protection, Credit, Electronic funds transfers, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Subsidiaries.
Consumer protection, Investments, Manufactured homes, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
Accounting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Accounting, Advertising, Crime, Currency, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities, Surety bonds.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
Antitrust, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Administrative practice and procedure, Capital, Savings associations.
Capital, Savings associations.
Administrative practice and procedure, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Capital, Holding companies Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
Accordingly, the Office of Thrift Supervision amends title 12, chapter V, of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 552, 559; 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 2901
2. Subpart A of part 516 (§§ 516.1, 516.2, 516.3) is removed.
(a) This part explains OTS procedures for processing applications, notices, or filings (applications). Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, subparts A and E of this part apply whenever an OTS regulation requires any person (you) to file an application with OTS. Subparts B, C, and D, however, only apply when an OTS regulation incorporates the procedures in the subpart or where otherwise required by OTS.
(b) This part does not apply to any of the following:
(1) An application related to a transaction under section 13(c) or (k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1823(c) or (k).
(2) A request for reconsideration, modification, or appeal of a final OTS action.
(3) A request related to litigation, an enforcement proceeding, a supervisory directive or supervisory agreement. Such requests include a request seeking approval under, modification of, or termination of an order issued under part 508 or 509 of this chapter, a supervisory agreement, a supervisory directive, a consent merger agreement or a document negotiated in settlement of an enforcement matter or other litigation, unless an applicable OTS regulation specifically requires an application under this part.
(4) An application filed under an OTS regulation that prescribes other application processing procedures and time frames for the approval of applications.
(c) If an OTS regulation for a specific type of application prescribes some application processing procedures, or time frames, OTS will apply this part to the extent necessary to process the application. For example, if an OTS regulation for a specific type of application does not identify time periods for the processing of an application, the time periods in this part apply.
OTS processes applications under this part using two procedures, expedited treatment and standard treatment. To determine which treatment applies, you may use the following chart:
In computing time periods under this part, OTS does not include the day of the act or event that commences the time period. When the last day of a time period is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the time period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday.
(a)
(b)
(2) All other applicants are encouraged to contact the appropriate Regional Office to determine whether a pre-filing meeting or the submission of a draft business plan or other relevant information would expedite the application review process.
If you must submit a draft business plan under § 516.15, your plan must:
(a) Clearly and completely describe the savings association's projected operations and activities;
(b) Describe the risks associated with the transaction and the impact of this transaction on any existing activities and operations of the savings association, including financial projections for a minimum of three years;
(c) Identify the majority of the proposed board of directors and the key senior executive officers (as defined in § 563.555 of this chapter) of the savings association and demonstrate that these individuals have the expertise to prudently manage the activities and operations described in the savings association's draft business plan; and
(d) Demonstrate how applicable requirements regarding serving the credit and lending needs in the market areas served by the savings association will be met.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Describing the requirement to be waived and
(2) Explaining why the information is not needed to enable OTS to evaluate your notice or application under applicable standards.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(2) OTS will not treat as confidential the portion of your application describing how you plan to meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) objectives. OTS will make information in your CRA plan, including any information incorporated by reference
(c)
(a)
(2) The address and the states served for each Regional Office are:
(b)
(2)(i) You may obtain a list of applications involving significant issues of law or policy at the OTS website at www.ots.treas.gov or by contacting a Regional Office.
(ii) OTS reserves the right to identify significant issues of law or policy in a particular application. OTS will advise you, in writing, if it makes this determination.
(a) Your application's filing date is the date that you complete all of the following requirements.
(1) You attend a pre-filing meeting and submit a draft business plan or relevant information, if OTS requires you to do so under § 516.15.
(2) You file your application and all required copies with OTS, as described under § 516.40.
(i) If you are required to file with a Regional Office and with OTS Headquarters, you have not filed with OTS until you file with both offices.
(ii) You have not filed with a Regional Office or OTS Headquarters until you file the application and the required number of copies with that office.
(iii) If you file after the close of business established by a Regional Office or OTS Headquarters, you have filed with that office on the next business day.
(3) You pay the applicable fee. You have not paid the fee until you submit the fee to the appropriate Regional Office, or OTS waives the fee. You may pay by check, money order, cashier's check or wire transfer payable to OTS.
(b) OTS may notify you that it has adjusted your application filing date if you fail to meet any applicable publication requirements.
(c) If, after you properly file your application with the Regional Office, OTS determines that a significant issue of law or policy exists under § 516.40(b)(2)(ii), the filing date of your application is the day you filed with the Regional Office. The 30-day review period under §§ 516.200 or 516.210 of this part will restart in its entirety when the Regional Office forwards the appropriate number of copies of your application to OTS Headquarters.
To amend or supplement your application, you must file the amendment or supplemental information at the appropriate OTS office(s) along with the number of copies required under § 516.40. Your amendment or supplemental information also must meet the caption and exhibit requirements at § 516.30(b).
Your public notice must include the following:
(a) Your name and address.
(b) The type of application.
(c) The name of the depository institution(s) that is the subject matter of the application.
(d) A statement indicating that the public may submit comments to the appropriate OTS office(s).
(e) The address of the appropriate OTS offices where the public may submit comments.
(f) The date that the comment period closes.
(g) A statement indicating that the nonconfidential portions of the application are on file in the Regional Office, and are available for public inspection during regular business hours.
(h) Any other information that OTS requires you to publish. You may find the format for various publication notices in the appendix to OTS application processing handbook.
(a) A comment should recite relevant facts, including any demographic, economic, or financial data, supporting the commenter's position. A comment opposing an application should also:
(1) Address at least one of the reasons why OTS may deny the application under the relevant statute or regulation;
(2) Recite any relevant facts and supporting data addressing these reasons; and;
(3) Address how the approval of the application could harm the commenter or any community.
(b) If a commenter wishes to request an informal meeting under § 516.170, the commenter must file a request with the comment. The commenter should describe the nature of the issues or facts to be discussed and the reasons why written submissions are insufficient to adequately address these facts or issues.
A commenter must file with the appropriate OTS Regional Office (See table at § 516.40(a)(2)). The commenter must simultaneously send a copy of the comment to the applicant.
(a)
(b)
(1) Within the comment period, the commenter demonstrates to OTS good cause why the commenter could not submit a timely comment; or
(2) OTS concludes that the comment addresses a significant regulatory concern and will assist in the disposition of the application.
OTS may provide the commenter with additional opportunities to discuss the application in informal or formal meetings under subpart D of this part.
OTS will not approve or deny an application at a formal or informal meeting under this subpart.
If OTS has arranged a meeting, it will suspend applicable application processing time frames, including the time frames for deeming an application complete and the applicable approval time frames specified in subpart E of this part. The time period will resume when OTS determines that a record has been developed that sufficiently supports a determination on the issues raised in the comments.
If you are eligible for expedited treatment and you have appropriately filed your notice with OTS, you may engage in the proposed activities upon the expiration of 30 days after the filing date of your notice, unless OTS takes one of the following actions before the expiration of that time period:
(a) OTS notifies you in writing that you must file additional information supplementing your notice. If you are required to file additional information, you may engage in the proposed activities upon the expiration of 30 calendar days after the date you file the additional information, unless OTS takes one of the actions described in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section before the expiration of that time period;
(b) OTS notifies you in writing that your notice is subject to standard treatment under this subpart. OTS will subject your notice to standard treatment if it raises a supervisory concern, raises a significant issue of law or policy, or requires significant additional information;
(c) OTS notifies you in writing that it is suspending the applicable time frames under § 516.190; or
(d) OTS notifies you that it disapproves your notice.
(a)
(b)
(a) You may use the following chart to determine the procedure that applies to your submission of additional information under § 516.210(a)(1):
(b) OTS may extend the 15-day period referenced in paragraph (a)(1) of this section by up to 15 calendar days, if OTS requires the additional time to review your response. OTS will notify you that it has extended the period before the end of the initial 15-day period and will briefly explain why the extension is necessary.
(c) If your response filed under paragraph (a)(1) of this section includes a request for a waiver of an informational requirement, your request for a waiver is granted if OTS fails to act on it within 15 calendar days after the filing of your response, unless OTS extends the review period under paragraph (b). If OTS extends the review period under paragraph (b), your request is granted if OTS fails to act on it by the end of the extended review period.
(a)
(b)
After your application is deemed complete, but before the end of the applicable review period,
(a) OTS may require you to provide additional information if the information is necessary to resolve or clarify the issues presented by your application.
(b) OTS may determine that a major issue of law or a change in circumstances arose after you filed your application, and that the issue or changed circumstances will substantially effect your application. If OTS identifies such an issue or changed circumstances, it may:
(1) Notify you, in writing, that your application is now incomplete and require you to submit additional information to complete the application
(2) Require you to publish a new public notice of your application under § 516.250.
(a) If your application was subject to a publication requirement, OTS may require you to publish a new public notice of your application if:
(1) You submitted a revision to the application, you submitted new or additional information, or a major issue of law or a change in circumstances arose after the filing of your application; and
(2) OTS determines that additional comment on these matters is appropriate because of the significance of the new information or circumstances.
(b) OTS will notify you in writing if you must publish a new public notice of your revised application.
(c) If you are required to publish a new public notice of your revised application, you must notify OTS after you publish the new public notice.
(a)
(1) OTS, another governmental entity, or a self-regulatory trade or professional organization initiates an investigation, examination, or administrative proceeding that is relevant to OTS's evaluation of your application;
(2) You request the suspension or there are other extraordinary circumstances that have a significant impact on the processing of your application.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) OTS may also extend the review period as needed until it acts on the application, if the application presents a significant issue of law or policy that requires additional time to resolve. OTS must notify you in writing of the extension and the general reasons for the extension. OTS must issue the written extension before the end of the review period, including any extension of that period under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. This section applies to applications and notices filed under § 575.3(b) and part 574 of this chapter.
(a)
(2) OTS will promptly notify you in writing of its decision to approve or deny your application.
(b)
(a)
(b)
12 U.S.C. 1833(e); 42 U.S.C. 12101
(b) Self-certify ownership status by filing with the OTS Outreach Program Advocate a completed and signed ABELS Registration/Certification Form, as prescribed by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency and available from the Outreach Program Advocate at the headquarters address of the OTS listed in § 516.40(b) of this chapter.
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 2901
(a)(1)
(2)
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 2901
(c) * * * Such request for reissuance should be filed with the Corporate Secretary at the Washington Headquarters Office at the address listed at § 516.40(b) of this chapter and contain signatures required under § 544.1 of this part, together with such supporting documents as may be needed to demonstrate that the amendments were properly adopted.
(c) * * * (1) * * *
(ii) Applications submitted under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section are subject to standard treatment processing procedures at part 516, subparts A and E of this chapter.
12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1828.
(b)
(d) * * *
(2)
(f)
12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464.
You must file an application under part 516, subparts A and E of this chapter.
(b) * * *
(2) If you must file a document with the Comptroller of the Currency under 12 CFR 9.18, you must also file that document with the appropriate Regional Office at § 516.40(a) of this chapter. * * *
* * * You must file the resolution with the appropriate Regional Office at the address listed in § 516.40(a) of this chapter.
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a.
* * * An application for conversion filed under this section is subject to the procedures for organization of a federal stock organization at § 552.2-1.
(d) * * * Such requests for reissuance should be filed with the Corporate Secretary at Washington Headquarters Office at the address listed in § 516.40(b) of this chapter, and contain signatures required under § 552.3 of this part, together with such supporting documents as needed to demonstrate that the amendments were properly adopted.
(b) * * * (1) * * *
(ii) Applications submitted under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section are subject to standard treatment processing procedures at part 516, subparts A and E of this chapter.
12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464.
(a)
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1828.
a. Removing, in paragraph (e)(2)(i), the phrases “§ 516.3(a) of this chapter” and “§ 516.1 of this chapter”, and by adding in lieu thereof the phrases § 516.5 of this chapter” and “standard treatment processing procedures at part 516, subparts A and E of this chapter”; and
b. Removing, in paragraph (e)(2)(ii), the phrases “§ 516.3(b) of this chapter” and “§ 516.1 of this chapter”, and by adding in lieu thereof the phrases § 516.5 of this chapter” and, “standard
* * * You should read these two sections together to determine whether you must file a notice with OTS under § 559.11 of this part, or whether you must file an application subject to standard treatment processing procedures at part 516, subparts A and E of this chapter to request prior written OTS approval in order for your service corporation to engage in a particular activity. * * *
When required by section 18(m) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, a savings association (“you”) must file a notice (“Notice”) under part 516, subpart A of this chapter at least 30 days before establishing or acquiring a subsidiary or engaging in new activities in a subsidiary. * * * If OTS notifies you within 30 days that the Notice presents supervisory concerns, or raises significant issues of law or policy, you must apply for and receive OTS's prior written approval under the standard treatment processing procedures at part 516, subpart A and E of this chapter before establishing or acquiring the subsidiary or engaging in new activities in the subsidiary.
(b) If OTS notifies you within 30 days that the Notice presents supervisory concerns, or raises significant issues of law or policy, you must apply for and receive OTS's prior written approval under the standard treatment processing procedures at part 516, subparts A and E of this chapter before making a salvage investment.
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1701j-3, 1828, 3803, 3806; 42 U.S.C. 4106.
(c) * * * If within that 30-day period OTS notifies you that an investment presents supervisory, legal, or safety and soundness concerns, you must apply for and receive OTS prior written approval under the standard treatment processing procedures at part 516, subparts A and E of this chapter before making the investment. * * *
(d) * * *
(3) A Federal savings association may use an index not satisfying the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section 30 days after filing a notice unless, within that 30-day period, OTS has notified the association that the notice presents supervisory concerns or raises significant issues of law or policy. If OTS notifies the association of such concerns or issues, the Federal savings association may not use such an index unless it applies for and receives OTS's prior written approval under the standard treatment processing procedures at part 516, subparts A and E of this chapter.
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * * A savings association that meets the requirements of paragraphs (d)(3)(i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of this section and that meets the requirements for “expedited treatment” under § 516.5 of this chapter may use the higher limit set forth under this paragraph (d)(3) if the savings association has filed a notice with OTS that it intends to use the higher limit at least 30 days prior to the proposed use. A savings association that meets the requirements of paragraphs (d)(3)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v) of this section and that meets the requirements for “standard treatment” under § 516.5 of this chapter may use the higher limit set forth under this paragraph (d)(3) if the savings association has filed an application with OTS and OTS has approved the use the higher limit;
(a)(1) Each savings association must evaluate and classify its assets on a regular basis in a manner consistent with, or reconcilable to, the asset classification system used by OTS in its Thrift Activities Handbook (Available at the address of Washington Headquarters Office at § 516.40(b) of this chapter).
12 U.S.C. 1463.
(b) * * *
(1) If a savings association has received a composite rating of 3, 4 or 5, as defined at § 516.5(c) of this chapter; or
12 U.S.C. 375b, 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1468, 1817, 1820, 1828, 3806; 42 U.S.C. 4106.
(b)(1) * * *
(ii) In the case of a savings association that meets the conditions for expedited treatment under § 516.5 of this chapter, convert, directly or indirectly, to a national or state bank.
(2) A savings association that does not meet the conditions for expedited treatment under § 516.5 of this chapter
(d) * * *
(4) Applications filed under section 5(d)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1815(d)(3)) and paragraph (a) of this section must be processed in accordance with the time frames set forth in §§ 516.220 through 516.290 of this chapter, provided that the period for review may be extended only if the Office determines that the applicant has failed to furnish all requested information or that the information submitted is substantially inaccurate, in which case the review period may be extended for up to 30 days.
(f) * * *
(1) The acquiring savings association does not meet the criteria for expedited treatment under § 516.5 of this chapter;
(h) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Has a composite rating of 4 or 5, as defined in § 516.5(c) of this chapter;
(a)
(2)
(c)
(a) * * *
(1) You are not eligible for expedited treatment under § 516.5 of this chapter. * * *
(b) * * *
(4) At its most recent examination, OTS determined that the savings association was in outstanding or good condition, that is, it received a composite rating of 1 or 2, as composite rating defined in § 516.5(c) of this chapter;
(d) * * *
(11)
(c)
(1) A savings association that has a composite rating of 4 or 5, as composite rating is defined in § 516.5(c) of this chapter.
The procedures found in part 516, subpart A of this chapter govern the filing of your notice under § 563.560.
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 2901; 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78w.
12 U.S.C. 3201-3208.
(a) * * * A depository organization may apply to OTS for an exemption under part 516, subpart E, of this chapter.
12 U.S.C. 1831o.
a. Section 565.4(b)(2)(iii)(B) is amended by removing the phrase “as defined in § 516.3(c)” and adding in lieu thereof “as composite rating is defined in § 516.5(c)”;
b. Section 565.4(b)(3)(iii)(B) is amended by removing the phrase “as defined in § 516.3(c)” and adding in lieu thereof “as composite rating is defined in § 516.5(c)”; and
c. Section 565.4(c)(2), footnote 1, is amended by removing the phrase § 516.1 of this chapter”, and by adding in lieu thereof “§ 516.40 of this chapter”.
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1828 (note).
(d) * * *
(2) * * * (i) * * * Such response must be filed in accordance with §§ 516.30 and 516.40 of this chapter. * * *
(a) * * *
(3) * * * (i) * * * Such responses must be filed in accordance with §§ 516.30 and 516.40 of this chapter. * * *
(f) OTS will provide, upon request, manuals describing the OTS Model and guidance at the address set forth in § 516.40(b) of this chapter.
12 U.S.C. 1467a, 1817, 1831i.
(f) * * *
(2) * * * Certifications provided for in this paragraph must be filed with OTS in accordance with §§ 516.30 and 516.40 of this chapter.
(ii)(B) is amended by removing the phrase “as defined in § 516.3(c)” and adding in lieu thereof “as composite rating is defined in § 516.5(c)”;
b. Section 565.4(b)(3)(iii)(B) is amended by removing the phrase “as defined in § 516.3(c)” and adding in lieu thereof “as composite rating is defined in § 516.5(c)”; and
c. Section 565.4(c)(2), footnote 1, is amended by removing the phrase § 516.1 of this chapter”, and by adding in lieu thereof “§ 516.40 of this chapter”.
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1828 (note).
(d) * * *
(2) * * * (i) * * * Such response must be filed in accordance with §§ 516.30 and 516.40 of this chapter. * * *
(a) * * *
(3) * * * (i) * * * Such responses must
(f) * * *
(4) * * * If the Office receives a request for the information under the Freedom of Information Act, OTS will advise the filing party before it discloses material for which confidential treatment has been requested.
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1828, 2901.
(b) * * *
(2) Sixty days have passed since OTS received the Reorganization Notice and deemed it complete under § 516.210 or § 516.220 of this chapter, and OTS has not:
(a) * * * (1) * * * Proxies and proxy statements must be filed in accordance with § 563b.5(e) of this chapter and must be addressed to the Business Transactions Division, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, at the address set forth in § 516.40(b) of this chapter. * * *
(b)
(c) * * *
(2)
(e)
12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1468.
(b) * * * OTS must act upon such application under the guidelines in part 516, subpart E of this chapter.
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) Models PW305 and PW305A turbofan engines, that requires removing stage 4 low pressure turbine (LPT) disks from service before exceeding new, lower cyclic life limits. This amendment is prompted by the results of a spin pit test analysis which indicate that the stage 4 LPT disk does not have full published life. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent LPT disk failure resulting from premature cracking of the LPT disks, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
Effective date April 6, 2001.
James Rosa, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone: (781) 238-7152; fax (781) 238-7199.
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 PWC Models PW305 and PW305A turbofan engines, was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
There are currently 358 engines in the domestic fleet containing the affected stage 4 LPT disks, part numbers (P/N's) 30A1457 and 30A1499, and a total of 484 engines in the worldwide fleet. The total cost to the domestic fleet to remove and replace these disks at the new life limit of 4000 cycles-in-service (CIS), rather than the former life limit of 5000 CIS, is estimated to be $6,331,015.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this proposed rule.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) Models PW305 and PW305A turbofan engines with stage 4 low pressure turbine (LPT) disks, part numbers (P/N's) 30A1457 and 30A1499. These engines are installed on but not limited to British Aerospace BAe. 125 1000A, BAe. 125 1000B, Hawker 1000, and Learjet 60 series airplanes.
This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.
To prevent premature LPT disk failure due to cracking of the LPT disks, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Remove stage 4 LPT disks, P/N's 30A1457 and 30A1499, prior to exceeding the new life limit of 4000 cycles-in-service (CIS).
(b) Except for the provisions of paragraph (c) of this AD, no parts, identified by P/N in paragraph (a) of this AD, that exceed the new life limit of 4000 CIS, may be installed.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall submit their request through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, ECO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive, if any, may be obtained from the ECO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on April 6, 2001.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
This action amends the Class E airspace area at Phillipsburg, KS. The FAA has developed Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Runway (RWY) 13 ORIGINAL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31 ORIGINAL, and Nondirectional Beacon (NDB)-A, ORIGINAL (5/17/01) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) to serve Phillipsburg Municipal Airport. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to accommodate the SIAPs and for other Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at this airport. This action will also correct the geographical coordinates of Phillipsburg Municipal Airport, Phillipsburg, KS.
The intended effect of this rule is to provide controlled Class E airspace for aircraft executing the SIAPs and to segregate aircraft using instrument approach procedures in instrument conditions from aircraft operating in visual conditions.
This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, July 12, 2001.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before May 1, 2001.
Sends comments regarding the rule in triplicate to: Manager, Operations and Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, ACE-530, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket Number 01-ACE-2, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Regional Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours in the Air Traffic Division at the same address listed above.
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Operations & Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2525.
The FAA has developed RNAV (GPS) RWY 13 ORIGINAL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31 ORIGINAL and NDB-A ORIGINAL (5/17/01) SIAPs to serve Phillipsburg Municipal Airport, Phillipsburg, KS. The amendment to Class E airspace at Phillipsburg, KS, will provide additional controlled airspace at and above 700 feet AGL in order to contain the new SIAPs within controlled airspace, and thereby facilitate separation of aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. The amendment will enhance safety for all flight operations by designating an area where VFR pilots may anticipate the presence of IFR aircraft at lower altitudes, especially during inclement weather conditions. A greater degree of
Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, 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 should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related 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 action 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 No. 01-ACE-2.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have 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 noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Phillipsburg Municipal Airport and within 2.6 miles each side of the 143° bearing from the Phillipsburg NDB extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the NDB.
In Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of April 1, 2000, in part 658, on page 257, § 658.5 is corrected by adding the definition of “
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Corrections to final regulations.
This document contains corrections to final regulations that were published in the
This correction is effective January 10, 2001.
Christine L. Keller (202) 622-6080 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are under section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, final regulations (TD 8921) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to temporary regulations.
This document contains corrections to temporary regulations that were published in the
This correction is effective January 10, 2001.
Phyllis D. Haney (202) 622-4290 (not a toll-free number).
These temporary regulations that are the subject of this correction are under section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, these temporary regulations (TD 8920) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Department of the Treasury.
Final rule (Treasury decision).
This final rule amends the regulations in 27 CFR part 22 by eliminating the requirement for users of tax-free alcohol to file a bond. It also liberalizes certain qualification requirements relating to tax-free alcohol user permits. ATF believes that these revisions will greatly reduce and simplify the qualification process for tax-free alcohol permits.
This rule is effective on May 1, 2001.
Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20226, (202-927-9347) or e-mail at alctob@atfhq.atf.treas.gov.
There are certain registration requirements under the law and its implementing regulations that must be met prior to the issuance of a permit to withdraw and use tax-free alcohol. Once such registration requirements are met, the applicant is issued a tax-free alcohol users permit and may commence conducting any of the uses authorized under the law and regulations for tax-free alcohol permittees. The permittee is allowed to purchase and acquire alcohol from a registered distilled spirits plant (DSP) free of the excise tax payments normally required to be made by the DSP proprietor.
Authorized users of tax-free alcohol include any State or political subdivision of a State, or the District of Columbia acquiring the alcohol for nonbeverage purposes. Tax-free alcohol may also be used by any educational organization (exempt from income tax), scientific university or college of learning, laboratory for use exclusively in scientific research, hospital, blood bank, sanitarium, pathological laboratory exclusively engaged in making analyses, or tests, for hospitals or sanitariums, or clinic operated for charity and not for profit.
On June 13, 1996, ATF published a notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice No. 828, 61 FR 30019) to solicit public comment on proposed regulations that would eliminate the bonding requirements for tax-free alcohol users. ATF also proposed to revise the qualification requirements for obtaining a permit to withdraw and use tax-free alcohol. The public was invited to submit written comments on this notice for a period of 60 (sixty) days ending August 12, 1996.
In response to Notice 828, ATF received two written comments. Comments were received from: the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), and the Surety Association of America.
As discussed in Notice No. 828, 26 U.S.C. 5272 provides that bond coverage may be required as part of the tax-free alcohol permit qualification process. Prior to 1985, the regulations in 27 CFR part 22 required that every applicant, with certain exceptions, obtain a bond prior to issuance of a permit. Then, in 1985, the tax-free regulations were revised and the exemption from bond coverage was expanded. See T.D. ATF-199 (50 FR 9152). Under the revisions adopted in 1985, the percentage of users of tax-free alcohol who were exempt from filing a surety bond increased from 36 percent to 75 percent.
Based on the post-1985 experience in administering part 22, ATF concluded that bond coverage should no longer be required of any applicant for a tax-free alcohol permit. ATF believed that elimination of the bond requirement in part 22 would result in substantially reduced administrative and financial burdens on the tax-free alcohol permittees. Accordingly, in Notice No. 828, ATF proposed to eliminate the requirement to obtain a bond.
In response to this proposal, DISCUS submitted a comment stating that they support all efforts by ATF to eliminate unnecessary regulation and to reduce the administrative burdens imposed upon industry.
The Surety Association of America commented against this proposal. They stated that “the ATF is overlooking the importance of the bond requirement in preventing losses. The bond provision may be one of the primary reasons why the experience has been favorable, and without it, we believe the ATF runs the risk of losing tax revenue without a means of recapture.”
While ATF agrees that bond requirements for tax-free alcohol users may have reduced the risk of tax revenue losses at some time in the past, our experience since 1985 indicates that tax-free alcohol users pose a minimal risk to the revenue. Further, the elimination of the bond requirement does not leave the ATF “without a means of recapture.” Any permittee who uses tax-free alcohol in a manner that violates the laws and regulations is still directly liable for the tax as provided in 26 U.S.C. 5001(a)(4).
In summary, ATF has concluded that the bond requirement in 27 CFR part 22 is unnecessary to protect the revenue and the proposal to eliminate the bond requirement for tax-free alcohol users has been adopted in this final rule.
Section 5271 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 requires the submission of an application before a permit may be issued to procure or use tax-free alcohol. Regulations have required the submission of a detailed application with supporting data by all applicants. The appropriate ATF officer is authorized to waive some of the detailed data for applicants who are a State, political subdivisions thereof, or the District of Columbia or whose annual withdrawal and usage of tax-free alcohol will not exceed 1,500 proof gallons.
In Notice No. 828, ATF proposed that this waiver should be available to all applicants when the appropriate ATF officer concludes that the revenue is adequately protected with respect to the person submitting the application.
In response to this proposal, the DISCUS submitted a comment that expressed their support. No one commented in opposition to this proposal. Accordingly, the proposal has been adopted in this final rule.
It is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulations will give ATF specific regulatory authority to relax and remove certain registration requirements. A
It has been determined that this regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required.
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this final rule because there are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
The principal author of this document is Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Alcohol and alcohol beverages, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Claims, Excise taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
26 U.S.C. 5001, 5121, 5142, 5143, 5146, 5206, 5214, 5271-5276, 5311, 5552, 5555, 6056, 6061, 6065, 6109, 6151, 6806, 7011, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9304, 9306.
(a) * * *
(2) Applications, Form 5150.22, filed by applicants, where the appropriate ATF officer has determined that the waiver of such requirements does not pose any jeopardy to the revenue or a hindrance of the effective administration of this part.
(b) The waiver provided for in this section will terminate for a permittee, other than States or political subdivisions thereof or the District of Columbia, when the permittee files an application to amend the permit and the appropriate ATF officer determines that the conditions justifying the waiver no longer exist. In this case, the permittee will furnish the information in respect to the previously waived items, as provided in § 22.57(a)(2).
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule; approval of amendment.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is approving this proposed amendment to the North Dakota regulatory program (hereinafter, the “North Dakota program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). North Dakota proposed revisions to rules about rulemaking notices, prime farmland reclamation plans, permit approval and denial criteria, performance bond liability period, bond release applications, surface water monitoring, revegetation success standards, prime farmland reclamation standards, and small operator assistance.
The State intended to revise its program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and SMCRA, and improve operational efficiency.
March 2, 2001.
Guy Padgett, Telephone: 307/261-6550, Internet address: GPadgett@OSMRE.gov.
On December 15, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the North Dakota program. You can find background information on the North Dakota program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval in the December 15, 1980,
By letter dated June 20, 2000, North Dakota sent us an amendment to its program (North Dakota Amendment No. XXX, administrative record No. ND-EE-01) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the July 17, 2000,
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving the amendment.
North Dakota proposed minor wording, editorial, punctuation, grammatical, and recodification changes to the following previously-approved rules.
There is no Federal counterpart to this rule change. It is being made because a recent legislative change in North Dakota's Administrative Procedures Act requires that notices of all rulemaking hearings be published in all official county newspapers in the State as well as filed with North Dakota's Legislative Council.
Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make North Dakota's rules less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations.
Due to an oversight, the cross reference in NDAC Section 69-05.2-12-09(2) was not updated in North Dakota State Program Amendment XXIII as it should have been. This change, which adds reference to subsection k, corrects that oversight. There is no Federal counterpart.
A cross reference is corrected to read in “subparagraph 2 of this” subdivision (instead of subparagraph c). The revision only involves a change to a cross reference.
North Dakota proposed revisions to the following rules containing language that is the same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the Federal regulations.
The proposed revised State rule adds two new paragraphs as requested by OSM in a July 17, 1997, 30 CFR 732(d) letter to North Dakota. As enumerated in that letter (administrative record No. ND-EE-02) the State needed to add counterparts to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 785.17(e)(3) and (5). Paragraph “(3)” addresses the applicant's technological capability to restore prime farmland within a reasonable amount of time, and Paragraph “(5)” addresses total prime farmland acreage as it relates to postmining water bodies that are part of the reclamation.
The State of North Dakota is adding new language at 69-05.2-10-03.6.c, Permit applications—Criteria for permit approval or denial. It states that:
“6. In addition to the requirements of subsection 3 of North Dakota Century Code section 38.14.1-21, no permit or significant revision will be approved, unless the application affirmatively demonstrates and the commission finds, in writing, on the basis of information in the application or otherwise available, which is documented in the approval and made available to the applicant, that:
c. The applicant has, with respect to prime farmland, obtained either a negative determination or if the permit area contains prime farmlands:
4. The permit demonstrates that the applicant has the technological capability to restore prime farmland, within a reasonable time, to equivalent or higher yields as non-mined prime farmland in the surrounding area under equivalent management practices.
5. The aggregate total prime farmland acreage will not be decreased from that which existed prior to mining based on the cooperative soil survey. Any postmining water bodies that are part of the reclamation must be located within the non-prime farmland portions of the permit area. If any such water bodies reduce the amount of prime farmland that a surface owner had before mining, the affected surface owners must consent to the creation of the water bodies and the plans must be approved by the commission.”
Federal Regulations at 30 CFR 785.17(e), Issuance of permit, require that “[a] permit for the mining and reclamation of prime farmland may be granted by the regulatory authority, if it first finds, in writing, upon the basis of a complete application, that—
(3) The applicant has the technological capability to restore the prime farmland, within a reasonable time, to equivalent or higher levels of yield as nonmined prime farmland in the surrounding area under equivalent levels of management; and (5) The aggregate total prime farmland acreage shall not be decreased from that which existed prior to mining. Water bodies, if any, to be constructed during mining and reclamation operations must be located within the post-reclamation non-prime farmland portions of the permit area. The creation of any such water bodies must be approved by the regulatory authority and the consent of all affected property owners within the permit area must be obtained.”
The proposed language is almost identical to the Federal language and is therefore consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations.
The existing State regulation at NDAC 69-05.2-12-09 does not require a permittee to submit a notarized statement certifying that the permittee accomplished reclamation in accordance with the North Dakota statute, regulatory program, and the approved reclamation plan.
The counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 800.40(a)(3) requires the permittee to include in its application for bond release a notarized statement which certifies that all applicable reclamation activities have been accomplished in accordance with the Act, the regulatory program, and the approved reclamation plan.
To satisfy OSM's requirement that North Dakota's regulatory program be revised to be consistent with revised Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(a)(3), North Dakota is proposing to revise its regulations to require that each application for bond release submitted by the permittee include, in an application for any bond release, a notarized statement which certifies that the permittee has accomplished all applicable reclamation activities in accordance with NDAC 69-05.2, NDCC 38-14.1 and the approved reclamation plan.
The proposed revision is consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations.
The existing State regulation at NDAC 69-05.2-29-03(2)(c) provides for a minimum five percent ownership of the coal by an applicant for Small Operator Assistance. However, Federal regulations at 30 CFR 795.6(a)(2)(i) and (ii) require that an applicant own at least ten percent of the coal in order to qualify as an applicant.
Through this revision in its regulations, North Dakota will now also require a minimum ten percent ownership in the coal before allowing the use of subsidies from the Federal government to conduct the studies necessary in order to obtain a permit to mine coal.
The proposed revision is consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations.
The State of North Dakota is adding new language at 69-05.2-09-15, Permit applications—Operation and reclamation plans—Prime farmlands. It states that “[i]f appropriate, the applicant shall submit a mining and restoration plan for prime farmland containing:
8. If a reclaimed cropland tract will contain a mixture of prime and non-prime farmlands and Commission approval of a single yield standard for the entire tract is requested as allowed by subdivision 1 of subsection 4 of section 69-05.2-22-07, a detailed description and comparison of the soil mapping units and acreages occurring in the prime and non-prime parcels must be provided.
North Dakota is also adding new language at 69-05.2-26-05.3, Performance standards—Prime farmland—Revegetation and restoration of productivity. It states that “[t]he following revegetation requirements must be met for areas being returned to prime farmland after mining:
3. Prime farmland productivity must be restored in accordance with the following:
h. If a reclaimed tract contains a mixture of prime and non-prime farmlands, the commission may approve a single yield standard for the entire tract as allowed under subdivision 1 of subsection 4 of section 69-05.2-22-07.
Proposed North Dakota regulation at NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.1 requires “[a]s an alternative to meeting revegetation success standards for the last two consecutive growing seasons of the responsibility period, an operator may demonstrate that the applicable standards have been achieved for any three years starting no sooner than the sixth year of the responsibility period and with one year being the last year of the responsibility period. This alternative does not pertain to success standards for prime farmlands unless a reclaimed tract contains both prime and non-prime farmlands. If a reclaimed tract contains a mixture of prime and non-prime farmlands, the commission may approve a single yield standard for the entire tract based on the soil types that occurred on the prime and non-prime areas prior to mining. When a single yield standard is approved, the operator must demonstrate that the standard has been achieved for any three years starting no sooner than the sixth year of the responsibility period and with one year being the last year of the responsibility period. If this option is approved, the operator must also meet the applicable requirements of section 69-05.2-26-05 for the entire tract.”
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.15(b) require that prime farmland soil productivity shall be restored in accordance with the following provisions:
(2) Soil productivity shall be measured on a representative sample or on all of the mined and reclaimed prime farmland area using the reference crop determined under Paragraph (b)(6) of this Section. A statistically valid sampling technique at a 90-percent or greater statistical confidence level shall be used as approved by the regulatory authority in consultation with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
(3) The measurement period for determining average annual crop production (yield) shall be a minimum of 3 crop years prior to release of the operator's performance bond.
(5) Restoration of soil productivity shall be considered achieved when the average yield during the measurement period equals or exceeds the average yield of the reference crop established for the same period for nonmined soils of the same or similar texture or slope phase of the soil series in the surrounding area under equivalent management practices.
In discussing the new language North Dakota indicates that the rules being proposed pertain to proving reclamation success on reclaimed cropland tracts that contain a mixture of prime and non-prime farmland. The additional language will allow the North Dakota Public Service Commission to approve a single yield standard for such tracts, rather than applying separate yield standards to the prime and non-prime farmland parcels. In western North Dakota, soils that are designated as prime farmland by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) primarily occur in swale or nearly level landscape positions that receive runoff from adjoining areas. During the reclamation process the topsoil materials from the prime farmland areas are replaced in similar landscape positions and these prime areas are usually intermingled with non-prime areas. Although both prime and non-prime cropland must be restored to premine productivity levels, a separate yield standard must be developed for the reclaimed prime farmlands under the current rules and the prime areas must be harvested separately from the non-prime areas. The intermingling of the prime and non-prime areas throughout a larger field makes separate harvesting difficult. It is much easier to harvest the field as a single unit. The proposal will allow the Commission to approve a single yield standard in these situations. Prior to approval, a detailed comparison of the premine soils occurring in the prime and non-prime areas would have to be included in the reclamation plan as discussed in item 2 above. At least three years of production data, starting no sooner than the sixth year of the liability period, would be required to demonstrate reclamation success. Also, one of those three years would have to be the last year of the liability period.
OSM believes that the proposed use of the single yield standard is appropriate because it ensures that the productivity of the reclaimed tract, based on both the productivity of the prime and non-prime soils, is restored to premine levels. This ensures that a tract is returned to a land owner with the same capability it had prior to mining.
As required under 30 CFR 823.15(b)(2) North Dakota has provided documentation that it has consulted with the NRCS on the use of a single production standard based on the weighted averages of prime and non-
The proposed amendment is consistent with and no less effective than the Federal regulations.
Existing NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1. allows “[a]s an alternative to meeting revegetation success standards for the last two consecutive growing seasons of the responsibility period, an operator may demonstrate that the applicable standards have been achieved for three out of five consecutive years starting no sooner than the eighth year of the responsibility period. This alternative does not pertain to success standards for prime farmlands.”
Proposed NDAC 69-05.2.-22-07.4.1. provides “[a]s an alternative to meeting revegetation success standards for the last two consecutive growing seasons of the responsibility period, an operator may demonstrate that the applicable standards have been achieved for any three years starting no sooner than the sixth year of the responsibility period and with one year being the last year of the responsibility period. This alternative does not pertain to success standards for prime farmlands unless a reclaimed tract contains both prime and non-prime farmlands. If a reclaimed tract contains a mixture of prime and non-prime farmlands, the commission may approve a single yield standard for the entire tract based on the soil types that occurred on the prime and non-prime areas prior to mining. When a single yield standard is approved, the operator must demonstrate that the standard has been achieved for any three years starting no sooner than the sixth year of the responsibility period. If this option is approved, the operator must also meet the applicable requirements of section 69-5.2-26-05 for the entire tract.”
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(3) require that in areas of 26.0 inches or less average annual precipitation, the period of responsibility shall continue for a period of not less than: (i) Ten full years, except as provided in paragraph (c)(3)(ii). Vegetation parameters identified in paragraph (b) of this section shall equal or exceed the approved success standard for at least the last two consecutive years of the responsibility period.
The new provision will allow mining companies to use data from any three of the last five years of the responsibility period, starting in year six, to prove reclamation success. However, one year of these three years must be the last year of the responsibility period. This language will give the mining companies more flexibility in using vegetation data collected during a number of years near the end of the revegetation liability period without extending the period of extended responsibility beyond the 10 years envisioned at Section 515(b)(20) of SMCRA.
On September 7, 1988 OSM revised 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2) to require that in areas with more than 26 inches of average annual precipitation the vegetation parameters identified in paragraph (b) of this section for grazing land, pasture land, or cropland shall equal or exceed the approved success standards for during the growing season of any 2 years of the five year responsibility period, except the first year. This change eliminated the requirement to measure revegetation success during the last two years of the responsibility period in areas with more than 26 inches of average annual precipitation. In the September 7, 1988, preamble to this regulation change OSM, in discussing the reasons for the change, states that measurements in nonconsecutive years avoids unduly penalizing the operator for the negative effects of climatic variability (53 FR 34636, 24640). OSM goes on to state that it continues to believe that measurement over two years is important to attenuate the influences of climatic variability, but now realizes that consecutiveness imposes an unnecessary degree of regulatory rigidity. Under a system requiring measurement of revegetation success in two consecutive years, an operator would be unnecessarily penalized if bad weather in the second year of the measurement period caused failure to meet the revegetation success standard after it had been achieved in the first year.
While no changes were made to 30 CFR 816.116(c)(3) at the time 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2) was changed OSM believes that the same problems with climatic variability discussed in the above referenced preamble are applicable to areas that receive 26 inches or less average annual precipitation. As discussed in the previous approval allowing the use of data from any three of the last five years of the responsibility period, starting in year eight in North Dakota (64 FR 12896, 12898, March 16, 1999, administrative record No. ND-Z-17), climatic factors such as hail or drought can reduce yields resulting in failure to meet revegetation success standards in consecutive years. Localized insect infestations, such as grasshoppers or cutworms, can have the same effect. North Dakota's proposal, which provides the operators the option to demonstrate revegetation success during any three years beginning in year six, gives operators the same level of flexibility provided under 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2). However, it limits evaluation of revegetation success to starting no sooner than the sixth year of the responsibility period. This ensures that only well established plant communities or croplands are evaluated and only in the final years of the responsibility period. The proposal minimizes any potential impacts augmentative practices, such as fertilization or irrigation, might have on the reestablished plant communities. Finally, the proposed rule requires three years of data to demonstrate revegetation success, which is more than required by the Federal regulations. It also requires that one year be the last year of the responsibility period. This ensures that evaluation of revegetation success can never be completed before year 10 of the responsibility period.
For the reasons cited above OSM has determined that, for evaluating revegetation success, data from any three years starting no sooner than the sixth year of the responsibility period and with one year being the last year of the responsibility period is no less effective than the Federal regulations and achieves the requirements of sections 515(b)(19) and (b)(20) of SMCRA.
We asked for public comments on the amendment (administrative record No. ND-EE-04), but did not receive any.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the North Dakota program (administrative record No. ND-EE-04).
On August 2, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service commented (administrative record No. ND-EE-06) that “I do not anticipate any significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources as a result of the proposed amendment.”
On August 4, 2000, the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Also on August 4, 2000, the Agricultural Research Service commented that “we see no problems with the proposed changes.”
On August 23, 2000, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers commented (administrative record ND-EE-09) that although it found the proposed amendment “generally satisfactory * * *, in order to avoid any inadvertent implication that the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are somehow superseded by this amendment, we suggest the inclusion of a statement indicating that separate authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is required for all work involving any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.”
We have considered this comment and believe it unlikely that anyone would think that the amendment would supersede Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and therefore decided not to include the statement suggested by the COE.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM requested comments on the amendment from EPA (administrative record No. ND-EE-04). EPA did not respond to our request.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On July 7, 2000, we requested comments on North Dakota's amendment (administrative record No. ND-EE-01), but neither responded to our request.
We approve, as discussed in: Finding No. 1.A NADAC 69-05.2-01-03, NDCC 28-32, concerning rulemaking notices; finding No. 1B, NDAC 69-05.2-12-09 and NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1, concerning period of performance bond liability; finding No. 1C, NDAC 69-05.2-16-05, concerning hydrologic balance performance standards for surface water monitoring; finding No. 2A, NDAC 69-05.2-10-03.6.c concerning criteria for approval or denial in permit applications; finding No. 2B, NDAC 69-05.2-12-12.2, concerning the release of the performance bond; finding No. 2C, NDAC 69-05.2-29-03, concerning the eligibility for assistance by small operators; finding No. 3, NDAC 69-05.2-09.15.8, NDAC 69-05.2-26-05.3.h, and NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1 concerning prime farmland reclamation plans and revegetation requirements; and finding No. 4, NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1, concerning revegetation success standards.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 934, which codify decisions concerning the North Dakota program. We are making this final rule effective immediately to expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to make their programs conform with the Federal standards. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
OSM has determined and certifies under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
30 U.S.C. 1201
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS.
Final rule; correction notice.
In the August 1, 2000 issue of the
December 1, 2000.
Anne Tayloe, (410) 786-4546.
This document corrects a limited number of errors in the August 1, 2000 final rule (65 FR 47054) identified after October 1, 2000. We are making these changes in accordance with 42 CFR 412.63(x)(2)(i), which specifies that we may make midyear corrections to the wage index for an area only if a hospital can show that—
• The intermediary or HCFA made an error in tabulating the hospital's data; and
• The hospital could not have known about the error or did not have the opportunity to correct the error, before the beginning of the Federal fiscal year (in this case before the beginning of FY 2001). In addition, § 412.63(x)(2)(ii) specifies that midyear corrections are effective prospectively from the date that the change is made to the wage index. On December 1, 2000, we issued a program memorandum entitled “Corrections to the Calculation of Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 Inpatient Payment Amounts” that made midyear corrections to the wage index (HCFA Pub. 60 A). This program memorandum included the midyear corrections presented in this notice; therefore, the effective date is the same as that of the program memorandum (December 1, 2000). The midyear corrections are as follows:
1. On page 47138, in Table 3C—Hospital Case Mix Indexes for Discharges Occurring in Federal Fiscal Year 1999; Hospital Average Hourly Wages for Federal Fiscal Year 2001 Wage Index, the average hourly wage for the specified provider is corrected to read as follows:
2. On pages 47149 through 47156, in Table 4A—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Urban Areas, the wage indexes and GAFs for the specified urban areas are corrected to read as follows:
3. On page 47156, in Table 4B—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Rural Areas, the wage indexes and GAFs for the specified nonurban are corrected to read as follows:
4. On page 47156 through 47157, in Table 4C—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Hospitals that are Reclassified, the wage indexes and GAFs for the specified areas are added or corrected to read as follows:
5. On page 47158, in Table 4D_Average Hourly Wage for Urban Areas, the hourly wage for the specified urban area is corrected to read as follows:
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS.
Final rule; correction notice.
In the August 1, 2000 issue of the
October 1, 2000.
Anne Tayloe, (410) 786-4546.
This document corrects a limited number of values to address technical errors in preparing tables 3C and 4A through 4D for publication in the August 1, 2000
The August 1, 2000 final rule also contained other technical and typographical errors. Therefore, we are making the following corrections:
1. On page 47144, in Table 3C—Hospital Case Mix Indexes for Discharges Occurring in Federal Fiscal Year 1999; Hospital Average Hourly Wage for Federal Fiscal Year 2001 Wage Index, the average hourly wages for the specified providers is corrected to read as follows:
2. On pages 47149 and 47151, in Table 4A_Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Urban Areas, the wage indexes and GAFs for the specified urban areas are corrected to read as follows:
3. On page 47156, in Table 4B_Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Rural Areas, the wage index and GAF for the specified nonurban area is corrected to read as follows:
4. On page 47156 through 47157, in Table 4C_Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Hospitals that are Reclassified, the wage indexes and GAFs for the specified areas are added or corrected to read as follows:
5. On page 47157, in Table 4D_Average Hourly Wage for Urban Areas, the average hourly wage for the specified urban area is corrected to read as follows:
6. On pages 47160 and 47167, in Table 5—List of Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), Relative Weighting Factors, Geometric and Arithmetic Mean Length of Stay, the fourth column (DRG title) is amended as follows:
a. DRG 27, “Traumatic Stupor & Coma, Coma <1 hr” is corrected to read “Traumatic Stupor & Coma, Coma >1 hr.”
b. DRG 29, “Traumatic Stupor & Coma, Coma <1 hr Age ≤17 W/O CC” is corrected to read “Traumatic Stupor & Coma, Coma <1 hr Age> 17 W/O CC.”
c. DRG 425, “Acute Adjustment Reaction & Psychological Dysfunction” is corrected to read “Acute Adjustment Reaction & Psychosocial Dysfunction.”
7. On page 47171, in Table 6C—Invalid Diagnosis Codes the following entry is added before the first line of the table to read as follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; petition for reconsideration.
In this
Don Johnson, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division at (202) 418-7240.
This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's (“the Commission”)
1. On January 19, 2000, the American Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA)
2. AMTA requests that the Commission reconsider its decision with respect to the timing of EA licensee payments to incumbent licensees who are involuntarily relocated to new frequencies.
3. Upon further review, we conclude that AMTA is correct that neither the 800 MHz Second Report and Order nor the MO&O on Reconsideration adequately addressed the question of when incumbent licensees should be repaid for their involuntary relocation costs.
4. In view of the requirements of § 90.699(c) and (d) that the EA licensees directly bear the cost of building and testing the replacement system, it is clear that the primary cost burden for involuntary relocation rests on the EA licensees, not the incumbent. To the extent that the incumbent may incur additional relocation costs, the rule further requires the EA licensee to guarantee payment of those costs. However, because we anticipate that EA licensees will bear most relocation costs directly we believe that it is equitable for the incumbent to be repaid for any remaining costs that it has incurred after relocation has occurred. We note that such reimbursable costs may include costs that reflect the time-value of money, such as reasonable and customary interest expenses incurred by incumbents who must borrow or finance the funds needed to relocate. We pointed out previously that this approach is unlikely to prejudice incumbents inasmuch as EA licensees “have a large financial incentive to relocate the incumbent licensees, construct their facilities, and begin operating.”
5. AMTA does not present any new arguments to support its current request that the Commission require EA licensees to make progress payments to incumbent 800 MHz licensees during their involuntary relocation. Moreover, there is nothing currently before us in the record that would prompt us to change our decision. In its opposition, Nextel, the predominant winner of EA licenses in the upper 200 channel auction, states that it has initiated relocation discussions with over ninety percent of the nation's upper 200 channel incumbents and has already reached voluntary agreements to acquire or relocate over fifty percent of the total number of incumbent channels that it, as an EA licensee, will be allowed to relocate.
6. We also disagree with AMTA's contention that incumbent licensees will be especially vulnerable after the involuntary relocation period begins because they will not be in a position to negotiate with the EA licensee.
7. In its petition,
8. No Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) has been prepared for this item because this
9. This Third Report and Order on Reconsideration does not contain a new or modified information collection.
10. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act as 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 405, the petition for reconsideration filed by the American Mobile Telecommunications Association is denied.
11. Further, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act as 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 405, the petition for reconsideration filed by the Petroleum Communications, Inc., is dismissed.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; specifications for 2001.
NMFS issues final specifications for the 2001 fishing year for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB). This action also allocates the domestic annual harvest for
Effective March 2, 2001, except that the quotas for
Send comments on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this final rule to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. -
Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment(EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) and the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, are available from Patricia A. Kurkul (see previous address). The EA/RIR/FRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.
Paul H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9273, fax 978-281-9135, e-mail paul.h.jones@noaa.gov.
Regulations implementing the FMP require NMFS to publish annual specifications for maximum optimum yield (Max OY), allowable biological catch (ABC), initial optimum yield (IOY), domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), joint venture processing (JVP), and total allowable levels of foreign fishing (TALFF) for the species managed under the FMP. -
Proposed 2001 initial specifications were published on December 5, 2000 (65 FR 75912). Public comments were requested through January 4, 2001. The final specifications are unchanged from those that were proposed. A complete discussion of the specifications appears in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
The following table contains the final specifications for the 2001 MSB fisheries as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council).
This final rule specifies an Atlantic mackerel JVP of 20,000 mt for the 2001 fishery, with a possible increase of up to 10,000 mt (for a total JVP of up to 30,000 mt) later in the fishing year, should additional applications for JVP be received. This adjustment would be made through publication of a notification in the
A TALFF of 3,000 mt is specified for the 2001 Atlantic mackerel fishery. Several foreign nations have expressed their interest in JVP, with two applications already submitted by Lithuania and the Russian Federation. A permit would only authorize a foreign vessel to harvest TALFF when U.S. vessels are unable to deliver product to foreign JV catcher/processor vessels for a period of time due to events such as bad weather. -
When setting TALFF specifications for the 2001 Atlantic mackerel fishery, the Council also recommended conditions and restrictions for JVs and TALFF allocations. Those recommendations include: (1) Allowing JVs south of 37°30′ N. lat., but restricting river herring incidental catch to no more than 0.25 percent of the over-the-side transfers of Atlantic mackerel; (2) prohibiting directed foreign fishing for Atlantic mackerel south of 37° 30′ N. lat., prohibiting directed foreign fishing for Atlantic mackerel landward of a line 20 nautical miles from shore north of 37° 30′ N. lat., and specifying no TALFF for river herring; (3) ensuring, through the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), that impacts on marine mammals are reduced in the prosecution of the Atlantic mackerel fishery; (4) allowing the mackerel optimum yield (OY) to be increased during the year, provided the total does not exceed 347,000 mt; (5) allowing the review of applications from a particular nation for a Atlantic mackerel JV or TALFF allocation for 2001 to include an evaluation by the Regional Administrator of that nation's performances relative to purchase obligations for previous years; (6) releasing 50 percent of the foreign nation’s TALFF allotment upon approval of an application for TALFF and releasing additional TALFF only when the foreign participant has purchased 25 percent of the JVP allotment to that nation, while specifying no purchase ratios; (7) requiring foreign fishing vessels (FFVs) purchasing JVP-caught fish from contracted U.S. vessels to cease directed fishing and take the transfer from the U.S. vessel as soon as practicable if a FFV engaged in directed fishing is approached by a contracted U.S. vessel; (8) authorizing no in-season adjustment in TALFF (i.e., TALFF not to exceed 3,000 mt), unless the Regional Administrator, in consultation with the Council, determines that it is appropriate to increase IOY to provide additional TALFF, provided the TALFF does not exceed a cap of 5,000 mt; and (9) limiting directed foreign fishing for Atlantic mackerel to the use of mid-water trawl gear. The Council recommended these conditions and restrictions to strictly control any
This final rule specifies a
Regulations promulgated under Amendment 5 to the FMP eliminated the possibility of JVP or TALFF specifications for butterfish, except for a bycatch TALFF specification if TALFF is specified for Atlantic mackerel. Because this final rule allows for an Atlantic mackerel TALFF allocation, a 3 mt bycatch TALFF for butterfish has been specified. If the Regional Administrator, in consultation with of the Council, determines that it is appropriate to increase the specified TALFF of 3,000 mt for Atlantic mackerel, then the specified TALFF of 3 mt for butterfish also will be increased. The Regional Administrator may increase the TALFF for Atlantic mackerel by up to 2000 mt and may increase the TALFF for butterfish by up to 1 mt (A butterfish TALFF of 4 mt is equal to 0.08 percent of an Atlantic mackerel TALFF of 5000 mt, as described at § 648.21(b)(3)(ii). -
Fifty-two comments were received on the proposed specifications from the public during the comment period that ended on January 4, 2001. Specific comments related to the proposed annual specifications and regulations are discussed and responded to as follows: -
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. -
NMFS prepared a FRFA for this action. A copy of the FRFA is available from NMFS (see
A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being taken and the objectives of this final rule are explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and are not repeated here. This action does not contain any collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. This action is taken under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 648. -
Fifty-two comments were submitted on the proposed rule, but none of them were specific to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. However, 10 commenters responded to the economic impacts of the measures on of fishing industry, and NMFS addressed those comments (1, 2, and 5) in the Comments and Responses section of the preamble to the final rule. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of these comments received. -
There are 475
If the final 2001 DAH specification for
The first alternative action for Atlantic mackerel would be to set the 2001 specifications at the same level as 2000, with DAP at 50,000 mt and JVP at 10,000 mt. Although it was rejected as inconsistent with the FMP because it would not meet the policy objectives of the Council relative to further development of the U.S. domestic harvest of Atlantic mackerel, this alternative would place no constraints, and consequently no revenue impacts, on the fishery. -
The second alternative for mackerel would be to set ABC at the long-term potential catch, or 150,000 mt, with DAP at 50,000 mt and JVP at 20,000 mt. This alternative was found inconsistent with the FMP because it would not allow for variations and contingencies in the status of the stock. For example, the current adult stock was recently estimated to exceed 2.1 million mt. The specification of ABC at LTPC would effectively result in an exploitation rate of only about 6 percent, well below the optimal level of exploitation. The level of foregone yield under this alternative was considered unacceptable and would not impact the IOY specifications. -
The third alternative for mackerel would be to lower the specification of IOY to 68,000 mt and eliminate JVP, resulting in a DAP of 50,000 mt. This alternative would not constrain the fishery and would have no impact on revenues of participants in this fishery. -
For
For
Alternatives for butterfish would be a DAH, OY, and Max OY of 16,000 mt, and a DAH and OY of 10,000 mt. These specifications would not constrain or impact the industry; however, they would lead to overfishing of the stock, and, thus, were rejected by the Council. -
Because this final rule only establishes either year-long or seasonal quotas for the managed species to be used for the sole purpose of closing the fishery when the quotas are reached and does not establish any requirements for which a regulatory entity must come into compliance, it is unnecessary to delay for 30 days the effective date of this final rule. Therefore, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), finds good cause not to delay the effective date of this final rule. -
NMFS determined that this final rule will be implemented in a manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the approved coastal management programs of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Concurrence in consistency was submitted by the responsible state agencies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey (
The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language in their communications with the public including regulations. To comply with this directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this final rule. Such comments should be sent to the Northeast Regional Administrator (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
16 U.S.C. 1801
(e)
(2) Beginning January 1, 2001, any overages of commercial quota landed from Quarter I will be subtracted from Quarter III and any overages of commercial quota landed from Quarter II will be subtracted from Quarter IV.
(a)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season amount of the Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component of the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 27, 2001, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., June 10, 2001.
Andrew Smoker, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2001 A season Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 9,882 metric tons (mt) as established by the Final 2001 Harvest Specifications and Associated Management Measures for the Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska (66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the A season amount of the Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels catching Pacific cod for
Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that the need to immediately implement this action to prevent exceeding the amount of the 2001 A season Pacific cod TAC specified for the inshore component constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 50 CFR 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Similarly the need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to prevent exceeding the 2001 A season Pacific cod TAC specified for the inshore component constitutes good cause to find that the effective date of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This document provides notice of cancellation of a public hearing on proposed regulations relating to stock transfer rules and carryover of earnings and taxes.
The public hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, March 13, 2001, at 10 a.m., is canceled.
Guy R. Traynor of the Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel, at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number).
A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the
The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of February 23, 2001, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for March 13, 2001, is canceled.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone for the annual Hudson Valley Triathlon swim on the Hudson River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Hudson River.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 1, 2001.
You may mail comments and related material to Waterways Oversight Branch (CGD01-00-248), Coast Guard Activities New York, 212 Coast Guard Drive, room 204, Staten Island, New York 10305. The Waterways Oversight Branch of Coast Guard Activities New York maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 204, Coast Guard Activities New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant M. Day, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York (718) 354-4012.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-00-248), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Oversight Branch at the address under
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone for the annual Hudson Valley Triathlon swim on the Hudson River. The safety zone encompasses all waters of the Hudson River, in the vicinity of Ulster Landing, bound by the following points: 42°00′03.7″ N 073°56′43.1″ W, thence to 41°59′52.5″ N 073°56′34.2″ W, thence to 42°00′15.1″ N 073°56′25.2″ W, thence to 42°00′05.4″ N 073°56′41.9″ W (NAD 1983), thence along the shoreline to the point of beginning.
The proposed safety zone is effective from 6 a.m. (e.s.t.) until 9 a.m. (e.s.t.) on the first Sunday after July 4th. There is no rain date for this event. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of the Hudson River. It is needed to protect swimmers and boaters from the hazards associated with 500 swimmers competing in a confined area of the Hudson River. Recreational vessels can still transit to the east of the zone during the event and will not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from recreational piers in the vicinity of the zone.
Special Local Regulations have been published for this event in 33 CFR 100.121 for the same date. The location of this event was moved 3.5 nautical miles north in the summer of 2000 to the proposed new location in the northern area of Barrytown Reach. A Temporary final rule was required for the 2000 event. This new location encompasses about 800 yards of Barrytown Reach and is about 1,000 yards smaller than the permanent area in 33 CFR 100.121.
This safety zone covers the minimum area needed and imposes the minimum restrictions necessary to ensure the protection of all swimmers and vessels. Public notifications will be made prior to the event via the Local Notice to Mariners.
The proposed safety zone is for the Hudson Valley Triathlon swim held in the Hudson River. This event is held annually on the first Sunday after July 4th. There is no rain date for this event. This rule is being proposed to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event, to give the marine community the opportunity to comment on this event, and to decrease the amount of annual paperwork required for this event. This safety zone covers the minimum area needed and imposes the minimum restrictions necessary to ensure the protection of all swimmers and vessels.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
This safety zone temporarily closes a portion of the Hudson River to vessel traffic; however, the impact of this regulation is expected to be minimal for the following reasons: this is an annual marine event currently published in 33 CFR 100.121, this safety zone would close a smaller portion of the Hudson River during this event, this proposed zone in only 3.5 miles north of the current zone the limited duration of the event; the event occurs early on a Sunday morning, which historically is a time when there is less commercial traffic transiting the area, the advance advisories that will be made to allow the maritime community to schedule transits before and after the event; the event has been held for 4 years in succession and is therefore anticipated annually; and recreational vessels may still transit to the east of the zone during the event and will not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from recreational piers in the vicinity of the zone.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Hudson River during the time this zone is activated.
This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this is an annual marine event currently published in 33 CFR 100.121, this safety zone would close a smaller portion of the Hudson River during the event, the limited duration of the event; it is expected that no more than 1 or 2 commercial vessels would be affected by this event early on a Sunday morning, the advance advisories that will be made to allow the maritime community to schedule transits before and after the event; the event has been held for 4 years in succession and is therefore anticipated annually; and recreational vessels may still transit to the east of the zone during the event and will not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from recreational piers in the vicinity of the zone.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant M. Day, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York (718) 354-4012.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule fits paragraph 34(g) as it establishes a safety zone. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Add § 165.170 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) No vessels will be allowed to transit the safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port, New York.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U. S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for the Queens Millennium Concert Fireworks on the East River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the East River.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 1, 2001.
You may mail comments and related material to Waterways Oversight Branch (CGD01-01-015), Coast Guard Activities New York, 212 Coast Guard Drive, room 204, Staten Island, New York 10305. The Waterways Oversight Branch of Coast Guard Activities New York maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 204, Coast Guard Activities New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant M. Day, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York (718) 354-4012.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-01-015), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Oversight Branch at the address under
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for the Queens Millennium Concert Fireworks on the East River. The safety zone encompasses all waters of the East River, within a 180-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°44′43.3″N 073°57′43.2″W, about 240 yards east of Belmont Island.
The proposed safety zone is effective from 9 p.m. (e.s.t.) until 10:30 p.m. (e.s.t.) on May 19, 2001. There is no rain date for this event. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of the East River. It is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Marine traffic will still be able to transit to the west of Belmont Island through the western 340 yards of the East River. Additionally, vessels will not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from recreational or commercial piers in the vicinity of the zone. No vessel may enter the safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port, New York.
This safety zone covers the minimum area needed and imposes the minimum restrictions necessary to ensure the protection of all vessels. Public notifications will be made prior to the
The proposed safety zone is for the Queens Millennium Concert Fireworks held in the East River. This event will be held on Saturday, May 19, 2001. There is no rain date for this event. This rule is being proposed to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event and to give the marine community the opportunity to comment on this event. This safety zone covers the minimum area needed and imposes the minimum restrictions necessary to ensure the protection of all vessels.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
This proposed safety zone would temporarily close a portion of the East River to vessel traffic; however, the impact of this regulation is expected to be minimal for the following reasons: the limited duration of the event; that vessels are not precluded from getting underway, or mooring at, public or private facilities in the vicinity of the event, the advance advisories that will be made to the maritime community; and marine traffic may still transit to the west of the zone during the event.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the East River during the time this zone is activated.
This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the limited duration of the event; that vessels are not precluded from getting underway, or mooring at, public or private facilities in the vicinity of the event, the advance advisories that will be made to the maritime community; and marine traffic may still transit to the west of the zone during the event.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant M. Day, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York (718) 354-4012.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule fits paragraph 34(g) as it establishes a safety zone. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Add Temporary § 165.T01-015 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) No vessels will be allowed to transit the safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port, New York.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
Department of Education.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Secretary will propose rules to implement section 101(d) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act), Public Law 106-229. These regulations will set forth proposed performance standards regarding the accuracy, integrity, and accessibility of electronic records that would apply to lenders, guaranty agencies, schools, and other parties administering any student financial assistance program authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
We must receive your comments on or before March 19, 2001. We are offering this limited comment period in order to expedite issuance of the proposed rule. Comments received by this date will be considered in the development of the proposed rule. As a consequence of the publication of this notice, and under section 107(b) of the E-Sign Act, the authority of a program participant to retain a required record in electronic form, in instances where that authority did not previously exist, will become effective on June 1, 2001, rather than on March 1, 2001.
Address all comments about this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to: Gail McLarnon, U. S. Department of Education, 1990 K St., NW., room 8062, Washington, DC 20006-8540. If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the following address: gail_mclarnon@ed.gov.
Gail McLarnon, 202/219-7048.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
The E-Sign Act provides, in part, that a signature, contract, or other record relating to a transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form, or because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation. By eliminating legal barriers, the E-Sign Act will allow lenders, guaranty agencies, schools, and other parties administering the Title IV, HEA student financial assistance programs to use electronic records and electronic signatures in place of records and signatures that, under the HEA and underlying regulations, must be maintained and provided in writing. Section 104(b)(3) of the E-Sign Act authorizes the Secretary to set forth general requirements regarding the accuracy, integrity, and accessibility of electronic records, and procedures relating to the maintenance of those records. The Secretary will be issuing proposed regulations that will contain such requirements and procedures.
We are seeking comments or suggestions on this notice. We are interested in comments on assuring approaches to assuring the accuracy, integrity, and accessibility of electronic records in the administration of the federal student aid programs. Specifically, we are interested in comments related to the maintenance of electronic records by program participants. Areas of interest include the following:
• The timeframe to implement the use and maintenance of electronic records.
• The impact of using and maintaining electronic records on the integrity of the Federal student financial aid programs.
• The comparability between electronic records and hard copy paper records.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Colleges and universities, Grant programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings/public hearing.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a joint meeting of its Coral Reef Ecosystem Plan Team (CREPT) and Ecosystem and Habitat Advisory Panel (EHAP) on March 8, 2001, in Honolulu, HI, and hold its 109th meeting of the full Council on March 13, 2001, in Honolulu, HI.
At the full Council meeting, a public hearing will be held prior to the Council taking final action on its Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (CREFMP/DEIS).
The joint meeting of the CREPT and EHAP (non-Hawaii members by telephone conference call) will be held on March 8, 2001, from 12 noon to 5 p.m. The full Council meeting (non-Hawaii members by telephone conference call) will be held on March 13, 2001, from 12 noon to 5 p.m. See
The joint CREPT/EHAP meeting, Council meeting, and public hearing will be held at the Council Office Conference Room, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI, 96813; telephone: 808-522-8220. Copies of the CREFMP/DEIS are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. The following locations have been identified for telephone conference call links to the 109th Council meeting in Honolulu, HI on March 13, 2001: American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and Guam. For specific telephone link locations see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: 808-522-8220.
On March 8, 2001, the Plan Team/Advisory Panel (CREPT/EHAP) will consider public comments during the public comment period on the CREFMP/DEIS and make recommendations to the Council. On March 13, 2001, the Council will consider comments and recommendations from the CREPT/EHAP on the CREFMP/DEIS and take final action on the CREFMP. Dates, Times, and Locations for telephone conference call links to the Council meeting and public hearing are as follows:
1. Honolulu, HI: March 13, 2001, local meeting time, 12 noon to 5 p.m., public hearing time, 3 p.m., Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, Council Office Conference Room, 1164 Bishop Street, Honolulu, HI 96813; contact Kitty Simonds (see
2. Fagatogo, AS: March 13, 2001, local meeting time, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., public hearing time, 2 p.m., Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR) conference room, Fagatogo, AS. Local phone contact c/o DMWR at 684-633-4456.
3. Saipan, CNMI: March 14, 2001, local meeting time, 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., public hearing time, 11 a.m., Division of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 10007, Saipan, MP 96950. Local phone contact 670-664-6000.
4. Tamuning, Guam: March 14, 2001, local meeting time, 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., public hearing time, 11 a.m., Guam Economic Development Authority, Suite 511, ITC Building, 590 S. Marine Drive, Tamuning, Guam. Local phone contact 671-475-0321.
The CREPT/EHAP will meet on March 8, 2001, from 12 noon to 5 p.m.
The DEIS was prepared to examine the impacts of implementing the proposed CREFMP. The DEIS also addresses potential problems due to human interactions with coral reefs in the Western Pacific exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Although local regulations control many of the impacts of harvesting nearshore coral reef resources in settled areas, exploitation of coral reef ecosystem remains relatively uncontrolled in Federal waters of the EEZ. Although these areas have been minimally exploited to date, there has been interest expressed for fisheries to expand in these areas. In addition, the DEIS was prepared to provide for better understanding of impacts due to natural environmental changes, other FMP managed fisheries, and non-fishing related impacts such as dredging. To address these problems, four alternatives were examined: (1) No action or status quo; (2) minimal additional protection for coral reef resources;(3) substantial additional protection to coral reef resources (preferred alternative); and (4) maximum additional protection for coral reef resources. The environmental effects of each of the alternatives, management measures, components, and options have been analyzed in the DEIS. In June 2000, the Council adopted a preferred alternative and management options. Management measures proposed in the FMP represent a combination of choices made by the Council based on a comparison of alternatives. Alternatives were a product of numerous public meetings and meetings of the Council’s various advisory bodies. The proposed management measures include: (a) Designating marine protected areas (MPAs), including no-take marine reserves and areas zoned for specific fishing activities allowed only with a special permit; (b) establishing fishing permit and reporting requirements for fishing for coral reef resources in the EEZ; (c) specifying the use of selective, non-destructive gears and methods for harvesting management-unit species; and (d) establishing a framework process to allow for future regulatory adjustments to the coral reef ecosystem management program. In addition, the Council recommends that a formal procedure be established for assessing and controlling ecosystem effects of reef-related fisheries managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, the Fishery Management Plan for the Crustacean Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, and the Fishery Management Plan for the Precious Corals Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region.
The agenda for the joint CREPT/EHAP meeting on March 8, 2001, will include the items listed below:
A. Review of public comments
(1) MPAs
(2) Permits and Reporting
(3) Fishing Gear and Methods
(4) Framework Actions
(5) Non-regulatory Actions
(6) Research, Monitoring and Assessment
(7) Enforcement
(8) Other
A. CREPT
B. EHAP
The agenda for the Council meeting on March 13, 2001, will include the items listed below:
A. Review of public comments
(1) MPAs
(2) Permits and Reporting
(3) Fishing Gear and Methods
(4) Framework Actions
(5) Non-regulatory Actions
(6) Research, Monitoring and Assessment
(7) Enforcement
(8) Other
A. Preferred alternative for Crustaceans DEIS
B. Consideration of long-term closure of Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) lobster fishery
C. Council discussion and action
A. Approval of draft
B. Appointment of new CDPP Advisory Panel member from American Samoa
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 808-522-8220 (voice) or 808-522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are sponsoring two public meetings, on Friday, March 16, 2001, and one on Wednesday, April 11, 2001. The purpose of this meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items that will be discussed at the 29th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL), which will be held in Ottawa, Canada, April 30 to May 4, 2001. The Under Secretary and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 29th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling and address items on the agenda.
The public meetings are scheduled for Friday, March 16, 2001 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Wednesday, April 11, 2001 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The public meetings will be held in Room 1813, Federal Office Building 8, Food and Drug Administration, 200 C. St. SW., Washington, DC 20204. To receive copies of the documents referenced in this notice, contact the FSIS Docket Room, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 102 Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. The documents will also be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Patrick J. Clerkin, Associate U.S. Manager for Codex, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. Telephone (202) 205-7760, Fax: (202) 720-3157.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled.
The Codex Committee on Food Labelling drafts provisions on labelling applicable to all foods; considers and endorses draft specific provisions on labelling prepared by the Codex Committees drafting standards, codes of practice, and guidelines; studies problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions; and responds to specific labeling problems assigned to it by the Commission. The Committee is chaired by Canada.
The provisional agenda items to be discussed during the public meeting on March 16, 2001:
The provisional agenda items to be discussed during the public meeting on April 11, 2001:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Canadian Secretariat to the Meeting. Members of the public may access or review copies of these documents (see
At the March 16th public meeting, the CCFL agenda items other than those pertaining to Labelling of Foods
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and provide copies of this
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are sponsoring two public meetings, on Tuesday, February 13, and on Wednesday, March 7, 2001. The purpose of these meetings is to provide information and receive public comments on draft United States' positions and agenda items that will be discussed at the 2nd Session of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived From Biotechnology, which will be held in Chiba, Japan, March 25-29, 2001. The Under Secretary and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 2nd Session, Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived From Biotechnology, and address items on the agenda.
The public meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, February 13, 2001, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., and on Wednesday, March 7, 2001, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
The public meeting will be held in Conference Room 1409, Federal Office Building 8, Food and Drug Administration, 200 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20204. Reference documents will be available for review in the FSIS Docket Room, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 102 Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. The documents will also be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Patrick J. Clerkin, Associate U.S. Manager for Codex, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. Telephone (202) 205-7760, Fax (202) 720-3157. Persons requiring a sign language interpreter or other special accommodations should notify Mr. Clerkin at the above number.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was established in 1962 by two United Nations Organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled. Codex, at its 23rd Session, established the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived From Biotechnology to develop standards, guidelines, or recommendations, as appropriate, for foods derived from biotechnology or traits introduced into foods by biotechnology, on the basis of scientific evidence, risk analysis and having regard, where appropriate, to other legitimate factors relevant to the health of consumers and the promotion of fair trade practices. The Task Force is chaired by the government of Japan.
The provisional agenda items and the relevant documents to be discussed during the public meetings:
In advance of these meetings, the U.S. Delegate to the Task Force will have assigned responsibility for development of U.S. positions on these issues to members of government. The individuals assigned responsibility will be named at these meetings and will take comment on and develop draft U.S positions. All interested parties are invited to provide information and comments on the above issues, or on any other issues that may be brought before the Task Force.
At the February 13th public meeting, the issues will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. At the March 7th public meeting, draft United States' positions on the issues will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Please state that your comments relate to Task Force activities and specify which issues your comments address.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and provide copies of this
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS) announces the availability of $47.5 million in National competitive grant funds to be administered in accordance with this Notice, 7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(20), and the Community Facilities grant program (7 CFR part 3570, subpart B) to develop essential community facilities in rural communities with extreme high unemployment and severe economic depression. An additional $2.5 million is available for community planning and implementation related to these essential community facilities.
Applications may be submitted at any time until funds are exhausted.
Entities wishing to apply for assistance are encouraged to contact their local USDA Rural Development office for guidance on the intake and processing of preapplications.
A listing of Rural Development State offices, their addresses, telephone numbers, and a person to contact follows:
Telephone numbers listed are not toll-free.
* The Delaware State Office also administers the Maryland program.
* The Florida State Office also administers the Virgin Islands program.
* The Massachusetts State Office, also administers the Rhode Island and Connecticut programs.
Joseph Ben-Israel, Community Programs, RHS, USDA, STOP 0787, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0787, Telephone (202) 720-1490, Facsimile (202) 690-0471, E-mail:
The reporting requirements contained in this notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0173 in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This program is authorized under section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended by section 304 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000 (106 Pub. L. 472). Funding was made possible through the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Act 2001 (106 Pub. L. 387) (FY 2001 Appropriation). RHS has decided to administer these funds using, where possible, those same regulations that govern its Community Facilities grant program. Program administration, eligibility, processing, and servicing requirements, which govern the Community Facilities grant program, may be found under 7 CFR part 3570, subpart B.
Under the FY 2000 appropriation, Congress appropriated $47.5 million for a Community Facilities grant program for rural communities with extreme unemployment and severe economic depression, hereafter referred to as the Economic Impact Initiative. These funds are in addition to the Community Facilities grant program's regular allocation of competitive grant funds. The Community Facilities grant program, authorized by Congress in 1996, is used in conjunction with the existing direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of essential community facilities for public use in rural areas. Funding is intended to complement rather than compete with other credit sources. Grants are made available to public entities, such as municipalities, counties, and special-service districts, as well as to eligible nonprofit corporations and tribal governments. Grants are targeted to communities with the smallest populations and lowest incomes. Communities with lower population and income levels receive a greater percentage of the Federal contribution, between 15 to 75 percent of the cost of developing the facility.
In addition to those requirements contained in 7 CFR part 3570, subpart B, applicants interested in competing for Economic Impact Initiative funds for FY 2001 must meet the following statutory eligibility criteria by demonstrating extreme unemployment and severe economic depression for funding consideration: the essential community facility must be located in a rural community where the “not employed rate” is greater than 19.5 percent.
This is the percentage of individuals over the age of 18 who reside within the community and who are ready, willing, and able to be employed but are unable to find employment, as determined by the department of labor of the State in which the community is located.
All Economic Impact Initiative funds will remain in the National Office reserve for funding consideration for FY 2001. Project selections will be on a National competitive basis with project selections made on a monthly basis.
Once a determination has been made by the State Office that an applicant is eligible, the preapplication is evaluated competitively and points awarded as specified in the project selection priorities contained in 7 CFR part 3570, subpart B. The State Director or designee will then forward the request to the National Office to compete for funding consideration. Unless withdrawn by the applicant, projects will then be rated, ranked, and selections made in order of priority. Each proposal will be judged on its own merit. Unless withdrawn by the applicant, projects not selected for funding consideration for a given month will remain eligible to compete for the next month's round of funding
All preapplications selected for funding consideration will be notified by the State or field office by issuing Form AD-622, “Notice of Preapplication Review Action.” At that time, the proposed recipient will be invited to submit a complete application, along with instructions related to the agreed upon award amount, and asked to schedule an application conference to discuss items needed for formal application and to further clarify issues related to the project.
Final approval is subject to the availability of funds; the submission by the applicant of a formal, complete application and related materials that meet the program requirements and responsibilities of the grantee (contained in 7 CFR part 3570, subpart B); the letter of conditions; and the grant agreement.
Those preapplications that do not have sufficient priority necessary to receive funding consideration for FY 2001 will be notified, in writing, by the Agency's State or designated field office.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletion from Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete a commodity previously furnished by such agencies.
April 2, 2001.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3250.
Louis R. Bartalot (703) 603-7740.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. The following services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Office Supply Store for the following locations:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the commodity proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following commodity has been proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Bobby D. Doctor, Director of the Southern Regional Office, 404-562-7000 (TDD 404-562-7004). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that a meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:00 a.m. and adjourn at 7:00 p.m. on March 31, 2001, at the Lexington Park United Methodist Church, 21760 Great Mills Road, Lexington Park, Maryland 20653. The purpose of the meeting is to gather information on civil rights complaints and developments from knowledgeable representatives of minority groups and local government in Southern Maryland, and plan future activities.
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that a meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 6:00 p.m. and adjourn at 8:00 p.m. on March 12, 2001, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 200 East Amite, Jackson, Mississippi 39201. The purpose of the meeting is to plan for future projects.
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 (TDD 913-551-1414). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that a meeting of the Vermont Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:00 p.m. on April 2, 2001, at the Conference Room One, Burlington International Airport, Airport Drive, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss future coordination with educational leaders, and plan future activities.
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that a meeting of the West Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:15 a.m. and adjourn at 3:15 p.m. on April 10, 2001, at the Governor's Conference Room (Office of the Secretary of State, Room 157), State Capitol Building, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East, Charleston, West Virginia 25305. The Committee will hold a planning meeting to discuss the drafting of a report based on three community forums held between 1998 and 2000, coordinate information gathered from newly elected officials, and plan future projects.
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at MClayton@doc.gov).
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of funds.
The purpose of this document is to invite the public to submit proposals for available funding to implement grass-roots habitat restoration projects that will benefit living marine resources, including anadromous fish, under the NOAA Community-Based Restoration Program (CRP or Program). This document describes the conditions under which applications (project proposals) will be accepted under the CRP, and describes criteria under which applications will be evaluated for funding consideration. Projects funded through the CRP will be expected to have strong on-the-ground habitat restoration components that provide educational and social benefits for people and their communities in addition to long-term ecological habitat improvements for NOAA trust resources. Proposals selected for funding through this solicitation will be implemented through a project grant, cooperative agreement, or interagency transfer.
Applications for funding under the CRP will be accepted upon publication of this document in the Federal Register and must be received by or postmarked by May 1, 2001. Applications postmarked after that time will not be considered for funding. Applications submitted via the U.S. Postal Service must have an official postmark; private metered postmarks are not acceptable. Applications delivered by a delivery service after the postmark date will be accepted for review if the applicant can document that the application was provided to the delivery service on or prior to the specified postmark cut-off date. No facsimile or electronic mail applications will be accepted.
Send applications to James P. Burgess, Director, NOAA Restoration Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway (F/HC3), Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282; ATTN: CRP Project Applications.
See
Christopher D. Doley or Robin J. Bruckner, (301) 713-0174, or by e-mail at Chris.Doley@noaa.gov or Robin.Bruckner@noaa.gov.
The CRP, a financial and technical Federal assistance program, promotes strong partnerships at the national, regional and local level to fund grass-roots, community-based activities that restore living marine resources and their habitats and promote stewardship and a conservation ethic for NOAA trust resources. NOAA trust resources are living marine resources that include commercial and recreational fishery resources (marine fish and shellfish and their habitats); anadromous species (fish, such as salmon and striped bass, that spawn in freshwater and then migrate to the sea); endangered and threatened marine species and their habitats; marine mammals, turtles, and their habitats; marshes, mangroves, seagrass beds, coral reefs, and other coastal habitats; and resources associated with National Marine Sanctuaries and National Estuarine Research Reserves.
The CRP’s objective is to bring together citizen groups, public and nonprofit organizations, watershed groups, industry, corporations and businesses, youth conservation corps, students, landowners, and local government, state, and Federal agencies to cooperatively implement habitat restoration projects. Partnerships developed at national, regional and local levels contribute funding, land, technical assistance, workforce support or other in-kind services to promote citizen participation in the improvement of locally-important living marine resources, as well as develop local stewardship and monitoring activities to sustain and evaluate the success of the restoration.
The CRP recognizes the significant role that communities can play in habitat restoration, and acknowledges that habitat restoration is often best implemented through technical and monetary support provided at a community level. Community-based restoration projects supported by the CRP are successful because they have significant local backing, depend upon citizens hands-on involvement, and typically involve NOAA technical assistance or oversight. The role of
The Secretary of Commerce is authorized under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661-666, to provide grants or cooperative agreements for fisheries habitat restoration.
This Program is described in the “Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance,” under program number 11.463, Habitat Conservation.
Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, hospitals, other non-profits, commercial organizations, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, international organizations, state, local and Indian tribal governments. Due to a significant increase in funding available to the CRP in FY 2001, applications from Federal agencies will be considered. Although Federal agencies are eligible to apply under this solicitation, they are strongly encouraged to work with states, non-governmental organizations, national service clubs or youth corps organizations and others that are eligible to apply, rather than seeking project funding directly from the CRP. Proposals selected for funding from non-Federal applicants will be funded through a project grant or cooperative agreement under the terms of this document. Proposals selected for funding from a non-NOAA Federal agency will be funded through an interagency transfer. Before non-NOAA Federal applicants may be funded, they must demonstrate that they have legal authority to receive funds for the purpose of this program in excess of their appropriation. Because this announcement is not proposing to procure goods or services from applicants, the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) is not an appropriate legal basis.
The Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities in its educational and research programs. The DOC/NOAA vision, mission, and goals are to achieve full participation by Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in order to advance the development of human potential, to strengthen the nation’s capacity to provide high-quality education, and to increase opportunities for MSIs to participate in, and benefit from, Federal financial assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages proposals for habitat restoration projects involving MSIs according to the criteria in this document.
NOAA is interested in funding projects that will result in on-the-ground restoration of habitat to benefit living marine resources, including anadromous fish species. Restoration is defined here as activities that contribute to the return of degraded or altered marine, estuarine, coastal and freshwater anadromous fish habitats to a close approximation of their condition prior to disturbance. Restoration may include, but is not limited to, improvement of coastal wetland tidal exchange or reestablishment of historic hydrology; dam or berm removal; improvement or reestablishment of fish passageway; natural or artificial reef/substrate/habitat creation; establishment of riparian buffer zones and improvement of freshwater habitat features that support anadromous fishes; planting of native coastal wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation; and enhancement of feeding, spawning and growth areas essential to marine or anadromous fish. NOAA recognizes that accomplishing restoration is a multi-faceted effort involving project design, engineering services, permitting, construction, oversight and monitoring.
In general, proposed projects should clearly demonstrate anticipated benefits to habitats, such as salt marshes, seagrass beds, coral reefs, mangrove forests, and riparian habitat near rivers, streams and creeks used or formerly used by anadromous fish. Priorities for habitat restoration activities include: areas identified by NOAA Fisheries as essential fish habitat (EFH) and areas within EFH identified as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern; areas identified as critical habitat for federally or state listed marine and anadromous species; areas identified as important habitat for marine mammals and turtles; watersheds or such other areas under conservation management as special management areas under state coastal management programs; and other important commercial or recreational marine fish habitat, including degraded areas that historically were important habitat for living marine resources.
To protect the Federal investment, projects on private lands need to provide assurance that the project will be maintained for its intended purpose for the life of the project. Projects on permanently protected lands may be given priority consideration.
Projects must involve significant community support through an educational and/or volunteer component tied to the restoration activities. Implementation of on-the-ground habitat restoration projects must involve community outreach and monitoring to assess project success, and may involve limited pre-implementation activities, such as engineering and design and short-term baseline studies. Proposals emphasizing a singular restoration component, such as only outreach or program coordination are discouraged, as are applications that propose to expand an organization’s day-to-day activities, or that primarily seek support for administration, salaries, overhead and travel. The CRP anticipates the availability of funds for high quality, quantitative monitoring projects to advance the science and technology of coastal and marine habitat restoration. Proposals emphasizing science-based monitoring of existing or simultaneously proposed Community-Based Restoration Program projects are encouraged.
Although NOAA recognizes that water quality issues may impact habitat restoration efforts, this initiative is intended to fund physical habitat restoration projects rather than direct water quality improvement measures, such as wastewater treatment plant upgrades or combined sewer outfall improvements. Similarly, the following restoration projects will not be eligible for funding: (1) Activities that constitute legally required mitigation for the adverse effects of an activity regulated or otherwise governed by state or Federal law; (2) activities that constitute restoration for natural resource damages under Federal or state law, and (3) activities that are required by a separate consent decree, court order, statute or regulation. Funds from this program may be sought to enhance restoration activities beyond the scope legally required by these activities.
This solicitation announces that funding of up to $3,000,000 will be available for community-based habitat restoration projects in FY 2001. The NOAA Restoration Center anticipates
The overall focus of the CRP is to provide seed money to individual projects that leverage funds and other contributions from a broad public and private sector to implement locally important habitat restoration to benefit living marine resources. To this end, applicants are encouraged to demonstrate a minimum 1:1 non-Federal match for CRP funds requested to complete the proposed project. NOAA strongly encourages applicants to leverage as much investment as possible; applicants with less than 1:1 match will not be disqualified. The degree to which cost-sharing exceeds the minimum level, and the nature (cash versus in-kind) of the contribution may be taken into account in the final selection of projects to be funded (see Evaluation Criteria section).
For non-Federal applicants, the match can come from a variety of public and private sources and can include in-kind goods and services. Federal funds may not be considered matching funds. Applicants are permitted to combine contributions from additional non-Federal partners in order to meet the 1:1 match expected. Applicants whose proposals are selected for funding will be bound by the percentage of cost sharing reflected in the award document signed by the NOAA Grants Officer.
Generally, the Program will make awards only to those projects where requested funding will be used to complete proposed restoration activities, with the exception of post-construction monitoring, within a period of 18 months from the time awards are distributed. If an application is selected for funding, NMFS has no obligation to provide any additional prospective funding in connection with that award in subsequent years. Any subsequent proposal to continue work on an existing project must be submitted to the competitive process for consideration and will not receive preferential treatment. Renewal of an award to increase funding or to extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of the Restoration Center Director.
Information on the Program, including examples of community-based habitat restoration projects that have been funded to date, can be found on the world wide web at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration. The standard NOAA application forms and instructions for applicants are accessible through this web site, or they can be obtained from the NOAA Restoration Center (see
To submit a proposal, a NOAA grants application must be filed, and must be complete and in accordance with instructions in the standard NOAA Grants Application Package and guidelines in this document. Each application must include all specified sections as follows: cover sheet-an applicant must use Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Form 424 as the cover sheet for each project; budget detail (SF 424A and budget justification narrative); grant assurances SF424B and CD-511, and SF-LLL if applicable; and narrative project description (statement of work). Budgets must include a detailed breakdown by category of cost estimates as they relate to specific aspects of the project, with appropriate justification for both the Federal and non-Federal shares.
In general, applications should clearly demonstrate the broad-based benefits expected to specific habitats, and how these benefits will be achieved through the proposed restoration activities. The narrative project description should be no more than 7 double-spaced pages long, in 12 point font, and should give a clear presentation of the proposed work. It should identify the problems the project will address and describe short- and long-term objectives and goals, the methods for carrying out and monitoring the project, and the project’s relevance to enhancing habitat to benefit living marine resources. The project narrative should describe the organizational structure of the applicant group, detail its qualifications, and identify proposed project staff; participants (project partners) other than the applicant, and their contributions, should be identified. The need for assistance should be demonstrated, and the narrative should provide assurance that all necessary environmental permits and consultations will be secured prior to the use of Federal funds for construction. Applicants should not assume prior knowledge on the part of NOAA as to the relative merits of the project described in the application.
Applications should not be bound in any manner and should be printed on one side only. All incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant. Three copies (one signed original and two signed copies) of each application are required and must be submitted to the NOAA Restoration Center (see
The budget may include an amount for indirect costs if the applicant has an established indirect cost rate with the Federal government. The total dollar amount of indirect costs proposed in an application under this program must not exceed the indirect cost rate negotiated and approved by a cognizant Federal agency prior to the proposed effective date of the award. However, the Federal share of the indirect costs may not exceed 25 percent of the proposed request for Federal support. Applicants with indirect cost rates above 25 percent may use the amount above the 25-percent level as part of the non-Federal share. A copy of the approved, currently negotiated Indirect Cost Agreement with the Federal Government must be included in the application. If the applicant does not have a current negotiated rate and plans to seek reimbursement for indirect costs, documentation necessary to establish a rate must be submitted within 90 days of receiving an award.
Applications will be screened to determine if they are complete and in accordance with instructions detailed in the standard NOAA Grants Application Package. Eligible restoration proposals will undergo a technical review, ranking, and selection process. As appropriate during this process, the NOAA Restoration Center will solicit individual technical evaluations of each project proposed and may consult with other NOAA offices, the NOAA Grants
Applications for habitat restoration projects will be evaluated by individual technical reviewers according to the criteria and weights described in this solicitation. The proposals will be rated, and reviewer comments and composite project ranks will be presented to the Director of the NOAA Restoration Center. The Director, in consultation with Program staff, will consider the evaluations and may take into account the following: (a) Diversity of geographic location and habitat types to be restored; (b) diversity of applicants; (c) degree of duplication of proposed activities with other projects that are currently in effect or approved for funding by NOAA and other Federal agencies; (d) factors that may not be known by technical reviewers that would affect achievement of the CRP’s objectives as described in this announcement and the Program Guidelines (65 FR 16890, March 30, 2000); and (e) the availability of funds. Hence, awards may not necessarily be made to the highest scored proposals. The Director, in consultation with Program staff, will select the proposals to be funded and determine the amount of funds available for each approved proposal.
Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets prior to final approval of an award. The exact amount of funds to be awarded, the final scope of activities, the project duration, and specific NOAA cooperative involvement with the activities of each project will be determined in pre-award negotiations among the applicant, the NOAA Grants Office, and the NOAA Program staff. Projects should not be initiated in expectation of Federal funding until a notice of award document is received from the NOAA Grants Office.
Successful applicants generally will be selected approximately 45 days after the close of this solicitation. The earliest date for receipt of awards will be approximately 90 days after the close of this solicitation, when all NOAA/applicant negotiations of cooperative activities have been completed. Applicants should consider this selection and processing time in developing requested start dates for proposed restoration activities.
Reviewers will assign scores to proposals ranging from 0 to 60 points based on the following four evaluation criteria and respective weights. Applicants that score less than 6 points on either of the first two criteria will not receive further funding consideration.
Proposals will be evaluated on the extent of proposed habitat restoration activities and the type(s) of habitat(s) that will be restored. In particular, NOAA will evaluate proposals based on the amount and type of habitat proposed for restoration and the potential of the applicant to restore, protect, conserve, and enhance habitats and ecosystems vital to self-sustaining populations of living marine resources under NOAA Fisheries stewardship; whether the habitat(s) to be restored will benefit commercial, recreational, threatened or endangered species; whether the proposal addresses a priority habitat, restoration need, special consideration, or is part of a watershed or community stewardship plan; whether the effects of restoration are expected to persist; and whether the proposed project will compliment or encourage other local restoration activities. Proposals for science-based monitoring of existing or simultaneously proposed Community-Based Restoration Program projects will be evaluated on the extent to which the potential results advance restoration methods, techniques and project implementation.
Proposals will be evaluated on the technical feasibility of the project from both biological and engineering perspectives, and on the qualifications and past experience of the project leaders and/or partners in designing, implementing and effectively managing and overseeing projects. Communities and/or organizations developing their first locally-driven restoration project may not be able to document past experience and, therefore, will be evaluated on the basis of their potential to effectively manage and oversee all project phases and on the availability of NOAA or other technical expertise to guide the project to a successful completion.
Proposals also will be evaluated on their ability to deliver the restoration objective stated in the proposal; demonstrate that the restoration activity will result in tangible benefits and will be sustainable and long-lasting; provide for long-term management of the restored resource, including adequate monitoring and a method for evaluating project success; and provide assurance that implementation of the project will meet all Federal and state environmental laws by obtaining or proceeding to obtain applicable permits and consultations. Projects on permanently protected lands may be given priority consideration.
Proposals will be evaluated on activities proposed to involve citizens and broaden their participation in habitat restoration or science-based monitoring; the potential for, or demonstrated NOAA involvement in, the project; and the depth and breadth of community support, as reflected by the diversity and strength of project partners. Community participation may include: (a) hands-on training, restoration and monitoring activities undertaken by volunteers; (b) sponsorship by local entities, either through in-kind goods and services (earth-moving services, technical expertise, conservation easements) or cash contributions; (c) public education and outreach; (d) support from state and local governments; and (e) ability to achieve long-term stewardship for restored resources and to generate a community conservation ethic.
Proposals will be evaluated on the percentage of funds that will be dedicated to all phases of project implementation including physical, on-the-ground restoration and/or science-based monitoring, compared to the percentage that is for administration, salaries, overhead and travel; applications proposing to use restoration funds to expand an organization’s day-to-day activities are unlikely to obtain a high score under this criterion. Proposals also will be evaluated on the need for funding and the overall leverage of NOAA funds anticipated, including the amount of cash match; the ability to which the proposed project is likely to catalyze future restoration and protection of living marine resources; and the ability of the applicant to demonstrate that a significant benefit will be generated for a reasonable cost. NOAA will expect
Funds awarded cannot necessarily pay for all the costs that the recipient might incur in the course of carrying out the project. Allowable costs are determined by reference to the OMB Circulars A-122, “Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations”; A-21, “Cost Principles for Education Institutions”; and A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments.” Generally, costs that are allowable include salaries, equipment, supplies, and training, as long as these are “necessary and reasonable.” To encourage on-the-ground restoration, funding for salaries must be used to support staff directly involved in accomplishing the restoration work.
Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all Federal laws and Federal and DOC policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.
Any first-time applicant for Federal grant funds under this announcement is subject to a pre-award accounting survey prior to execution of the award. Unsatisfactory performance under prior Federal awards may result in an application not being considered for funding.
If applicants incur any costs prior to an award being made, they do so solely at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the Government. Notwithstanding any verbal or written assurance that they may have received, there is no obligation on the part of NOAA to cover pre-award costs.
If an application is selected for funding, NOAA has no obligation to provide additional future funding in connection with the award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of the Restoration Center Director.
No award of Federal funds will be made to an applicant or to its subrecipients who have any outstanding delinquent Federal debt or fine until:
1. The delinquent account is paid in full;
2. A negotiated repayment schedule is established, and at least one payment is received; or
3. Other arrangements are made that are satisfactory to the Department of Commerce.
All non-profit and for-profit applicants are subject to a name check review process. Name checks are intended to reveal whether key individuals associated with the applying organization have been convicted of, or are presently facing, criminal charges such as fraud, theft, perjury, or other matters that significantly reflect on the applicant’s management, honesty, or financial integrity. Potential non-profit and for-profit recipients also may be subject to reviews of Dun and Bradstreet data or other similar credit checks.
All primary applicants must submit a completed Form CD 511, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying.” The following explanations are hereby provided:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Recipients shall require applicants/bidders for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier covered transactions at any tier under the award to submit, if applicable, a completed Form CD 512, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying” and disclosure Form SF-LLL “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” Form CD-512 is intended for the use of recipients and should not be transmitted to DOC. An SF-LLL submitted by any tier recipient or subrecipient should be submitted to DOC in accordance with the instructions contained in the award document.
A false statement on the application is grounds for denial or termination of funds and grounds for possible punishment by a fine or imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Applications under this program are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”
Applicants are encouraged, to the extent feasible, to purchase American-made equipment and products with funding provided under this program.
Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law for this document concerning grants, benefits, and contracts. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This action has been determined to be “not significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This notice contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B and SF-LLL have been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, and 0348-0046.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of rescheduling and cancellation of public meetings.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has rescheduled a March meeting of its Skate Oversight Committee and Advisory Panel and changed the location of the meeting, and has cancelled a meeting of its Habitat Oversight Committee.
The Skate Oversight Committee and Advisory Panel meeting will be held on March 13, 2001, at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Radisson Hotel, 35 Governor Winthrop Boulevard, New London, CT 06320; telephone: (860) 443-7000.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (978) 465-0492.
The original notice (66 FR 11001, February 21, 2001) stated that the Skate Oversight meeting would be held on March 6, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. It also stated that the location was the Radisson Airport Hotel in Warwick, RI. The meeting of the Habitat Oversight Committee scheduled for March 7, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. is cancelled.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
All other previously published information remains unchanged.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Request for comments on the Section 105(a) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) invites interested parties to review and comment on section 105(a) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“ESIGN” or “the Act”) (Pub. L. 106-229, 114 Stat. 464). Section 105(a) requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct an inquiry and report to Congress on the effectiveness of delivery of electronic records to consumers using electronic mail as compared with the delivery of written records via the United States Postal Service and private express mail services. In connection with this report, this
Interested parties are invited to submit comments no later than April 2, 2001.
Comments may be mailed to Josephine Scarlett, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Room 4713 HCHB, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. Paper submissions should include a diskette in ASCII, WordPerfect (please specify version) or Microsoft Word (please specify version) format. Diskettes should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the filer, and the name version of the word processing program used to create the document.
In the alternative, comments may be submitted electronically to the following electronic mail address: <
Josephine Scarlett, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 482-1816; or electronic mail: <
Advances in information technology and increased Internet usage in domestic and international business transactions have produced significant benefits to U.S. businesses and consumers. Electronic commerce or “e-commerce” has contributed significantly to the growth of the U.S. economy in recent years. Census Bureau statistics show that total retail e-commerce sales for 2000 reached an estimated $25.8 billion, and accounted for .08 percent of the total retail sales. Although commercial transactions over the Internet have increased over previous years, one of the greatest burdens to the growth of Internet commerce has been the lack of consistent, national rules that govern the use of electronic documents and signatures in electronic business transactions.
In order to promote continued growth in electronic commerce, Congress enacted ESIGN on June 30, 2000. ESIGN facilitates the use of electronic documents in domestic and international commerce and reinforces the validity and enforceability of electronic contracts and signatures. The Act gives businesses the option of transmitting electronic copies of documents that are legally required to be provided to consumers in written form, and provides consumers with the option of receiving electronic copies of these documents. ESIGN does not apply, however, to all documents and notices that are required to be presented in writing.
Section 105(a) of ESIGN directs the Secretary of Commerce to prepare a study comparing the effectiveness of electronic mail in the delivery of electronic records with the effectiveness of traditional methods of document delivery (e.g. mail, express delivery services), and to report the findings of the study to Congress no later than June 30, 2001. NTIA invites interested parties to submit comments on the general issue of the effectiveness of electronic mail in the delivery of electronic documents in comparison to the traditional methods of document delivery and on the specific issues set out in this Notice.
NTIA recently sought public comment on a joint study conducted with the Federal Trade Commission on section 105(b) of the ESIGN Act.
The statutory language requiring the Secretary of Commerce to submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of electronic mail is found in section 105(a) of ESIGN and is set forth below.
(a) DELIVERY.—Within 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct an inquiry regarding the effectiveness of the delivery of electronic records to consumers using electronic mail as compared with delivery of written records via the United States Postal Service and private express mail services. The Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress regarding results of such inquiry by the conclusion of such 12-month period.
The Department seeks comment on the following specific questions. Parties need not address all questions, but are encouraged to respond to those about which they have particular knowledge or information.
a. Provide an estimate of the percentage of transactions that you conduct per month that require next day, or same day, delivery.
b. Of the transactions included in 1(a) above, approximately what percentage of these are complicated by the fact that mail services do not have Sunday delivery?
c. Describe any delivery problems that you experience with electronic transmissions. How do these problems compare with any problems you experience using the Postal Service, private express, or courier services for delivery of records?
a. Do you offer consumers a choice of delivery mechanisms (i.e. electronic or traditional)? Has the market evolved enough to give consumers the choices they need? State whether you conduct a mail or express delivery service, or an electronic mail business.
b. Explain any benefits to your business of providing consumers with a choice between electronic transmission, postal service, or express mail service delivery of documents. Is cost a large factor in your decision to offer more than one method of delivery?
c. How important is the elimination of paper to your business?
d. Does your software enable your company or business to accurately keep track of customer confirmations and electronically “file” correspondence and consents received from customers?
e. What method(s), if any, do you employ for sender/signature verification for electronic transactions?
f. What types of consent mechanisms does your business employ?
g. What methods do you employ for third parties who are authenticating electronic delivery?
h. Under what circumstances will information received from a customer be shared?
i. Do you provide universal service (i.e. delivery to all geographic locations)?
(i) Please estimate the percentage of the population that your business serves that receives daily deliveries, as opposed to deliveries every few days (e.g. to areas less populated). Estimate the number of those who receive deliveries every few days that also use your electronic services, if available, for faster delivery.
(ii) What percentage of your electronic customers are small businesses, what percentage are large businesses, and what percentage are individuals?
a. Do you have access to the necessary tools to enable you to receive documents electronically?
b. If you have the option of receiving electronic records but choose not to, is this decision related to a lack of technology to conduct business in this manner?
c. Describe any burdens that you as a consumer experience, or expect to experience, in receiving electronic records (such as the inability to open, store, or print electronic records).
d. Compare the usefulness and burdens of receiving an electronic record, and confirming receipt electronically, with the usefulness and burdens of receiving a written record.
e. Describe how the existence of electronic records affects the convenience of record-keeping, both negatively and positively.
f. How concerned are you with online privacy and security issues? Describe any specific issues you have encountered (e.g. viruses).
g. Describe any concerns you have with keeping paper documents confidential during their transmission or storage. Are the same concerns present for electronic documents received through electronic mail? If so, state whether you are more concerned with preserving the confidentiality of paper documents or electronic documents.
h. Are electronic transactions complicated by the fact that the consumer must notify a business when the consumer's e-mail address changes? If so, how significantly?
i. Do electronic transactions increase or decrease the potential for fraud or identity theft?
a. What are the estimated costs, either to businesses or consumers, of updating software to ensure compatibility for the electronic transmission of electronic records?
b. What types of technology are being employed to ensure security of transmissions? For example, does your business utilize smart cards, encryption, or password protection devices? Are these devices effective?
c. Are anonymizer-type programs effective in protecting online privacy? Do such programs render authentication ineffective?
d. Does your business use/provide biometrics?
e. Does your business provide consumers with technical support in the
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Wednesday, March 7, 2001, 2:30 p.m.
Room 410, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Closed to the Public—Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5532(f)(1) and 16 CFR 1013.4(b) (3) (7) (9) and (10) and submitted to the
The staff will brief the Commission on the status of various compliance matters.
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-0709.
Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.
Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Transmittal 01-02 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to amend systems of records.
The Department of the Army is amending a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on April 2, 2001 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Records Management Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: TAPC-PDD-RP, Stop 5603, 6000 6th Street, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5603.
Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 806-4390 or DSN 656-4390 or Ms. Christie King at (703) 806-3711 or DSN 656-3711.
The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
Congressional Inquiry File (March 2, 1998, 63 FR 10205).
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C 1034, Protected Communications; Prohibition of Retaliatory Personnel Actions; 10 U.S.C.3013, Secretary of the Army and E.O. 9397 (SSN).”
Delete entry and replace with “Electronic storage media on local area network.”
Delete entry and replace with “Requester’s name or Social Security Number (when available), date of correspondence, Congress-member's name.”
Delete entry and replace with ‘Records are maintained on a password protected network accessible to authorized personnel only.”
Congressional Inquiry File.
Chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, 1600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-1600.
Any citizen who writes to a Member of Congress requesting that the Member solicits information from the Department of the Army on their behalf.
Individual’s request to the Member of Congress, the Member's inquiry to the Army, the Army's response, and relevant supporting documents.
10 U.S.C 1034, Protected Communications; Prohibition of Retaliatory Personnel Actions; 10 U.S.C.3013, Secretary of the Army and E.O. 9397(SSN).
To conduct necessary research and/or investigations so as to provide information responsive to Congressional inquiries.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
Electronic storage media on local area network.
Requester's name or Social Security Number (when available), date of correspondence, Congress-member's name.
Records are maintained on a password protected network accessible to authorized personnel only.
Information on congressional inquiries on all matters within the scope and activity of the Department of the Army are maintained for two years, then destroyed.
Chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, 1600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-1600.
Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this record system should address written inquiries to the Chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, 1600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-1600; or to the legislative liaison and control officer at the Army Staff or field office known to have the record. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.
For verification purposes, individual should provide the full name, current address and telephone number, and sufficient detail to permit locating the record.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, 1600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-1600; or to the legislative liaison and control officer at the Army Staff or field office known to have the record. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.
For verification purposes, individual should provide the full name, current address and telephone number, and sufficient detail to permit locating the record.
The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager.
From the individual Member of Congress; Army records and reports.
None.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of intent.
An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared to evaluate environmental impacts, project alternatives, and other public interest review factors for proposed expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area.
Questions about the proposed action and the DEIS may be directed to: Craig L. Seltzer, U.S. Army Engineer District (USAED), Norfolk, 803 Front Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1096, (757) 441-7390.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The New York District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to ascertain compliance with and to lead to the production of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document in accordance with the President's Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Rules and Regulations, as defined and amended in 40 Code Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508, Corps' Principals and Guidelines as defined in Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100 and (ER) 1105-1-200 and other applicable Federal and State environmental laws for the proposed Hudson River at Athens, New York Federal Navigation Project. This project is an element of the Hudson River, New York to Waterford, New York Project.
The study area includes the Hudson River Main Channel from the Hudson City Light to Athens Harbor, Athens, New York.
To request additional information, please contact Jenine Gallo, Project Biologist at (212) 264-0912, Planning Division, Corps of Engineers, New York District, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278-0090.
This study is authorized by Section 110 of the Energy and Water Appropriations Act 1997 which reads:
“The Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed to modify the project for the Hudson River, New York, New York City to Waterford, authorized by the Act of June 25, 1910 (Pub. L. 264, 61st Congress, 36 Stat. 635), to include design and construction of a 300-foot wide channel to a depth of 24 feet MLW (mean low water), extending from the existing federal channel in the vicinity of the Hudson City Light to the north dock at Union Street, Athens, New York.”
1.
2. Two types of environmental analysis will be conducted; (1) of impacts associated with channel deepening and widening and (2) of impacts
3. Public scoping meeting(s) are expected to be scheduled in Spring 2001. Meeting(s) will be held in Athens, New York at locations not yet determined. Results from the public scoping meeting(s) with the District and Federal, state and local agency coordination will be addressed in the DEIS. Parties interested in receiving notices of public scoping meeting(s) should contact Jenine Gallo at the above address.
4. Federal agencies interested in participating as a Cooperating Agency are requested to submit a letter of intent to Colonel William H. Pearce, District Engineer at the above address.
5.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The objectives of this project are to identify a flood reduction plan that will yield a sound project, both functionally and economically, to reduce flood damages to the populated towns of Newman and Patterson, California, and the surrounding agricultural land. The intent of this project is to improve the hydraulic conveyance of the Orestimba, Salado, and Del Puerto Creeks. Environmental restoration may be a component of the plan if a sponsor can be identified.
Questions about the proposed action and EIS/EIR can be directed to Josh Garcia at (916) 557-6778 or sent to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Division, ATTN: CESPK-PD-R, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California 95814-2922.
The Corps, in cooperation with the local sponsor (Stanislaus County), is conducting a feasibility investigation on the alternative flood damage reduction measures identified during the expedited reconnaissance phase and described in the Project Study Plan dated September 1998. This flood control investigation proposes to reduce the flood hazards currently associated with floodflows along Oristemba, Salado, and Del Puerto Creeks.
The feasibility report will address an array of alternatives. Alternatives analyzed during the feasibility investigation will be a combination of one or more flood reduction measures identified during the reconnaissance phase; additional measures may be considered. These alternative measures include detention basins, hydraulic system modifications, creek widening, structural modifications, and snag clearing.
a. No Action. there will be no flood control projects implemented for west Stanislaus County.
b. Detention basin and hydraulic system modifications are proposed for Salado Creek. This alternative focuses on safely conveying floodflows from the Salado creek foothills to the San Joaquin River.
c. Detention basin, creek widening, and structural modifications are proposed for Oristemba Creek. This alternative focuses on conveying floodflaws from the Oristemba Creek foothills to the San Joaquin River.
d. Multipurpose detention basin and hydraulic system modifications are proposed for Del Puerto Creek. This alternative focuses on safely conveying floodflows from the Del Puerto Creek foothills to the San Joaquin River. Additionally, this alternative will provide water supply, hydroelectric power generation, and recreation for the region.
a. The project plan provides for public scoping and comment. The Corps has initiated a process of involving concerned individuals, local, state, and Federal agencies.
b. Significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS/EIR include appropriate levels of the flood damage reduction, adverse affects on vegetation and wildlife resources, special-status species, esthetics, cultural resources, recreation, and cumulative effects of related projects in the study area.
c. The Corps will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report as an appendix to the EIS/EIR.
d. A 45-day public review period will be provided for individuals and agencies to review and comment on the draft EIS/EIR. All interested parties responding to this notice and providing a current address will be notified of the draft EIS/EIR circulation.
A public scoping meeting was held on March 3, 1999, in Newman, California. Public support for these proposed projects was strong.
The draft EIS/EIR is scheduled to be available for public review and comment early in calendar year 2002.
The Department of the Navy (Navy), pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) (1994), and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, hereby announces its decision to dispose of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin, which is located in Tustin, California.
Navy and the City of Tustin jointly analyzed the impacts of the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin in an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), as prescribed by NEPA and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000-21177. The City of Tustin is the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin, as defined in the Department of Defense Rule on Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance (DoD Rule), 32 CFR 176.20(a).
The City of Tustin's proposed reuse of MCAS Tustin is set forth in the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, dated October 1996, as modified by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Errata, dated September 1998 (Reuse Plan). The Reuse Plan is set out in Chapters 1, 2 (except Section 2.17), and 5 of these
The alternative chosen will use the base for residential, commercial, educational, research and development, and light industrial purposes, to develop parks and recreational areas, and to build access roads. These land uses will complement the urban character of the City of Tustin and the surrounding area, and meet the Navy goals of achieving local economic redevelopment, creating new jobs, and providing additional housing, while limiting adverse environmental impacts and ensuring land uses that are generally compatible with adjacent property. Selection of the specific means to achieve the proposed redevelopment is in the hands of the acquiring entities and the local zoning authorities.
Under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1994), the 1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin. The Commission also recommended that Navy retain the Air Station's family housing and related personnel facilities to support those stationed at the nearby Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. These recommendations were approved by President Bush and accepted by the One Hundred Second Congress in 1991.
The 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure of MCAS El Toro. Thus, it was no longer necessary to retain the family housing and related personnel support facilities at MCAS Tustin, and these facilities were also closed. The recommendation to close MCAS El Toro was approved by President Clinton and accepted by the One Hundred Third Congress in September 1993. The Air Stations at Tustin and El Toro closed on July 2, 1999.
Marine Corps Air Station Tustin covers an area of about 1,602 acres, and nearly all of the property is located in the City of Tustin, near the center of Orange County. About 95 acres are located in the City of Irvine. The City of Santa Ana lies west and northwest of the Air Station. The main property, located largely within the City of Tustin, covers about 1,503 acres and contains the air operations facilities personnel support facilities, and most of the military family housing units. A second property, located south of the main property in the City of Irvine along Harvard Avenue between Barranca Parkway and Warner Avenue, covers 74 acres and also contains military family housing units. A third property, located east of the main property in Tustin at the intersection of Edinger Avenue and Harvard Avenue, covers 25 acres.
The aviation facilities at MCAS Tustin consist of one runway, about 2,000 feet long, oriented in an east-west alignment, four helicopter parking aprons, four helicopter hangers, and other airfield support facilities that are located in the center of the base. Two large blimp hangars (Hangars 28 and 29), each about 175 feet tall and about 1,000 feet long, are also located in this area. These wood-frame structures were built in 1942 and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The two blimp hangars, five blimp mooring mats constitute an historic district eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
The gate at the intersection of Redhill Avenue and Valencia Avenue provides the primary access to MCAS Tustin. There is a secondary access, currently closed except for emergencies, at the intersection of Harvard Avenue and Moffett Avenue. Personnel support, administrative, storage, and medical facilities and barracks form a campus-like setting around the main gate in the northeastern part of the base. Recreational facilities, composed of athletic fields, playgrounds, and picnic areas, separate a residential neighborhood of 274 housing units along Edinger Avenue from the personnel support and administrative areas of the base. There are cultivated fields located along Barranca Parkway in the southwestern part of the base, northwest of Jamboree Road in the southeastern part of the base, and on property south of Edinger Avenue along the northeastern boundary of the Air Station.
Military family housing is found in two places at the base. One cluster of 274 housing units is located along Edinger Avenue on the northwest edge of the base. The other cluster is located on the southeast edge of the Air Station. This cluster is composed of 1,263 housing units located along the eastern side of Peters Canyon Channel and is bounded by the Channel and Harvard Avenue and by Edinger Avenue and Barranca Parkway. The boundary between the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine crosses this housing area; 771 residential units are located in Tustin and 552 units are located in Irvine.
In 1992, Navy acquired 25 acres of undeveloped property east of the main property that it planned to develop as military family housing to support MCAS El Toro. When MCAS El Toro was designated for closure in 1993, there was no longer a requirement for the housing and Navy included this undeveloped property in the surplus Federal property associated with MCAS Tustin.
During the Federal screening process, one Federal agency, the Department of the Army (Army), requested an interagency transfer of base closure property at MCAS Tustin. Navy plans to transfer about 17 acres in the southwestern part of the Air Station along Barranca Parkway to Army. Army will continue to use this property as an Army Reserve Center. The remaining 1,585 acres at MCAS Tustin were declared surplus to the needs of the Federal Government.
Navy published a Notice of Intent in the
Navy and the City distributed a Draft EIS/EIR (DEIS/EIR) on January 16, 1998, and commenced a 45-day public review and comment period. Both oral and written comments were received. On February 5, 1998, Navy and the City held a public hearing in the Tustin City Council Chambers.
After the public comment period for the DEIS/EIR concluded, Navy and the City modified the analysis for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin and prepared a Revised DEIS/EIR. On July 9, 1999, Navy and the City distributed the Revised DEIS/EIR and commenced a 45-day public review and comment period. Again, both oral and written comments were received and considered. On August 11, 1999, Navy and the City held a public hearing on the Revised DEIS/EIR in the Tustin City Council Chambers.
Navy's and the City's responses to the public comments concerning the Revised DEIS/EIR were incorporated in the Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/EIR), which was distributed to the public on December 23, 1999, for a review period that
In the FEIS/EIR, Navy analyzed the environmental impacts of three reuse alternatives for MCAS Tustin. Navy also evaluated a “No Action” alternative that considered leaving the property in caretaker status with Navy maintaining the physical condition of the property, providing a security force, and making repairs essential to safety.
In early December 1993, a Task Force established by the City Council of the city of Tustin composed of representatives of the cities of Tustin, Irvine and Santa Ana, Orange County, local area businesses, homeowner associations, residents of the City of Tustin and the United States Marine Corps proposed three reuse alternatives that it designated as the Arterial Loop Pattern/Large Community Core/Medium Residential Alternative (Alternative 1); the Arterial Grid Pattern/No Core/High Residential Alternative (Alternative 2); and the Arterial Loop Pattern/Low Residential Alternative (Alternative 3). On December 11, 1993, the Task Force conducted a public workshop to consider these three redevelopment proposals and selected Alternative 1 as the preferred option. Navy adopted these alternatives for in its environmental impact study.
On October 21, 1996, the City of Tustin approved the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. On September 8, 1998, the City adopted the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Errata. City Council Resolution No. 98-80. The 1993 Errata refined the 1996 reuse plan but did not change any of the land uses proposed in that plan. That plan is consistent with the Task Force identified preferred option, Alternative 1.
The selected alternative, identified in the FEIS/EIR as Alternative 1, sets out a mix of land uses for MCAS Tustin. It dedicates about 686 acres and more than nine million square feet of space to commercial, research and development, and light industrial activities, 475 acres to residential development, 236 acres and more than two million square feet of space to institutional and recreational activities, and 187 acres to roadways and drainage facilities. The two historic blimp hangars, which together contain 660,416 square feet of space, are to be re-used if an economically feasible reuse is found for them.
At full build-out, the selected alternative will be characterized by an arterial loop roadway system. This roadway will circumscribe a 225-acre community Core (containing residential, commercial, and light industrial uses) as well as an 85-acre Urban Regional Park that surrounds Hangar 28. This alternative will allow or development of about 4,600 housing units. It will also reuse the military barracks as transitional housing for the homeless. The selected alternative includes development of one high school, three local elementary schools, one community park, and three neighborhood parks. Finally, this alternative foresees the development of educational and training facilities, offices, a 500-room hotel, an 18-hole golf course (available for public use), retail stores, and restaurants.
Navy analyzed a second reuse alternative, identified in the FEIS/EIR as Alternative 2. This Alternative dedicates about 681 acres and more than eight million square feet of space to commercial, research and development, and light industrial activities, 595 acres to residential uses, 178 acres to roadways and drainage facilities, and 131 acres and more than one million square feet of space to institutional and recreational activities.Similar to the Selected alternative, Hangar 28 would be adaptively used if an economically feasible reuse were found, but under this alternative, Hangar 29 would be demolished.
At full build-out, Alternative 2 allows for development of more housing (6,205 units) than that proposed by the selected alternative. Like the selected alternative, this alternative would allow for development of offices, schools, neighborhood parks, community parks, a hotel, an 18-hole golf course, retail stores, and restaurants, but in different densities. However, unlike the selected alternative, it does not develop a Community Core and an Urban Regional Park and the layout of the development would be characterized by a grid pattern system of roadways.
Navy analyzed a third reuse alternative, described in the FEIS/EIR as Alternative 3. This Alternative dedicates about 815 acres and more than nine million square feet of space to commercial, research and development, and light industrial activities, 446 acres to residential uses, 184 acres to roadways and drainage facilities, and 139 acres and more than one million square feet of space to institutional and recreational activities. Similarly to the selected alternative, Hangar 28 would be adaptively used if an economically feasible reuse were found, but under this alternative, hangar 29 would be demolished.
At full build-out, Alternative 3 allows for development of less housing (4,340 units) than that proposed by the selected alternative. As in the selected alternative, this alternative allows for development of offices, schools, neighborhood parks, community parks, a hotel, an 18-hole golf course, retail stores, and restaurants, but in different densities. Alternative 3 is characterized by an arterial loop roadway system similar to that proposed by the selected alternative, however, unlike the selected alternative, it does not immediately develop a Community Core within the loop, but sets aside 179 acres of land for future development; this alternative does not develop an Urban Regional Park.
Navy analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin for each alternative. Effects on land use, socioeconomics, utilities, public services and facilities, aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, biological resources, agricultural resources, soils and geology, water resources, hazardous wastes, substances and materials, traffic and circulation, air quality, and noise are discussed in detail in the EIS/EIR.
The selected alternative will have a significant and unmitigable impact on agricultural resources. There are 702 acres at the Air Station that are currently being used for agricultural activities. The United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service has determined that 862 acres at MCAS Tustin meet the definition of prime farmland, defined as land that contains the best combination of physical and chemical features for the production of agricultural crops. The Service classified an additional 20 acres, located in the City of Irvine between Marble Mountain Road and Barranca Parkway, as farmland of statewide importance, which the Service defines as land that contains a good combination of physical and chemical features for the production of agricultural crops.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. 4201-4209 (1994), was enacted to minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural purposes. In May 1999, pursuant to the Farmland Protection Policy Act, Navy and the Natural Resource Conservation Service
The selected alternative would not use any of the farmland for agricultural purposes. There is no long-term, feasible mitigation that would offset the impact of converting the farmland on MCAS Tustin to nonagricultural uses.
The selected alternative could have significant unmitigable impacts on visual resources. The two blimp hangars have been the most visibly dominant and unique marks on the landscape since their construction in 1942. The selected alternative could demolish one or both of these hangars if no economically feasible reuse were found after completion of a marketing survey. The loss of both of these hangars will constitute a significant unmitigable visual impact.
There will be other significant visual impacts that will result from changing the land uses at the Air Station from a less developed landscape with agricultural fields to a more developed urban setting. Integration of the new uses with adjacent land uses could, however, result in a beneficial impact.
The selected alternative could have a significant and unmitigable impact on cultural resources. In 1975, the two blimp hangars, Hangar 28 and Hangar 29, were placed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1993, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470f (1994), and its implementing regulations, Protection of Historic Properties, 36 CFR Part 800, Navy performed a cultural resources survey to assess the potential impacts that could result from the disposal of MCAS Tustin. Navy concluded that seven other structures (Buildings 28A and 29A, and five blimp mooring mats) and their connecting roads were related to the World War II mission of the hangars and thus were eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a discontiguous historic district. In a letter dated June 28, 1996, the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with Navy's determination.
Navy has completed consultations with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the SHPO. These consultations identified actions that Navy must take before it conveys property at MCAS Tustin and actions that the acquiring entities must take to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on the structures that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. These obligations were set forth in a Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA), dated December 13, 1999, among Navy, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer. The City of Tustin, Orange County, and the United States Department of the Interior's National Park Service signed the MOA as concurring parties.
Navy has completed an Historic American Building Survey for the historic hangars and contributing structures in the discontiguous historic district; the National Park Service approved that survey on March 16, 2000. Navy will donate copies of plans and architectural drawings and other archival materials and records concerning the layout of the original blimp facility and its buildings and structures to the City of Tustin and to a local curation facility.
The MOA requires that Orange County and the City of Tustin undertake a marketing effort to determine whether there is an economically feasible reuse for Hangar 28 and its supporting Building 28A and for Hangar 29 and its supporting Building 29A. If those marketing efforts produce an economically feasible reuse for either or both hangars, then Navy will place an historic preservation covenant in the deed for the hangar and its associated building.
If there is no economically feasible reuse for Hanger 28 and Building 28A, as determined by the National Park Service (because Hangar 28 and Building 28A are situated on property to be acquired from Navy through the National Park Service by way of a public benefit conveyance) or for Hangar 29 and Building 29A, as determined by the SHPO, then Navy will not place an historic preservation covenant in the deed for these hangars and buildings. In that event, Orange County and the City of Tustin will undertake specific mitigation measures that are set forth in the MOA and consist of preparing a written history of the base, an interpretive exhibit, and a documentary film concerning the hangars and the base's World War II mission.
The selected alternative will have significant impacts on traffic circulation. By the year 2020, the Reuse Plan, if built out, will generate about 216,445 average daily motor vehicle trips compared with the 12,400 average daily trips that were associated with the Marine Corps' use of the property. The traffic generated can be predicted to cause substantial delays during peak commuting hours at seventeen intersections near the base.
The selected alternative will have significant impacts on air quality. The traffic predicted will increase ozone precursor emissions, carbon monoxide emissions, and sulfur oxide emissions above the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds. Although the carbon monoxide emissions will exceed SCAQMD thresholds, they will not result in violations of current Federal or State standards for ambient air quality. However, the particulate matter emissions and the reactive organic compound emissions resulting from demolition, construction, and renovation activities over the 20-year build-out period will exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance in spite of mitigation undertaken by the acquiring entities. The selected alternative will not be consistent with the Final 1994 Air Quality Management plan for this region that was approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Although this Plan acknowledges the closure of MCAS Tustin, it is not evident that the 1994 Plan considered the air emissions that would be generated by activities of the intensity proposed by the Reuse Plan.
Section 176(c) of the Clean air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506 (1994), requires Federal agencies to review their proposed activities to ensure that these activities do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. Section 176(c) prohibits Federal agencies from conducting activities in air quality areas, such as the South Coast Air Basin, that do not meet one or more of the national standards for ambient air quality, unless the proposed activities conform to an approved implementation plan. The United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations implementing Section 176(c) recognize certain categorically exempt activities. Conveyance of title to real property and certain leases are categorically exempt activities. 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(xiv) and (xix). Therefore, the disposal of MCAS Tustin will not require Navy to conduct a conformity determination.
The selected alternative could have significant impacts on “waters of the United States” that are subject to the regulations that implement Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344 (1994). These waters consist of about two acres of vegetated wetlands and about 29 acres of natural bottom stormwater channels. Of these 29 acres, thirteen acres are located in Peters Canyon Channel and would be affected by the Orange County Flood Control District's improvement of that Channel. These improvements would accommodate drainage resulting from
The selected alternative could have significant noise impacts on the new housing and parks that would be built on the MCAS Tustin property. The construction of new roads and the resultant traffic would generate noise impacts on any residence and park located within 75 feet of the centerline of these roads. Additionally, the operations and maintenance activities of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority and the Orange County Transportation Authority along Edinger Avenue could have significant noise impacts on the proposed residential areas at Edinger Avenue. The use of noise attenuation measures such as barriers and insulation would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
The selected alternative will not have an adverse impact on socioeconomics. Orange County expects the increases in employment, population, and housing that are reflected in the County projections upon which the local jurisdictions rely for land use planning. About 90 percent of the projected new jobs are expected to be filled by current residents of Tustin, Irvine, Santa Ana, and other communities in Orange County. The selected alternative will result in an increase in population of about 12,500 people in the vicinity of the base. By the full build-out year of 2020, the selected alternative will develop about 4,600 residential units on the former Air Station. These units will readily serve the projected increase in population.
The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on utilities. Utility distribution systems will be replaced or upgraded during the redevelopment. Although the projected demand for potable water would increase by about 1.5 million gallons per day over the Marine Corps' historical use, there is an adequate supply of water off the base and an adequate system to deliver that water to meet the projected daily demand. The local wastewater treatment plants in Tustin and Irvine have sufficient capacity to manage the projected average daily sewer flow of 2.5 million gallons.
The amount of solid waste generated will increase as a result of demolition, construction, and redevelopment activities but will decrease over time as the demolition and construction activities are completed. The local landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste that the selected alternative would generate.
The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on public services and facilities. The proposed redevelopment of MCAS Tustin will, however, increase the demand for police, fire, and emergency medical services. Additional personnel and equipment will be needed for each of these services to meet the demand created by the increase in new residents and jobs. This impact will not be significant and it will not be necessary to build new facilities.
The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on local school districts in the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine. As a direct result of the Reuse Plan, by the year 2020, an additional 1,473 students will live in the Tustin Unified School District, and an additional 959 students will live in the Irvine Unified School District. The selected alternative proposes to build two elementary schools and one high school on MCAS Tustin property in the Tustin district and one elementary school on MCAS Tustin property in the Irvine district. The availability of these properties, combined with State statutory development fees, redevelopment taxes, special district financing and other funding sources, will provide sufficient resources to build the four schools.
The selected alternative did not propose to build new residential units or new schools in that part of the Air Station that is located in the Santa Ana district. However, the Reuse Plan will create new employment opportunities that could result in an increase in the number of students residing in neighborhoods served by the Santa Ana district. The precise nature of this indirect impact on the Sana Ana district will not be known until the Reuse Plan is built out.
The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on libraries, parks, recreational facilities, and bike paths and trails. There are three libraries located within three miles of the Air Station that would adequately serve the current and projected residents. The selected alternative proposes to develop three kinds of parks to accommodate the current and projected demands for recreational resources. The General Plans of Tustin and Irvine require three acres of parks for every 1,000 residents. The City of Tustin currently has a deficit of 100 acres of parks and recreational areas, and the selected alternative's increase in population will generate a requirement to provide an additional 33 acres for the 10,900 new residents. The selected alternative will develop 127 acres of parks and recreational areas in Tustin to satisfy nearly its entire General Plan requirement. In the City of Irvine, the selected alternative will develop 18 acres of parks and recreational areas, which will exceed its requirement to provide five additional acres of parks and recreational areas for the 1,600 new residents. The selected alternative provides for development of recreational bike paths and trails in Tustin and Irvine and will incorporate bicycling lanes and parking areas in satisfaction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's air quality regulations.
The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on geology and soils. The Air Station is located in an area known for seismic activity and non-seismic geologic conditions such as local soil settlement, soil expansion, and erosion. Existing structures that are renovated and new structures that are built will be required to meet current building codes governing seismic safety. State and local laws and regulations and the use of standard soil erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction will ensure that significant impacts are avoided.
The selected alternative will not have a significant impact on the environment arising out of the use or generation of hazardous substances by the acquiring entities. Construction activities that include dewatering or disturbing subsurface soils would be subject to the institutional controls set forth in the process required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675q (1994). These controls will ensure that construction activities do not affect the groundwater gradient and cause migration of contaminants.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 3 CFR 859 (1995), requires that Navy determine whether any low income and minority populations will experience disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects from the proposed action. Navy analyzed the impacts on low income
Navy also analyzed the impacts on children as required by pursuant to Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, 3 CFR 198 (1998). Under the selected alternative, the largest concentration of children would be present in the residential, educational, and recreational areas. The selected alternative would not pose any disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to children.
Implementation of Navy's decision to dispose of MCAS Tustin does not require Navy to implement any mitigation measures. Navy will take certain actions to implement existing agreements and to comply with regulations. These actions were treated in the FEIS as agreements or regulatory requirements rather than as mitigation. If, after completion of the marketing surveys, an economically feasible reuse is found for Hangar 28 and Building 28A and for Hangar 29 and Building 29A, Navy will place historic preservation covenants in the deeds that convey these hangars and buildings. In the event that the property is ready for conveyance before the marketing surveys are completed, Navy will place historic preservation covenants in the deeds in accordance with the MOA.
The FEIS identified and discussed those actions that will be necessary to mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the reuse and redevelopment of MCAS Tustin. The Acquiring entities, under the direction of Federal, State, and local agencies with regulatory authority over protected resources, will be responsible for implementing necessary environmental mitigation measures.
Navy received comments on the FEIS from one State agency, three local agencies, two private organizations, and two persons. The State agency was California's Department of Transportation. The local agencies were Orange County, the City of Irvine, and the City of Santa Ana. The private organizations were the Irvine Business Consortium and The Gas Company.
All of the substantive comments received concerned the same issues raised in comments submitted on the DEIS. These substantive issues were fully addressed in the FEIS and require no further discussion here. Several of the comments received addressed the efforts of Santa Ana Unified School District to obtain some of the former MCAS Tustin property to construct new educational facilities. The City of Tustin and the Santa Ana Unified School District laudably continue to look for a solution within the parameters of the approved reuse plan, the Federal Property Act, and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act. Continuing discussion among the federal, state and local governmental entities responsible for identifying, screening and requesting transfer of surplus federal property pursuant to a Public Benefit Conveyance for educational use, such as the U.S. Department of Education, is the appropriate process for resolving this issue.
Since the proposed action contemplates a disposal under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1994), Navy's decision was based upon the environmental analysis in the FEIS/EIR and application of the standards set forth in the DBCRA, the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR), 41 CFR Part 101-47, and the Department of Defense Rule on Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance (DoD Rule), 32 CFR Parts 174 and 175.
Section 101-47.303-1 of the FPMR requires that disposals of Federal property benefit the Federal Government and constitute the “highest and best use” of the property. Section 101-47.4909 of the FPMR defines the “highest and best use” as that use to which a property can be put that produces the highest monetary return from the property, promotes its maximum value, or serves a public or institutional purpose. The “highest and best use” determination must be based upon the property's economic potential, qualitative values inherent in the property, and utilization factors affecting land use such as zoning, physical characteristics, other private and public uses in the vicinity, neighboring improvements, utility services, access, roads, location, and environmental and historic considerations.
After Federal property has been conveyed to non-Federal entities, the property is subject to local land use regulations, including zoning and subdivision regulations, and building codes. Unless expressly authorized by statute, the disposing Federal agency cannot restrict the future use of surplus Government property. As a result, the local community exercises substantial control over future use of the property. For this reason, local land use plans and zoning affect determination of the “highest and best use” of surplus Government property.
The DBCRA directed the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) to delegate to the Secretary of Defense authority to transfer and dispose of base closure property. Section 2905(b) of the DBCRA directs the Secretary of Defense to exercise this authority in accordance with GSA's property disposal regulations, set forth in Part 101-47 of the FPMR. By letter dated December 20, 1991, the Secretary of Defense delegated the authority to transfer and dispose of base closure property closed under the DBCRA to the Secretaries of the Military Departments. Under this delegation of authority, the Secretary of the Navy must follow FPMR procedures for screening and disposing of real property when implementing base closures. Only where Congress has expressly provided additional authority for disposing of base closure property,
In Section 2901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, Congress recognized the economic hardship occasioned by base closures, the Federal interest in facilitating economic recovery of base closure communities, and the need to identify and implement reuse and redevelopment of property at closing installations. In Section 2903(c) of Public Law 103-160, Congress directed the Military Departments to consider each base closure community's economic needs and priorities in the
The Department of Defense's goal, as set forth in Section 174.4 of the DoD Rule, is to help base closure communities achieve rapid economic recovery through expeditious reuse and redevelopment of the assets at closing bases, taking into consideration local market conditions and locally developed reuse plans. Thus, the Department has adopted a consultative approach with each community to ensure that property disposal decisions consider the LRA's reuse plan and encourage job creation. As a part of this cooperative approach, the base closure community's interests, as reflected in its zoning for the area, play a significant role in determining the range of alternatives considered in the environmental analysis for property disposal. Furthermore, Section 175.7(d)(3) of the DoD Rule provides that the LRA's plan generally will be used as the basis for the proposed disposal action.
The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C. 484 (1994), as implemented by the FPMR, identifies several mechanisms for disposing of surplus base closure property: by public benefit conveyance (FPMR Sec. 101-47.303-2); by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 10-47.304-9); and by competitive sale (FPMR 101-47.304-7). Additionally, in Section 2905(b)(4), the DBCRA established economic development conveyances as a means of disposing of surplus base closure property.
The selection of any particular method of conveyance merely implements the Federal agency's decision to dispose of the property. Decisions concerning whether to undertake a public benefit conveyance or an economic development conveyance, or to sell property by negotiation or by competitive bid, are left to the Federal agency's discretion. Selecting a method of disposal implicates a broad range of factors and rests solely within the Secretary of the Navy's discretion.
The LRA's proposed reuse of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, reflected in the Reuse Plan, is consistent with the requirements of the FPMR and Section 174.4 of the DoD Rule. The LRA has determined in its Reuse Plan that the property should be used for various purposes including residential, commercial, educational, research and development, and light industrial activities and to develop parks and recreational areas. The property's location, physical characteristics, and existing infrastructure as well as the current uses of adjacent property make it appropriate for the proposed uses.
Although the “No Action” Alternative has less potential for causing adverse environmental impacts, this alternative would not take advantage of the location, physical characteristics, and infrastructure of MCAS Tustin or the current uses of adjacent property. Additionally, it would not foster local economic redevelopment of the base.
The acquiring entities, under the direction of Federal, State, and local agencies with regulatory authority over protected resources, will be responsible for adopting practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm that may result from implementing the Reuse Plan.
Accordingly, Navy plans to dispose of MCAS Tustin in a manner that is consistent with the land uses identified in the LRA's Reuse Plan for the property.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice of partially closed meeting.
The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry as the Board shall deem necessary into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. During this meeting inquiries will relate to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Academy, may involve ongoing criminal investigations, and include discussions of personal information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Executive Session of this meeting will be closed to the public.
The meeting will be held on Monday, March 5, 2001, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. The closed Executive Session will be from 10:50 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
The meeting will be held in the Bo Coppedge Dining Room of Alumni Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy.
Lieutenant Commander Thomas E. Osborn, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, telephone number (410) 293-1503.
This notice of partially closed meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2). The Executive Session of the meeting will consist of discussions of information which pertain to the conduct of various midshipmen at the Naval Academy and internal Board of Visitors matters. Discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the Executive Session of this meeting to the public. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. app. 2, section 10(d), the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the special committee meeting shall be partially closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters as outlined in sections 552(b)(2), (5), (6), and (7) of title 5, U.S.C. Due to unavoidable delay in administrative processing, the normal 15 days notice could not be provided.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
Garden Plaza Hotel, 215 South Illinois Avenue, Oak Ridge, TN 37830.
Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-922, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 576-5333 or e-mail:
Take notice that on February 20, 2001, American Ref-Fuel Company of Niagara, L.P., (the Applicant), with its principal place of business at (c/o American Ref-Fuel Company) 15990 North Barker's Landing, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77079, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Any person desiring to be heard concerning the application for exempt wholesale generator status should file a motion to intervene or comments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the application. All such motions and comments should be filed on or before March 19, 2001, and must be served on the applicant. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection or on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (please call (202) 208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on January 31, 2001, Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corporation (AOG), filed pursuant to sections 284.224(e)(1) and 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission regulations, 18 CFR 284.224(e)(1) and 284.123(b)(2), and pursuant to the Commission's order, issued July 18, 1995 in Docket No. RP98-6-000, a petition for approval to maintain its existing maximum rate of $0.2329 per MMBtu, plus 2.766 percent for company use and lost and unaccounted for gas, applicable to all of AOG's existing and future transportation services provided under its Order No. 63 blanket certificate, all as more fully described in the petition filed therewith which are on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
AOG states it is proposing to maintain its existing rates; it is not proposing to change the rates actually being charges in its existing Order No. 63 blanket certificate transportation arrangements. AOG states that it is only seeking to maintain the existing ceiling rate up to which AOG and its transportation customers may agree upon in any future negotiations.
Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not act within 150 days of the filing date of AOG's Petition, AOG's rates for firm and interruptible storage services will be deemed to be fair and equitable. The Commission may within such 150 day period extend the time for action or institute a proceeding in which all interested parties will be afforded an opportunity for written comments and the oral presentation of views, data and arguments.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All motions must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission on or before March 12, 2001. This petition for rate approval is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that on February 22, 2001, The Consumers of New England tendered for filing a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting immediate reform of New England Power Pool governance.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before March 14, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us./online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before March 14, 2001. Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on February 13, 2001, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion), 445 West Main Street, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26301, filed a request with the Commission in Docket No. CP01-87-000 pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to expand the active pool boundary of its Fink-Kennedy/Lost Creek Storage Reservoir, centered around the Buck Run area in Lewis County, West Virginia, in the northwestern portion of the Fink Reservoir, all as more fully set forth in the application which is open to the public for inspection. This application may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Dominion proposes to expand the northwestern active boundary of the Fink Reservoir by approximately 3,063 acres in the Buck Run area. Dominion states that the subject area has a high potential for migration of storage gas to the area outside the currently certificated reservoir boundary,
Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before March 19, 2001, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules. Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Sean R. Sleigh, Certificates Manager, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 445 West Main Street, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26301, telephone (304) 627-3462.
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
A person obtaining intervenor status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by everyone of the intervenors. An intervenor can file for rehearing of any Commission order and can petition for court review of any such order. However, an intervenor must submit copies of comments or any filing it makes with the Commission to every other intervenor in the proceeding, as well as 14 copies with the Commission.
A person does not have to intervene, however, in order to have comments considered. A person, instead, may submit two copies of comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of environmental documents and will be able to participate in meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek rehearing or appeal the Commission's final order at a federal court.
The Commission will consider all comments and concerns equally, whether filed by commenters or those requesting intervenor status.
Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Regulatory Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the NGA and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be held
Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for Dominion to appear or be represented at the hearing.
Take notice that on February 21, 2001, Kentucky Pioneer Energy L.L.C. (KPE) filed an Application for Determination of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to Section 32(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, all as more fully explained in the Application.
Any person desiring to be heard concerning the application for exempt wholesale generator status should file a motion to intervene or comments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the application. All such motions and comments should be filed on or before March 19, 2001, and must be served on the applicant. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection or on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (please call (202) 208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protest may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on February 1, 2001, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) filed an emergency petition pursuant to Rule 207(a)(4) and (5) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The filing requests that the Commission immediately rescind the portion of Order No. 637 that removed the price cap for short-term capacity releases for service to the California border and to points of interconnection between interstate pipelines and California local distribution companies until March 31, 2001. LADWP further requests that the Commission initiate a proceeding that will allow the Commission to determine by March 31, 2001, if the removal of the price cap on short-term transactions associated with the California market is warranted.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before March 2, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protesters parties in the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm
Take not that on February 16, 2001, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective March 19, 2001:
Northwest states that the purpose of this filing to withdraw the tariff sheets which Northwest submitted to the Commission on January 26, 2001, in Docket No. RP01-214-000, and to replace those sheets with the proposed tariff sheets listed above, which better describe Northwest's proposed facilities reimbursement policies and procedures.
Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public
Take notice that on February 9, 2001, Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C. (Ozark) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, to be effective February 1, 2001:
Ozark further tendered for filing, as part of the Arkansas Western Pipeline; L.L.C. (AWP) FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet, which reflects the cancellation of AWP's FERC Gas Tariff, to be effective February 1, 2001:
Ozark states that the purpose of its filing is to comply with the Commission's order issued December 15, 2000, in Docket No. CP01-21-000. (Ozark Gas Transmission, 93 FERC ¶ 61,281 (2000)) In that order, the Commission directed Ozark to notify the Commission within 10 days of the effective date its acquisition by merger of its affiliate AWP and make tariff filings within 30 days of such date reflecting the acquisition in Ozark's tariff and the cancellation of AWP's tariff. Ozark's states that its acquisition of AWP occurred on February 1, 2001.
Ozark further states that it has served copies of this filing upon the company's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before March 2, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on February 21, 2001, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A, the tariff sheets as listed on Appendix A to the filing, to be effective March 23, 2001.
Due to a change in Questar's management personnel, changes were proposed to modify the reference to the person by whom Questar's tariff has been issued. In addition, miscellaneous tariff “clean-up” revisions were made.
Questar states that a copy of this filing has been served upon its customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah, and the Public Service Commission of Wyoming.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on February 22, 2001, Whiting Clean Energy, Inc. (WCE), 8407 Virginia Street, Merrillville, Indiana 46410, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an Application for Determination of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's Regulations and Section 32 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, as amended (the Application).
The Application seeks a determination that WCE qualifies for Exempt Wholesale Generator status. WCE is an Indiana Corporation that will own and operate a gas-fired combined cycle cogeneration facility rated at approximately 525 MW capacity. Upon WCE's determination as an EWG, the facility will be used for the generation of electricity exclusively for sale at wholesale.
Copies of this application have been served upon the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Any person desiring to be heard concerning the application for exempt wholesale generator status should file a motion to intervene or comments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on February 20, 2001, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation for Service Agreement No. 64 (Service Agreement No. 64) and Service Agreement No. 65 (Service Agreement No. 65), effective November 28, 1995, under Commonwealth Edison Company's FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 3 between ComEd and Louisville Gas and Electric Company/Kentucky Utilities Company (LG&E/KU), and submits for filing a Short-Term Firm Transmission Service Agreement and a Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement (New Service Agreements) between ComEd and LGE/KU under the terms of ComEd's Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 (OATT).
ComEd requests an effective date of March 1, 2001 for the New Service Agreements and an effective date of March 1, 2001 for the cancellation of Service Agreement No. 64 and Service Agreement No. 65.
Copies of this filing were served on LG&E/KU.
Take notice that on February 20, 2001, Exelon Generation Company, L.L.C. (Exelon), tendered for filing a request that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hold the filing submitted in this docket in abeyance.
Exelon states that a copy of the filing was served on all parties to the proceeding as well as on all customers under the agreements.
Take notice that on February 20, 2001, Exelon Generation Company, L.L.C. (Exelon), tendered for filing a request that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hold in abeyance the Power Sales Agreement filed with the Commission on January 19, 2001, the above-referenced docket.
Exelon states that a copy of the filing was served on all parties to the proceeding as well as on the customer under the agreement.
Take notice that on February 16, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC), tendered for filing an unexecuted Generator Interconnection Agreement between ATCLLC, RockGen Energy, LLC.
ATCLLC requests an effective date of February 12, 2001.
Take notice that on February 16, 2001, Xcel Energy Services, Inc., tendered for filing substitute sheets to its revised wholesale market-based rate tariff, filed on February 14, 2001 in the above-referenced dockets.
Take notice that on February 20, 2001, the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), tendered for filing executed a Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement for The New Power Company, an ERCOT Regional Transmission Service Agreement for Guadalupe Power Partners, LP, and a Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement Specification for AEPSC's Merchant Organization Power Marketing and Trading Division. All of these agreements are pursuant to the AEP Companies' Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) that has been designated as the Operating Companies of the American Electric Power System FERC Electric Tariff Second Revised Volume No. 6.
AEPSC requests waiver of notice to permit the Service Agreements to be made effective for service on and after February 1, 2001.
A copy of the filing was served upon the Parties and the state utility regulatory commissions of Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
Take notice that on February 20, 2001, Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO), on behalf of The Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P), tendered for filing unexecuted Licensing Engineering and Construction and Interconnection and Operating Agreements between CL&P and Milford Power Company LLC (Milford). NUSCO states that CL&P and Milford are still in the process of negotiating the final terms of the Agreements, but that it is filing the unexecuted Agreements at Milford's request.
NUSCO requests a waiver of the Commission's regulations to permit the Agreements to become effective March 1, 2001, subject to the outcome of further negotiation.
Take notice that on February 20, 2001, Bridgeport Harbor Power LLC, New Haven Harbor Power LLC, and NRG Connecticut Power Assets LLC, [together the Applicants), limited liability corporations organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, filed, under section 205 of the Federal Power Act, requests that for each of the Applicants the Commission (1) accept for filing proposed market-based FERC Rate Schedules; (2) grant blanket authority to make market-based wholesale sales of capacity and energy under their appropriate FERC Rate Schedules; (3) grant authority to sell ancillary services at market-based rates within the New England Power Pool, as well as the control areas of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; and (4) grant such waivers and blanket authorizations as the Commission has granted in the past to other nonfranchised entities with market-based rate authority.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
A final environmental assessment (EA) is available for public review. The final EA analyzes the environmental impacts of Alabama Power Company's application for a temporary variance to maintain water levels in Neely Henry Reservoir is part of the Coosa River Hydroelectric Project on the Coosa River in Calhoun, St. Clair and Etowah Counties, Alabama. This project does not occupy any federal lands.
The final EA was written by staff in the Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In our final EA, Commission staff conclude that approving Alabama Power Company's application would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Copies of our final EA can be viewed on the web at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the natural gas pipeline and compressor facilities proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) in the above referenced docket.
The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of Transco's proposed pipeline loops and the related expansion and modification of compressor units. Transco's proposed Sundance Expansion Project would include:
• A total of approximately 38 miles of 42-inch and 48-inch diameter pipeline looping
• Piping modifications to existing Compressor Station No. 105;
• The addition of one new 18,975 horsepower (hp) electric motor-driven compressor, the uprating of an existing 15,000 hp electric motor-driven compressor, and the uprating of an existing 16,500 hp electric motor-driven compressor to 18,975 hp at the existing Compressor Station No. 115, thus increasing total certificated compression at the facility to 56,925 hp;
• The addition of one new 15,000 hp gas turbine-driven natural gas compressor and the uprating of an existing 4,000 hp compressor to 4,800 hp at existing Compressor Station No. 125, thus increasing total compression at the facility to 38,800 hp;
• The addition of gas coolers to the existing Compressor Station No. 150;
• The Installation of various pig launcher/receiver facilities and mainline block valves at the beginnings and ends of the proposed loops, with additional mainline block valves installed as needed on the loops.
The Sundance Expansion Project also includes nonjurisdictional facilities. These include a 6.5-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline (Wansley Lateral) from a tap on Transco's Mainline System at milepost 1000.9 to a planned electric generating facility (Wansley Plant) in Heard County, Georgia, set for commencement of service on June 1, 2002; and an 81.7-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter pipeline (Richmond Lateral) from a tap on Transco's Mainline System at milepost 1286.96 to an electric generating facility (Richmond Plant) in Richmond County, North Carolina, that is presently under construction.
Transco's proposed Sundance Expansion Project would expand the capacity of its existing mainline system
The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-1371.
Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, state and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, newspapers, and parties to this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your comments before the date specified below. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
• Send copies of your comments to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., N.E., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the Gas Hydro Group;
• Reference Docket No. CP00-165-000; and
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before March 16, 2001.
Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Additional information about the proposed project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (202) 208-0004 or on the FERC Internet website (
Similarly, the “CIPS” link on the FERC Internet website provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. From the FERC Internet website, click on the “CIPS” link, select “Docket #” from the CIPS menu, and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to CIPS, the CIPS helpline can be reached at (202) 208-2474.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Please include the docket number (DI01-6-000) on any comments or motions filed.
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity, or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design or operation.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Protests or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “Comments”, “Recommendations for Terms and
p. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Take notice that a settlement conference to discuss the various issues raised by Tennessee's Order No. 637 filing in Docket No. RP00-477-000,
All interested parties are permitted to attend the settlement conference.
Upon conclusion of the settlement conference, take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various issues raised by Tennessee's Order No. 637 filing in Docket No. RP00-477-000,
All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend the technical conference.
Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7167
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20157).
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments should be submitted on or before April 2, 2001. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all comments to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document advises interested persons of a meeting of the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (“NCC”), which will be held in Washington, D.C. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, requires public notice of all meetings of the NCC. This notice advises interested persons of the twelfth meeting of the Public Safety National Coordination Committee.
March 23, 2001 at 9:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
Designated Federal Officer, Michael J. Wilhelm, (202) 418-0680, e-mail
Following is the complete text of the Public Notice: This Public Notice advises interested persons of the twelfth meeting of the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (“NCC”), which will be held in Washington, D.C. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, requires public notice of all meetings of the NCC.
The NCC Subcommittees will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. the previous day. The NCC General Membership Meeting will commence at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 12:30 p.m. The agenda for the NCC membership meeting is as follows:
1. Introduction and Welcoming Remarks.
2. Administrative Matters.
3. Report from the Interoperability Subcommittee including, without limitation, consideration of its report on reconciliation of prior NCC Interoperability Subcommittee recommendations with the FCC’s
4. Report from the Technology Subcommittee including, without limitation, consideration of its report on reconciliation of prior NCC Technology Subcommittee recommendations with the FCC's
5. Report from the Implementation Subcommittee including, without limitation, consideration of its report on reconciliation of prior NCC Implementation Subcommittee recommendations with the FCC's
6. FCC Staff Report on WRC-03 Preparations, Global Harmonization of Spectrum for Public Safety and Disaster Relief.
7. Public Discussion.
8. Other Business.
9. Upcoming Meeting Dates and Locations.
10. Closing Remarks.
The FCC has established the Public Safety National Coordination Committee, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to advise the Commission on a variety of issues relating to the use of the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 764-776/794-806 MHz frequency bands (collectively, the 700 MHz band) that has been allocated to public safety services.
The NCC has an open membership. Previous expressions of interest in membership have been received in response to several Public Notices inviting interested persons to become members and to participate in the NCC's processes. All persons who have previously identified themselves or have been designated as a representative of an organization are deemed members and are invited to attend. All other interested parties are hereby invited to attend and to participate in the NCC processes and its meetings and to become members of the Committee. This policy will ensure balanced participation. Members of the general public may attend the meeting. To attend the twelfth meeting of the Public Safety National Coordination Committee, please RSVP to Joy Alford or Bert Weintraub of the Policy and Rules Branch of the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC by calling (202) 418-0680, by faxing (202) 418-2643, or by E-mailing at jalford@fcc.gov or bweintra@fcc.gov. Please provide your name, the organization you represent, your phone number, fax number and e-mail address. This RSVP is for the purpose of determining the number of people who will attend this twelfth meeting. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. However, admittance will be limited to the seating available. Persons requesting accommodations for hearing disabilities should contact Joy Alford immediately at (202) 418-7233 (TTY). Persons requesting accommodations for other physical disabilities should contact Joy Alford immediately at (202) 418-0694 or via e-mail at jalford@fcc.gov. The public may submit written comments to the NCC's Designated Federal Officer before the meeting.
Additional information about the NCC and NCC-related matters can be found on the NCC website located at: http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/publicsafety/ncc.html.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the first meeting of the Technological Advisory Council (“Council”) to be held under its new charter, renewed December 11, 2000. The meeting will be held at the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, DC.
Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 10:00 a.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.
Kent Nilsson at knilsson@fcc.gov or 202-418-0845.
The Council was established by the Federal Communications Commission to provide a vehicle through which a diverse array of recognized experts in technologies that affect, or are affected by, telecommunications can provide timely advice to the FCC on trends in technological innovations that may affect the communications industry. The purpose of this meeting will be to determine the way to best achieve this goal. The Council may also consider such other issues as come before the Council at the meeting. Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The Federal Communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many persons as possible. Admittance, however, will be
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 26, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 26, 2001.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 16, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 26, 2001.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer on (404)639-7090.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques for other forms of information technology. Send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Sentinel Surveillance for Chronic Liver Disease (0920-0427)—Extension—National Center for Infectious Diseases (NCID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A questionnaire has been designed to collect information for the Sentinel Surveillance for Chronic Liver Disease project. The purpose of this project is to determine the incidence and period prevalence of physician-diagnosed chronic liver
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Threshold of Regulation for Substances Used in Food-Contact Articles” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Procedures for the Safe Processing and Importing of Fish and Fishery Products” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Food Labeling Regulations (21 CFR Parts 101, 102, 104, and 105)” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Karen L. Nelson, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Emergency Health Surveys” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement concerning the Housing Discrimination Information Form HUD-903 HUD-903A will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Comments due date: May 1, 2001.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to Hope File, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 5228, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone number (202) 619-8041.
Hope File, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 619-8041. (This is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8399.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information for: The collection of information relative to the Fair Housing Act. The Act prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of dwellings, and the availability of real estate-related transactions based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or familial status.
Any person who claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice or who believes that he or she will be irrevocably injured by a discriminatory housing practice may file
Any person who claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice, or who believes that he or she will be injured by a discriminatory practice that is about to occur, may bring their claim to HUD no later than one year after the alleged discriminatory housing practice takes place. The new form provides for uniformity in collecting information needed to contact person(s) who file a complaint, and for making initial assessments regarding HUD's jurisdiction under the Act. Subsequently, such data is furnished to person(s) against whom complaints are filed, as required by statute.
There is no annualized cost to complainants. Complainants submit the form to HUD by mail using a postage-paid mailer at no cost to the complainant. They also may complete the form electronically via the Internet.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Building, Room 8202, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-5221 (this is not a toll-free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
Beverly J. Miller, Director, Policy and Participation Standards Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone number (202) 708-1320 (this is not a toll-free number), for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1955 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval number (2577-0044) and should be sent to: Joseph F. Lackey Jr., OMB Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Q, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Wayne_Eddins@HUD.gov; telephone (202) 708-2374. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of the proposed forms and other available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Eddins.
The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proosal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of application for endangered species permit.
The following applicants have applied for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to the Service's Regional Office (see
Written data or comments on these applications must be received, at the address given below, by April 2, 2001.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Attn: Victoria Davis, Permit Biologist). Telephone: 404/679-4176; Facsimile: 404/679-7081.
Victoria Davis, Telephone: 404/679-4176; Facsimile: 404/679-7081.
The applicant requests authorization to take the following species: Yaqui catfish,
The applicant requests authorization to take (harass) the red-cockaded woodpecker,
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Department of Justice.
Notice of availability.
The Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) announces a new grant program, COPS in Schools 2001, designed to combat school violence by helping local law enforcement agencies hire additional community policing officers to work in schools. This program provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build working relationships with schools and to use community policing efforts to combat school violence. The COPS in Schools 2001 program will help reduce the local match requirement for local law enforcement agencies seeking to hire additional new officers to be used in or around schools.
There are two application deadlines for the COPS in Schools 2001 program. Applications are due and must be postmarked no later than June 15, 2001. Priority consideration for FY 2001 funding will be given to applications received postmarked on or before March 30, 2001. Applications received postmarked after March 30, 2001, but postmarked on or before June 15, 2001 will receive secondary consideration for funding in FY 2001. All applications received prior to the June 15, 2001 deadline that are not funded in FY 2001 because of limited funding will be carried over for consideration in FY 2002 (subject to available funding). Applications must be postmarked by this date to be considered for funding. All applicants must apply to the COPS in Schools 2001 program using the CIS Application kit. Previous editions of the application are null and void and will not be accepted.
To obtain a copy of an application or for more information, please call the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770 or (202) 307-1480, or visit the COPS web site at
The U.S. Department of Justice Response Center, (202) 307-1480 or 1-800-421-6770 or your grant advisor. The CIS application and information on the COPS Office are also available on the Internet via the COPS web site at:
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322) authorizes the Department of Justice to make grants to increase deployment of law enforcement officers devoted to community policing on the streets and rural routes in this nation. The COPS in Schools program is specifically designed to combat school violence.
Many communities are discovering that trained, sworn Law enforcement officers assigned to schools make a difference. The presence of these officers provides schools with on-site security and a direct link to local law enforcement agencies.
Community policing officers typically perform a variety of functions within the school including teaching crime prevention and substance-abuse classes, monitoring troubled students, and building respect for law enforcement among students. School Resource Officers combine the functions of law enforcement and education.
The COPS in Schools initiative provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build working relationships with schools to use community policing efforts to combat school violence.
The COPS in Schools initiative reduces the local match requirement for law enforcement agencies seeking to hire additional officers in and around schools.
Grants will be awarded to provide for a designated portion of the salary and benefits of each new officer over three years. The maximum grant amount is $125,000 per officer; any remainder is paid with state or local funds. To qualify for funding, officers must be hired on or after the grant award start date. Funding begins when new officers are hired or on the award date (whichever is later). Funds are distributed over the course of the grant.
COPS in Schools funding must be used to hire new, additional School Resource Officers, over and above the number of sworn officers that your agency would fund with state or local funds in the absence of the grant (including other School Resource Officers). Your agency may not reduce its state or locally-funded level of sworn officers (including other School Resource Officers) as a result of applying for or receiving COPS in Schools grant funding.
COPS in Schools funding may also be used to rehire sworn officers previously employed by your agency who have been laid off for financial reasons unrelated to the availability of the COPS in Schools grant. Your agency must obtain prior written approval from the COPS Office, however, if you wish to use COPS in Schools funding to rehire any officer who is laid off after the official award start date of the COPS in Schools grant.
All grant recipients must develop a written plan to retain their COPS-funded officer positions with State or local funding after Federal funding ends. This plan must be submitted at the time of application to be considered for funding. The application must also include a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to document the roles and responsibilities of the collaborative effort between law enforcement and education. The MOU must be signed by the law enforcement executive and the appropriate school official and must be submitted at the time of application to be considered for funding. The application must also include a Narrative Addendum to document that the School Resource Officers will be assigned to work in and around primary or secondary schools, and provide a descriptive narrative of the use of the School Resource Officers.
In addition to these general program requirements, agencies seeking funding under this program will be asked to provide supporting documentation in the following areas: problem identification and justification, community policing strategies to be used by the officers, quality and level of commitment to the effort, and the link to community policing.
All COPS in Schools awards will contain an “Additional Grant Condition” that must be signed and returned to the COPS Office. This condition requires the funded officer(s) and the school administrator designated as the educational partner under the CIS grant to attend a COPS in Schools Training. Costs for training, per diem, travel, and lodging for attendance of required participants will be reimbursed by the COPS Office up to a maximum of $1100.
An award under the COPS in Schools grant program will not affect the eligibility of an agency to receive awards under any other COPS program.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) reference for this program is 16.710.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Department of Justice.
Notice of availability.
The Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) announces the availability of funds under the Tribal Resources Grant Program, a program designed to meet the most serious needs of law enforcement in Indian communities through a broadened, comprehensive hiring program that will offer a variety of funding options from salary and benefits for new police personnel to funding for law enforcement training and equipment for new and existing officers. This program, which complements the COPS Office's efforts to fund 100,000 additional community policing officers and to support innovative community policing, will enhance law enforcement infrastructures and community policing efforts in tribal communities which have limited resources and are affected by high rates of crime and violence. Applications should reflect the department's most serious law enforcement needs and must link these needs to the implementation or enhancement of community policing. In addition, a written plan to retain COPS-funded officer positions after Federal funding has ended must be submitted with the grant application.
All Federally Recognized Tribes with established police departments or existing police efforts are eligible to apply. Tribes that wish to establish police departments and meet specific criteria are eligible to apply. Tribes or villages may also apply as a consortium with a written partnership agreement that names a lead agency and describes how requested resources will serve the consortium's population. In addition, tribes that are currently served by Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) law enforcement may request funding under this grant program to supplement their existing police services. Tribes whose law enforcement services are exclusively provided by local policing agencies through a contract agreement are not eligible under the COPS TRGP program, but may apply to the COPS Universal Hiring Program for police officer positions only.
Applications will be sent to all Federally Recognized Tribes with existing law enforcement efforts by February 2001. Tribes or villages that wish to apply as a start-up or consortium may request an application kit from the COPS Office. The deadline for the submission of application is April 16, 2001. Applications must be postmarked by April 16, 2001 to be eligible.
To obtain an application or for more information, call the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770. A copy of the application kit will be available in February on the COPS Office web site at: http://www.usdoj.gov/cops.
The U.S. Department of Justice Response Center, 1-800-421-6770 or your grant advisor.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322) authorizes the Department of Justice to make grants to increase deployment of law enforcement officers devoted to community policing on the streets and rural routes in this nation. The Tribal Resources Grant Program is a program developed to meet the most serious needs of law enforcement in Indian communities through a broadened, comprehensive hiring program that will offer a variety of funding options from salary and benefits
The Tribal Resources Grant Program is part of a larger Federal initiative which over the last three years, has resulted in the Departments of Interior and Justice working in collaboration to improve law enforcement in tribal communities. Funding has been appropriated to several DOJ agencies including the FBI, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the Corrections Program Office (CPO), and the COPS Office. COPS is coordinating with these agencies as well as with the Office of Law Enforcement Services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to ensure that limited resources are not spent on duplicative efforts.
The Tribal Resources Grant will provide tribal communities with the resources to: Hire new police officers; train new and existing officers in community policing, grants management and computer training as well as basic police training at a state academy or the Indian Police Academy in Artesia, NM; and provide basic standard issue equipment, ranging from bullet-proof vests and uniforms, to firearms and portable radios.
The Tribal Resources Grant Program emphasizes deployment of officers and resources into communities that are affected by high rates of crime and violence. Applicants must submit a written plan to retain their COPS-funded officer positions after Federal funding has ended. This plan must be submitted to the COPS Office with the Tribal Resources Grant Program application.
A total of $40,000,000 in funding will be available under the Tribal Resources Grant Program. The grant will cover a maximum Federal Share of 75% of total project costs,, including approved salary and benefits of entry-level police officers (up to a maximum of $75,000 per officer over three years), basic law enforcement training and equipment, vehicles, and technology. A local match requirement of 25% of the total project costs is included in this program. A waiver of the local match requirement may be requested but will be granted only on the basis of documented demonstrated fiscal hardship. Requests for waivers must be submitted with the application.
Tribes whose law enforcemnt services are exclusively provided by local policing agencies through contract arrangements are not eligible under this COPS program. However, tribes that do not meet the eligibility requirements for this program may apply to the COPS Office Universal Hiring Program for police officer positions only.
Receiving an award under the Tribal Resources Grant Program will not preclude grantees from future consideration under other COPS grant programs for which they are eligible.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) reference for this program is 16.710.
Notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree”) in
The complaints in these cases allege that defendants Preston Engravers, Inc. (“Preston”) and Roto-Die Company, Inc. (“Roto-Die”) (collectively the “Defendants”) violated section 112 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 7412, and the National Emission Standard for Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks (the “Chromium Electroplating NESHAP”) at machine tooling facilities owned and/or operated by the Defendants in East Windsor, Connecticut, Eureka, Missouri, and Meadows of Dan, Virginia.
Under the proposed Decree, Defendants shall pay the United States a civil penalty of $245,000.00. Moreover, the Decree requires Defendants to,
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney, District of Connecticut, 157 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06510, (203) 821-3700; the office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri, United States Court & Customs House, 1114 Market Street, Room 401, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, (314) 539-2200; the Region I Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, (617) 918-2001; the Region III Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029, (215) 814-2900; and the Region VII Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 901 North Fifth Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913) 551-7010. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044. In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $7.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that, on November 7, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative
“Systems Engineering and Information Management II—Collaborative Development”—To investigate methods for electronic connections, corporate proprietary policies, and recommended tools for a prototype secure, electronic collaboration capability to allow multiple supplier participation in aerospace systems development.
“Tools and Best Practices for Implementing RTCA D254”—To generate guidance, templates, tools, key documents/artifacts and examples to allow aerospace electronic suppliers to efficiently incorporate the requirements of RTCA D254, “Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware” into their electronic hardware design process.
“Develop the ‘How-To’ of a Qualified Compiler and Linker”—To develop a technical plan for the development of a qualified compiler & linker that can be used with auto-code generation capabilities of several modeling and simulation tools to improve the software requirement, development and validation process.
“Electronic Component Parts Obsolescence Forecasting Tool, Phase 1 Software Tool Development”—To develop a software tool to forecast when an electronic component is likely to become obsolete in order to provide guidance for long term parts management.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and “AVSI” Cooperative intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 18, 1998, AVSI Cooperative filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 7, 2000. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 7, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute (“AVSI”) Cooperative intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 18, 1998, Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute (“AVSI”) Cooperative filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 21, 1999. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 16, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Auto Body Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 14, 1995, Auto Body Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of
The last notification was file with the Department on April 20, 1999. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 12, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are Immerge BioTherapeutics, Charlestown, MA; and Infigen, Inc., DeForest, WI. The nature and objectives of the venture are to conduct research on the genetic modification of pigs by nuclear transfer technology.
Notice is hereby given that, on November 15, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IAP Research, Inc.: Electromagnetic Dynamic Compaction intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On July 21, 1999, IAP Research, Inc.: Electromagnetic Dynamic Compaction filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 23, 2001, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 23, 2000. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 8, 1999, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and SI2 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On December 30, 1998, SI2 filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 22, 1998. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 28, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and SI2 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On December 30, 1988, SI2 filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 8, 1999. A notice for this filing has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 16, 2001, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Southwest Research Institute (“SwRI”): Advanced Reciprocating Engine Systems (“ARES”) intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 9, 1999, Southwest Research Institute (“SwRI”): Advanced Reciprocating Engine Systems (“ARES”) filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 6, 2000. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 30, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and southwest Research Institute intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 1, 1999, Southwest Research Institute filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on November 1, 2000, pursuant to section
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Spray Drift Task Force intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 15, 1990, Spray Drift Task Force filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 11, 2000. A notice for this filing has not yet been published in the
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation contact Darrin King at (202) 693-4129 or E-Mail King-Darrin@dol.gov.
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation contact Darrin King at (202) 693-4129 or E-Mail to King-Darrin@dol.gov.
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ESA, Office of Management and Budget, room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) issued during the period of February, 2001.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Act must be met.
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, have become totally or partially separated.
(2) That sales or production, or both, of the firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely, and
(3) That increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision have contributed importantly to the separations, or threat thereof, and to the absolute decline in sales or production.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criterion (3) has not been met. A survey of customers indicated that increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
The workers firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
The investigation revealed that criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or production did not decline during the relevant period as required for certification.
The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
Also, pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA) and in accordance with section 250(a), subchapter D, chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act as amended, the Department of Labor presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA issued during the month of February, 2001.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA the following group eligibility requirements of Section 250 of the Trade Act must be met:
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, (including workers in any agricultural firm or appropriate subdivision thereof) have become totally or partially separated from employment and either—
(2) That sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely,
(3) That imports from Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased, and that the increased imports contributed importantly to such workers' separations or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
(4) That there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by the firm or subdivision.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criteria (3) and (4) were not met. Imports from Canada or Mexico did not contribute importantly to workers' separations. There was no shift in production from the subject firm to Canada or Mexico during the relevant period.
The investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act, as amended.
The investigation revealed that criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision did not decrease during the relevant period.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of February, 2001. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.
By letter of February 5, 2001, the company requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's denial of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination issued on December 18, 2000, and was published in the
New information provided by the company show that employment of production workers decreased in January through November 2000, compared to January through November 1999.
At Intercontinental Branded Apparel, Ellwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York, production of coats declined in January through November 2000, compared to the same 1999 time period. During this same time period, company imports of men's suit coats increased.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with men's suit coats contributed importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers of Intercontinental Branded Apparel, Ellwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
All workers of Intercontinental Branded Apparel, Ellwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 17, 1999, through two years from the date of this certification are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on November 13, 2000, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at LIGHTNIN Division, SPX Corporation, Wytheville, Virginia.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on January 22, 2001, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Northwest Alloys, Inc., Addy, Washington.
The company official submitting the petition has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
By letter of January 4, 2001, the United Steelworkers of America (USWA), District 1/Sub-District 3, requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on December 5, 2000, and was published in the
Information provided by the USWA reveals that further investigation is warranted regarding imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by workers at the Bucyrus, Ohio plant.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on September 5, 2000, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Puget Plastics Corporation, Tualatin, Oregon.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on December 11, 2000, in response to a petition field on behalf of workers at Reactive Metals & Alloys Corporation, West Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.
The petitioning group of workers is subject to an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued (TAW-38,324). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
By application of December 28, 2000, the petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The denial notice applicable to workers of Union Pacific Fuels Inc., Union Resources Company, and Union Pacific Resources Group, Inc., Headquartered in Forth Worth, Texas (TA-W-37,217), and operating in various States
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The request for reconsideration of TA-W-37,217 and TA-W-37,217G, states that the Fort Worth, Texas workers of the subject firm are being retained to transition computer systems, land records, train Anadarko employees and transfer assets. The petitioner adds that these workers are being retained because of their specialized expertise unique to the oil and gas industry; opportunities in Forth Worth are limited as more companies close. The petitioner submitted excerpts from the subject firm's 1998 and 1999 annual reports, and materials related to the oil and gas industry.
The TAA petition filed on October 16, 2000, was filed on behalf of workers engaged in employment related to the production of crude oil and natural gas, at the subject firm headquarters in Forth Worth, Texas, and operating in Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Utah and Texas. On December 6, 2000, workers of the subject firm were denied eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance because the “contributed importantly” criterion of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The subject firm merged with another firm in July 2000. Workers of the subject firm were covered by an existing certification, TA-W-35,465, which expired January 21, 2001. Any layoffs that occurred at the subject firm after the expiration date of the certification applicable to the petitioning worker group, were attributable to this merger and a redundancy in employee positions. Furthermore, aggregate U.S. imports of crude oil and natural gas declined in the twelve-month period of July through June 1999-2000, both absolutely and relative to domestic shipments.
After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at United Steelworkers of America (USWA), Local 2176, Gadsden, Alabama. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on November 20, 2000 in response to a worker petition which was filed on November 20, 2000 on behalf of workers at Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, Alabama.
Since all workers at the subject firm were separated prior to November 23, 2000, workers are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits under a certification which was issued on November 23, 1998, and covered all separations extending through November 23, 2000 (TA-W-35,108). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Homestake Mining Company, Homestake Gold Mine, Lead, South Dakota. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 27a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1, Appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedeas decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or government agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department. Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of decisions being superseded and their date of notice in the
General Wage Determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts.” This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
The general wage determination issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically by subscription to the FedWorld Bulletin Board System of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce at 1-800-363-2068.
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the seven separate volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates are distributed to subscribers.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH).
OSHA is notifying the public that ACCSH will meet March 15-16, 2001, at the Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This meeting is open to the public.
ACCSH will meet 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Thursday, March 15 and 9 a.m. to Noon, Friday, March 16 in rooms N-3437 A, B, C & D of the Frances Perkins Building. ACCSH work groups will meet March 13-14 in the Frances Perkins Building. For an updated schedule of activities please refer to the ACCSH Web Page located at OSHA's Web site at
Veneta Chatmon, OSHA Office of Public Affairs, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-1999.
An official record of the meeting will be available for public inspection at the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, at the address above, telephone (202)-693-2350. All ACCSH meetings and those of its work groups are open to the public. Individuals needing special accommodation should contact Veneta Chatmon no later than March 5, 2001, at the above address.
The agenda items for this meeting include:
• Introduction of new ACCSH members
• Remarks by the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, R. Davis Layne
• ACCSH Work Group updates
• Update on past ACCSH business
• Directorate of Construction report
The following work groups will meet in the Francis Perkins Building:
• Subpart N—Cranes—9 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 13 in room N-5437 A&B.
• Sanitation—9 a.m. to Noon, Wednesday, March 14 in room N-5437 A.
• OSHA 10 Hour Training—10 a.m. to Noon, Wednesday, March 14 in room N-5437 B.
• Hexavalent Chromium—1:30 to 4 p.m., Wednesday, March 14 in room N-5437 A.
• Noise in Construction—1 to 5 p.m., Wednesday, March 14 in room N-5437 B.
For up-to-date information on ACCSH work groups and scheduling please refer to the OSHA Web site at
R. Davis Layne, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Prospective Patent License.
NASA hereby gives notice that SRS Technologies, Inc., of Huntsville, AL, 35806, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 5,520,960 entitled “Electrically Conductive Polyimides Containing Silver Trifluoroacetylacetonate”; U.S. Patent No. 5,575,955 entitled “Electrically Conductive Polyimide Film Containing Gold (III) Ions, Composition, and Process of Making”; U.S. Patent No. 5,677,418 entitled “Reflective Self-Metallizing Polyimide Films”; U.S. Patent No. 6,019,926, entitled “Reflective Silvered Polyimide Films Via In-Situ Thermal Reduction of Silver (I) Complexes”; U.S. Patent No. 5,502,156 entitled “Electrically Conducting Polyimide Film Containing Tin Complexes”; U.S. Patent No. 5,376,209 entitled “Process for Preparing an Assembly of an Article and a Polyimide Which Resists Dimensional Change, Delamination, and Debonding When Exposed to Changes in Temperature,” and U.S. Patent No. 5,248,519 entitled “Process for Preparing an Assembly of an Article and a Soluble Polyimide Which Resists Dimensional Change, Delamination, and Debonding When Exposed to Changes in Temperature,” all of which are assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to Ms. Robin W. Edwards, Patent Attorney, Langley Research Center.
Responses to this notice must be received by May 1, 2001.
Robin W. Edwards, Patent Attorney, Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 212, Hampton, VA, 23681-2199; telephone 757-864-3230.
For the notice published in the
On page 11333, under “Date and Time,” the second day of the Board meeting, March 9, 2001, is cancelled. On page 11334, under
Shelly Coles, Executive Assistant, National Institute for Literacy, 1775 I Street, NW., Suite 730, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone number (202) 233-2027, email scoles@nifl.gov.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for reclearance of an information collection. OPM Forms 1496 and 1496A, Application for Deferred Retirement (Separations before October 1, 1956) and Application for Deferred Retirement (Separations on or after October 1, 1956) are used by eligible former Federal employees to apply for a deferred Civil Service annuity. Two forms are needed because there was a major revision in the law effective October 1, 1956; this affects the general information provided with the forms.
Comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Approximately 3,000 OPM Forms 1496 and 1496A will be completed annually. We estimate it takes approximately 1 hour to complete both forms. The annual burden is 3,000 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-2150, or email to mbtoomey@opm.gov.
Comments on this proposal should be received on or before May 1, 2001.
Send or deliver comments to—Ronald W. Melton, Chief, Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415-3540.
Donna G. Lease, Team Leader, Forms Analysis and Design, Budget & Administrative Services Division, (202) 606-0623.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget a request for review of an expiring information collection. RI 30-10, Disabled Dependent Questionnaire, is used to collect sufficient information about the medical condition and earning capacity for the Office of Personnel Management to be able to determine whether a disabled adult child is eligible for health benefits coverage and/or survivor annuity payments under the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees Retirement System.
Comments are particularly invited on: whether this information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Approximately 2,500 RI 30-10 Forms are completed annually. The form takes approximately 60 minutes to complete. The annual estimated burden is 2,500 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, or E-mail to mbtoomey@opm.gov
Comments on this proposal should be received May 1, 2001.
Send or deliver comments to—Ronald W. Melton, Chief, Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3349A, Washington, DC 20415.
Donna G. Lease, Team Leader, Forms Analysis and Design, Budget and Administrative Services Division, (202) 606-0623.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for review of an expired information collection. Procedures for Submitting Compensation and Leave Claims is used to collect information from current and former Federal employees who are submitting a claim for compensation and/or leave. OPM needs this information in order to adjudicate the claim.
We received no comments on our 60-day notice on Procedures for Submitting Compensation and Leave Claims, published in the
Approximately 100 claims are submitted annually. It takes approximately 60 minutes to compile the information needed to submit a claim. The annual estimated burden is 100 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, or E-mail to
Comments on this proposal should be received on or before April 2, 2001.
Send or deliver comments to—
and
Summary: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp., Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, Joe Lackey (202-395-7316), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10203, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, Joe Lackey (202-395-7316), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of February 2001. A copy of each application may be obtained for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth St., NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090). An order granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on March 20, 2001, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. For Further Information Contact: Diane L. Titus, at (202) 942-0564, SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0506.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by March 20, 2001, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After March 20, 2001, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
DTE Energy Company (“DTE”), a Michigan public utility holding company that claims exemption, under section 3(a)(1) of the Act by rule 2, and its inactive, wholly owned subsidiary, DTE Enterprises, Inc. (“Merger Sub” and with DTE, “Applicants”), both located at 2000 Second Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226-1279, have filed an application under sections 3(a)(1), 9(a)(2), and 10 of the Act.
DTE is engaged, through subsidiaries, in various utility and nonutility
Detroit Edison is engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution and sale of electric energy in a 7,600 square-mile area in southeastern Michigan. Detroit Edison's service area includes about 13% of Michigan's total land area and about half of the population of the State (approximately five million people). Applicants state that, for the twelve months ending on September 30, 2000, Detroit Edison's operating revenues and net income were approximately $4.05 billion and $349 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2000, Detroit Edison's assets were valued at $10.946 billion. As of September 30, 2000, Detroit Edison had a summer net rated capability of approximately 11,030 MW. Detroit Edison's electric generating plants are interconnected by a transmission system operating at up to 345 kilovolts through 37 transmission stations. Detroit Edison is subject to general regulation by the Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC”) regarding the conditions of its service, rates and recovery of certain costs, accounting and various other matters. DTE is also subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act. In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has regulatory jurisdiction over all phases of the operation, construction (including plant modifications), licensing and decommissioning of Detroit Edison's Fermi 2 nuclear power plant.
DTE requests authority to acquire indirectly, through Merger Sub, under the terms of an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated October 4, 1999, as amended on November 12, 1999 (“Merger Agreement”), all issued and outstanding common stock of MCN Energy Group Inc. (“MCN”), a Michigan public utility holding company claiming exemption under section 3(a)(1) of the Act by rule 2 under the Act. Specifically, DTE proposes to merge Merger Sub with MCN, with Merger Sub surviving as a wholly owned direct subsidiary of DTE. Under the Merger Agreement, each share of outstanding MCN common stock (including the associated right to purchase Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock) will be converted into a right to receive either $28.50 in cash or .775 shares of DTE common stock.
MCN, a Michigan corporation, is engaged through subsidiaries in the production, gathering processing, transmission, storage, and distribution of natural gas, as well as various nonutility activities.
MichCon, a Michigan corporation, is a natural gas distribution and transmission company that owns distribution, transmission, production and storage properties and facilities and serves approximately 1.2 million customers in more than 500 communities throughout Michigan. As of November 30, 2000, MichCon's distribution system included 17,272 miles of distribution mains, 1,107,428 service lines and 1,216,514 active meters. MichCon owns 2,663 miles of transportation and production lines that deliver natural gas to the distribution districts and interconnect its storage fields with the sources of supply and the market areas, as well as properties relating to four underground natural gas storage fields with an aggregate working gas storage capacity of approximately 124 Bcf. For the twelve months ended September 30, 2000, MichCon's operating revenues and net income were approximately $1.1 billion and $89.9 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2000, MichCon had $2.2 billion in assets. MichCon's rates are regulated by the MPSC.
Citizens Gas Fuel Company (“Citizens”), a wholly owned utility subsidiary of MCN, is engaged in the distribution of natural gas Michigan. Citizens serves approximately 15,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in and around Adrian, Michigan. The Adrian Gas Rate Commission establishes the rates of Citizens, and Applicants state that all other phases of its operations are subject to the jurisdiction of the MPSC. For the twelve months ending on September 30, 2000, Citizens' operating revenues and net income were approximately $16.6 million and $900,000, respectively. As of September 30, 2000, Citizens' assets were valued at $24.4 million.
MCN also owns a 46.5% limited partnership interest, and a 1.% general partnership interest in Southern Missouri Gas Company, L.P. (“SMGC”), a public utility engaged in the distribution of natural gas, SMGC serves approximately 7,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers in southern Missouri. For the twelve months ending on September 30, 2000, MCN's share of SMGC's operating revenues were approximately $3 million and MCN 's share of SMGC's net loss was approximately $900,000. As of September 30, 2000, MCN's shares of SMGC's assets were valued at $23.8 million. Applicants state that SMGC's rates, along with other phases of its operations, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Missouri Public Service Commission.
DTE requests authority to acquire indirectly through Merger Sub, under the terms of an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated October 4, 1999, as amended on November 12, 1999 (“Merger Agreement”), all issued and outstanding common stock of MCN.
The officers, directors, corporate charter and bylaws of MCN immediately before the Merger will become the officers, directors, corporate charter and bylaws of Merger Sub. DTE's principal and executive offices will not change as a result of the Merger.
Applicants state that the Merger will enable DTE to provide its customers with an expanded range of the energy choices, while producing economies of scope and integration that will benefit consumers and investors. Specifically, Applicants state that DTE will be able to offer attractive energy supply options to large customers, provide expanded product offerings to its customers, and develop on-site energy facilities and services for business customers. Applicants state that DTE will be better positioned after the Merge to compete with other integrated regional and national energy companies, and that the Merger will therefore enhance competition.
Additionally, Applicants request that the Commission issue an order exempting DTE and Merger Sub, under section 3(a)(1) of the Act, from all of the requirements of the Act, except for section 9(a)(2) of the Act.
NiSource Inc. (“NiSource”) 801 East 86th Avenue, Merrillville, Indiana 46410-6272, a registered holding company,
By order dated November 1, 2000 (HCAR No. 27265) (“Financing Order”), the Commission authorized NiSource and its subsidiaries to engage in external financing and intrasystem financing, and other related transactions, for the period through December 31, 2003 (“Authorization Period”). Under the Financing Order, the Commission authorized NiSource to issue and sell from time to time during the Authorization Period, either directly or indirectly through one or more financing subsidiaries (including NiSource Finance Corp. (“NiSource Finance”)), equity securities and long-term and short-term debt securities. Among other specific approvals granted, the Commission authorized NiSource to issue and sell, directly or indirectly, short-term debt securities in the form of commercial paper, bank notes or other evidence of indebtedness having maturities of less than one year (“Short-term Debt”) in an aggregate principal amount at any time outstanding not to exceed $2 billion. The Commission also authorized the NiSource Utility Subsidiaries to issue and sell short-term debt securities, including commercial paper, to finance their utility operations, in the following maximum principal amounts at any time outstanding during the Authorization Period:
NiSource is now requesting a modification to the Financing Order to authorize an increase from $2 billion to $3.4 billion in the maximum principal amount of short-term debt that NiSource (or any financing subsidiary of NiSource) may have outstanding at any one time. NiSource states that it will use the proceeds of increased short-term borrowings to make loans to Columbia and the NiSource Utility Subsidiaries in order to enable those companies to retire, at maturity, external short-term borrowings. After March 31, 2001, Columbia and Northern Indiana will not issue any new Short-term Debt securities to unaffiliated lenders but will instead satisfy all of their short-term borrowing needs through intercompany borrowings from NiSource. Bay State will maintain its external funding arrangements in order to fund loans to Northern Utilities until such time as Northern Utilities has obtained an order of the Maine Public Utilities Commission permitting NiSource (or a financing subsidiary of
Allegheny Energy, Inc., (“Allegheny”), a registered public-utility holding company, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation (“AESC”), a service company subsidiary of Allegheny, both located at 10435 Downsville Pike, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-1766, and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (“AE Supply”), a utility
Applicants seek authority to engage in various transactions relating to the development and acquisition of interests in exempt wholesale generators (“EWGs”) and foreign utility companies (“FUCOs”), as defined in sections 32 and 33 of the Act, respectively, and in activities permitted by rule 58 under the Act (“Rule 58 Activities”). Applicants also propose to engage in various related financing and intrasystem transactions, as described below.
AE Supply requests authorization to organize and finance one or more special purpose subsidiaries (“Exempt Subsidiaries”) to: (1) Engage in Rule 58 Activities within the United States; and (2) to invest, directly or indirectly, in EWGs and FUCOs. AE Supply also proposes to organize one or more special project entities (“Intermediate Companies”) for the purpose of facilitating the development and consummation of investments in EWGs and FUCOs by (1) exploring investment opportunities; and (2) investing in companies for the acquisition and ownership of EWGs, FUCOs, and to engage in Rule 58 Activities prior to the formation of the Exempt Subsidiaries.
Applicants also seek authority to issue guaranties, short-term debt and long-term debt through July 31, 2005 (“Authorization Period”), up to an aggregate amount of $430 million at any one time outstanding (“Aggregate Financing Limit”) for the purpose of investing directly or indirectly in EWGs, FUCOs, Rule 58 Activities, or for other strategic corporate purposes related to investments in EWGs and RUCOs.
Applicants state that the proposed debt to be issued includes, but is not limited to, bank financing, bank credit support, sales of secured
Applicants further propose that investments may be made from Allegheny to AE Supply, Exempt Subsidiaries or to Intermediate Companies directly or indirectly. Investment by Allegheny or AE Supply into the Exempt Subsidiaries or Intermediate Companies may take the form of capital stock or shares, debt securities, trust certificates, capital contributions, open account advances and partnership interests or other equity or participation interests, bid bonds, or other credit support to secure obligations incurred by AE Supply and/or the Intermediate Companies in connection with the Exempt Subsidiaries.
Applicants also request authority to issue guaranties and enter into support agreements (“Guaranties”) to and for the benefit of Exempt Subsidiaries and Intermediate Subsidiaries through the Authorization Period up to the Aggregate Financing Limit. Applicants state that the Guaranties will be used to support the commercial paper program and to support counterparty agreements and other trading contracts. Guaranties will be issued without recourse to any of the Allegheny system operating companies.
Applicants state that the Exempt Subsidiaries and Intermediate Companies will not have their own paid employees. Consequently, Applicants request authority for AESC to provide services to those companies under proposed service agreements (“Service Agreements”) to be entered into between each of those companies and AESC. The Service Agreements will take effect upon Commission approval and will be similar in all material respects to those service agreements that AESC has executed. AESC will render services to Exempt Subsidiaries and Intermediate Companies in accordance with rules 90 and 91 under the Act.
On January 8, 2001, Allegheny acquired a five percent interest, totaling approximately 83 megawatts, in the Conemaugh Generating Station (“Conemaugh”), a coal-fired generating station located near Johnstown, Pennsylvania,
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
The U.S. Small Business Administration, Region IX District Advisory Council, located in the geographical area of Honolulu, Hawaii, will hold a public meeting at 10:00 a.m., on Thursday, March 22, 2001, at the Business Information and Counseling Center, 1111 Bishop Street, Suite 204, Training Center, Honolulu, HI 96813; to discuss such matters as may be presented by members, staff of the Small Business Administration or others present. For further information write or call Mr. Andrew K. Poepoe, District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 2-235, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850; telephone (808) 541-2965.
In compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, SSA is providing notice of its information collections that require submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
I. The information collections listed below will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, comments and recommendations regarding the information collections would be most useful if received by the Agency within 60 days from the date of this publication. Comments should be directed to the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the address shown above. You can obtain a copy of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer on (410) 965-4145, or by writing to him at the address listed above.
1. Request for SSI Benefit Estimate—0960-0492. The Social Security Administration (SSA) uses Form SSA-3716 for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries who wish to request a 5-month estimate of what their benefits would be if they should return to work in the future. The respondents are SSI Recipients or Applicants for SSI Benefits.
2. Supplemental Statement Regarding Farming Activities Of Person Living Outside The U.S.A.—0960-0103. Form SSA-7163A-F4 is used by SSA to collect needed information whenever a Social Security beneficiary or claimant reports work on a farm outside the U.S. The information is used to make a determination for work deduction purposes. The respondents are Social Security beneficiaries or claimants who are engaged in farming activities outside the U.S.
II. The information collection listed below has been submitted to OMB for clearance. Written comments and recommendations on the information collection would be most useful if received within 30 days from the date of this publication. Comments should be directed to the SSA Reports Clearance Officer and the OMB Desk Officer at the addresses listed above. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance package by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer on (410) 965-4145, or by writing to him.
Pre-1957 Military Service Federal Benefit Questionnaire—0960-0120. Form SSA-2512 collects data used in the claims adjudication process to grant gratuitous military wage credits, when applicable, and solicits sufficient information to make a determination of eligibility. The respondents are individuals who are applying for Social Security benefits on the record of a wage earner with pre-1957 military service.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of meeting.
March 26, 2001, 10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; March 27, 2001, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; March 28, 2001, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Sheraton Crescent Hotel, 2620 W. Dunlap Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85021, (602) 943-8220 phone, (602) 371-2857 fax.
Interested parties are invited to attend the meeting. The Panel will use the meeting time to receive public testimony, hear presentations, conduct full Panel deliberations on the implementation of TWWIIA, receive briefings and conduct business.
The Panel will meet in person commencing Monday, March 26, 2001 from 10:00 a.m. to 5 p.m., Tuesday, March 27, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, March 28, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Each presenter will be called on by the Chair in the order in which they are scheduled to testify and is limited to a maximum five-minute verbal presentation. Full written testimony on TWWIIA Implementation, no longer than 5 pages, may be submitted in person or by mail, fax or email on an on-going basis to the Panel for consideration.
In the event that the public comments do not take up the scheduled time period for public comment, the Panel will use that time to deliberate and conduct other Panel business.
Since seating may be limited, persons interested in providing testimony at the meeting should contact the Panel staff by e-mailing Kristen M. Breland, at
The full agenda for the meeting follows this announcement. The agenda is posted on the Internet at
• Mail addressed to Social Security Administration, Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel Staff, 107 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore MD, 21235.
• Telephone contact with Kristen Breland by telephone at (410) 966-7225.
• Fax at (410) 965-9063.
• E-mail to
In the event that the public comments do not take up the scheduled time period, the Panel will use that time to deliberate and conduct other Panel business.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Jacqueline Caldwell, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-6982). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State (telephone: 202/619-5997). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC. 20547-0001.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Jacqueline Caldwell, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-6982). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the laws of the United States, including the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, and the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, I hereby delegate to Richard A. Boucher, the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, all authorities vested in the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, including all authorities vested in the Secretary of State that have been or may be delegated or redelegated to that Under Secretary.
Any authorities covered by this delegation may also be exercised by the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, or the Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs.
This delegation shall expire upon the appointment of an individual to serve as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.
This memorandum shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the laws of the United States, including the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, I hereby delegate to R. Rand Beers, the Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, to the extent
Any authorities covered by this delegation may also be exercised by the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, or the Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs.
This delegation shall expire upon the appointment of an individual to serve as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.
This memorandum shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the laws of the United States, including the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, the Diplomatic Security Act of 1986, the Foreign Service Act of 1980, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, I hereby delegate to David G. Carpenter, the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, to the extent authorized by law, all authorities vested in the Under Secretary of State for Management, including all authorities vested in the Secretary of State that have been or may be delegated or redelegated to that Under Secretary.
Any authorities covered by this delegation may also be exercised by the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, or the Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs.
This delegation shall expire upon the appointment of an individual to serve as Under Secretary of State for Management.
This memorandum shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the laws of the United States, including the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Arms Export Control Act, and the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, I hereby delegate to Avis T. Bohlen, the Assistant Secretary for Arms Control, to the extent authorized by law, all authorities vested in the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, including all authorities vested in the Secretary of State that have been or may be delegated or redelgated to that Under Secretary.
Any authorities covered by this delegation may also be exercised by the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, or the Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs.
This delegation shall expire upon the appointment of an individual to serve as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs.
This memorandum shall be published in the
Tennessee Valley Authority (Meeting No. 1527).
9 a.m. (EST), March 5, 2001.
TVA Chattanooga Office Complex Auditorium, 1101 market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Open.
Approval of minutes of meeting held on January 24, 2001.
B1. Supplement to Contract No. 98PPW-231635 with Zurich American Insurance Company for workers' compensation, employer's liability, and general liability insurance for TVA's Owner Controlled Insurance Program.
C1. Contract with STEAG LLC to design, fabricate, and deliver an ammonia vaporization system for each of the selective catalytic reduction systems being constructed at TVA's fossil plants.
E1. Public auction sale of approximately 2.73 acres of TVA land in DeSoto County, Mississippi, Tract No. XFRESS-1.
F1. Approval to file a condemnation case to acquire property interest and a road easement for access to a TVA power project. The affected tracts are Tract Nos. LSSSS-1 AND -2AR, South Scottsville, Kentucky, Switching Station in Allen County, Kentucky.
1. Delegation of authority to the Vice President, Fuel Supply and Engineering Services, or such officer's designee, to assign monetary credits received by TVA under the Kentucky National Forest Land Transfer Action of 2000.
2. Modification of Contract No. P00P07-259943 with Virginia Electric and Power Company for coal supply to John Sevier Fossil Plant.
3. Modification of Contract No. P98P07-233158 with Coastal Coal Company, LLC, for coal supply to John Sevier Fossil Plant.
4. Modification of Contract No. P90P07-115734 with Arch Coal Sales for coal supply to John Sevier Fossil Plant.
5. Delegation of authority to the Vice President, Fuel Supply and Engineering Services, to award an extension of a term transportation contract to CSX Transportation, Inc., for delivery services to Bull Run Fossil Plant.
6. Approval to file a condemnation case to acquire a right-of-way easement for the Gallatin Fossil Plant-Hoeganaes Transmission Line in Sumner County, Tennessee, Tract No. GFPH-2.
For more information: Please call TVA media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. Information is also available at TVA's Washington Office (202) 898-2999. People who plan to attend the meeting and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of, and seeks public comments on, the national performance measures proposed here for use as guidelines when mariners demonstrate their proficiency in skills for ratings forming part of an engineering watch. A working group of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) developed and recommended measures for this proficiency. The Coast Guard has adapted the measures recommended by MERPAC.
Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before May 1, 2001.
Please identify your comments and related material by the docket number of this rulemaking [USCG 2001-8920]. Then, to make sure they enter the docket just once, submit them by just one of the following means:
(1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(2) By delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(3) By fax to the Facility at 202-493-2251.
(4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management System at
The Facility maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and related material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The measures proposed here are available on the Internet at
For questions on this Notice or on the national performance measures proposed here, write or call Mr. Gould where indicated under
Table A-III/4 of the Code accompanying the treaty on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended in 1995, articulates qualifications for merchant mariners' attaining the minimum standard of competence for ratings forming part of an engineering watch. The Coast Guard tasked MERPAC with referring to the Table, modifying and specifying it as it deemed necessary, and recommending national performance measures. The Coast Guard has adapted the measures recommended by MERPAC and is proposing them now for use as guidelines when assessing mariners' proficiency in skills (manifesting knowledge, understanding, and proficiency) for ratings forming part of an engineering watch.
Here follow the eight skills that a mariner must demonstrate respecting ratings forming part of an engineering watch, with an example of a Performance Condition, a Performance Behavior, and three Performance Standards for one of the eight:
Eight Skills: Engine-room watchkeeping procedures; Safe working practices as related to engine-room operations; Basic environmental-protection procedures; Use of appropriate internal-communication systems; Engine-room alarms and ability to distinguish among the various alarms, with special reference to alarms for fire-extinguishing gas; Safe operations of boilers; Escape routes from machinery spaces; and Familiarity with the location and use of fire-fighting equipment in machinery spaces.
The Performance Condition for the skill entitled, “Engine-room watchkeeping procedures” is: “Aboard a ship, in port or underway, or in an approved simulator or laboratory, given proper equipment . . .” This calls for, in the case of this skill, various Performance Behaviors.
One Performance Behavior for the same skill is: “The candidate will properly relieve the watch.” This behavior calls for three Performance Standards.
The Performance Standards for the same behavior are: “(1) Reports for duty 15 minutes before the hour; (2) Determines from the off-going watch: plant operational status, unusual alarms or conditions during previous watch, standing orders, maintenance performed during previous watch, on-going repairs affecting plant operations, [and] outstanding safety conditions; [and] (3) Seeks clarification from the off-going watch or engineer if information was not clearly understood.”
If the mariner properly meets all of the Performance Standards, he or she passes the practical demonstration. If he or she fails to properly carry out any of the Standards, he or she fails the demonstration.
The Coast Guard is taking this action to comply with STCW, as amended in 1995 and 1997 and incorporated into domestic law at 46 CFR Parts 10, 12, and 15 in 1997 and since. Guidance from the International Maritime Organization on shipboard assessments of proficiency suggests that Parties develop standards and measures of performance for practical tests as part of their programs for training and assessing seafarers.
You may participate in this action by submitting comments and related material on the national performance measures proposed here. (Although the Coast Guard does not seek public comment on the measures recommended by MERPAC, as distinct from the measures proposed here, those measures are available on the Internet at the Homepage of MERPAC,
• Your name and address;
• The docket number for this Notice [USCG 2001-8920];
• The specific section of the performance measures to which each comment applies; and
• The reason for each comment.
You may mail, deliver, fax, or electronically submit your comments and related material to the Docket Management Facility, using an address or fax number listed in
Once we have considered all comments and related material, we will publish a final version of the national performance measures for use as guidelines by the general public. Individuals and institutions assessing the competence of mariners may refine the final version of these measures and develop innovative alternatives. If you vary from the final version of these measures, however, you must submit your alternative to the National Maritime Center for approval by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR 10.303(e) before you use it as part of an approved course or training program.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final policy statement.
This document announces an FAA general statement of policy applicable to the type certification of transport category airplanes. This document advises the public, in particular manufacturers of transport category airplanes and automatic flight control (autopilot) systems, that the FAA, when certifying automatic pilot installations, intends to evaluate various items that will improve the flightcrew's awareness during autopilot operation.
Gregg Bartley, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Transport Standards Staff, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM 111, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2889; fax (425) 227-1100; e-mail: gregg.bartley@faa.gov.
Recent incidents and accidents that have occurred worldwide involving pilot-autopilot interactions have emphasized to the FAA the need to reexamine the current certification policy relative to autopilot issues.
In 1991, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) began an investigation of an incident involving a transport category airplane that experienced an in-flight upset. When the airplane was in cruise at flight level 310, the flightcrew noted that the inertial navigation system “FAIL” lights had illuminated. When the flightcrew cross-checked the instrument panel, they determined that the airplane was in a steep right-wing-down banking angle. The flight lost nearly 10,000 feet of altitude and the airplane approached supersonic speeds before the pilots could complete a recovery. The airplane eventually made a successful landing, and there were no injuries.
Investigation of the incident revealed, among other things, that a failure in the autopilot system could cause an airplane to roll slowly into a banking attitude. The roll rate induced from such a failure of the autopilot system may be barely perceptible to the flightcrew; it also may be difficult to detect without external visual attitude references or continuous close monitoring of the flight attitude instruments.
The NTSB has advised the FAA of its concern that some autopilot failures can result in changes in attitude at rates that may be imperceptible to the flightcrew, and thus remain undetected until the airplane reaches significant attitude deviations.
In 1994, the FAA launched a study to evaluate all flightcrew/flight deck automation interfaces of current generation transport category airplanes. The FAA chartered a Human Factors Team to conduct the study. Team members included experts from the FAA, the European Joint Airworthiness Authorities (JAA), and academia. The objective of the study was to look beyond the label of “flightcrew error,” and examine the contributing factors from the perspective of design; flightcrew training and qualifications; operations; and regulatory processes. The FAA also tasked the team to develop recommendations to address any problems identified.
With regard to autopilot issues, the Team identified several specific problematic issues, including:
• Pilot/autopilot interactions that create hazardous out-of-trim conditions;
• Autopilots that can produce hazardous speed conditions and may attempt maneuvers that would not normally be expected by a pilot; and
• Insufficient wording in the Airplane Flight Manual regarding the capabilities and limitations of the autopilot.
The FAA has acknowledged the autopilot issues raised by both the NTSB and the Human Factors Team, and has taken steps to address them. For example, the FAA has tasked the Aviation Regulation Advisory Committee (ARAC) to review and propose harmonized revisions to the following documents:
•
•
•
The work of ARAC currently is in progress.
In general, the FAA has traditionally certified automatic pilot systems on transport category airplanes in accordance with § 25.1329 on the basis that:
• The systems are conveniences to reduce flightcrew workload, and
• The systems do not relieve the flightcrew of any responsibility for assuring proper flight path management.
As a result, the autopilot evaluation criteria contained in AC 25.1329-1A, are chiefly concerned with the effects of autopilot failures on the airplane. The most recent revision to AC 25-7A, “Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,” also defines some evaluation criteria for determining whether the autopilot is performing its intended function of relieving the flightcrew of some of their control functions.
Accordingly, even when the flightcrew is not manually performing a specific flight path control function, the FAA expects the flightcrew to be “aware” when this function is not being performed safely, and to take appropriate and timely corrective action. The installation certification guidelines presented in AC 25.1329-1A, for example, state “* * * at least one pilot [should] monitor the behavior of the airplane and associated autopilot performance at all times.”
In certifying all autopilot systems to date, the FAA has accepted the premise that the capability for this flightcrew “awareness” comes from either:
• Adherence to operational training and/or procedures;
• A dedicated failure detection and annunciation feature on the flight deck; or
• Inherent aircraft operational cues (for example, a perceived change of aircraft attitude or change of engine noise).
As shown by recent relevant accident and incident cases, one cannot assume that the flightcrew will reliably detect and accommodate adverse autopilot behavior solely from inherent operational cues; other cues are needed.
Inherent operational cues can be insufficient because:
1. During normal autopilot operations, the flightcrew may not be able to detect operational cues related to significant changes in aerodynamic characteristics, such as drag and controllability, as effectively as during manual operation. One specific example of this is the change of control response or “feel” during low speed operations as ice accumulates on the airplane surfaces, gradually and imperceptibly reducing control authority. This condition can progress, intangible to the flightcrew, until the autopilot exhausts its control authority and automatically disengages. The flightcrew then is suddenly required to take manual control of the airplane, which (1) is not in proper trim, (2) is at a low margin-to-stall, and (3) has significantly degraded aerodynamic performance.
2. As pointed out by the NTSB, and recognized by the FAA, some autopilot failures can result in changes in attitude at rates that may be imperceptible to the flightcrew, and thus remain undetected until the airplane reaches significant attitude deviations.
Neither the certification standards nor the relevant advisory material currently contain actions or detailed guidance to address these types of situations. Because of this, the FAA has found it necessary and appropriate to provide additional guidelines for the provision of design features needed to enable flightcrew control and awareness of the unintended changes of speed and attitude during the operation of the autopilot system.
On, August 30, 1999, the FAA issued a proposed general statement of policy (64 FR 49043, September 9, 1999) concerning how the FAA would evaluate various items when certifying automatic pilot installations in transport category airplanes. (A correction was later published on September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50872).) This information, presented in the form of a general statement of policy, was intended to clarify, detail, and formally state items that the FAA:
• Assumes about the flightcrew's awareness capability;
• Employs or accepts on an on-going basis in making compliance findings relative to autopilot systems; and
• Considers frequently in developing a means to prevent recurrences of the accident/incident situations described previously, or to enable an appropriate and timely response to other situations that could result in similar circumstances.
The FAA received comments on the proposed policy statement from five commenters. Many of the comments submitted were editorial in nature and did not take issue with the content of the policy itself. We have incorporated most of these editorial changes into the final policy statement where they made the information clearer or corrected typographical errors.
The remainder of the comments were substantive in nature and addressed the correctness, merit, or appropriateness of the policy's technical details. These are discussed below, divided by the issues addressed and by comments related to specific paragraphs of the proposed policy statement.
One commenter states that the proposed policy statement differs significantly from existing regulatory and advisory material, and constitutes “rulemaking by policy.” This commenter further states that industry would rather see a statement of the issue and defer the exact mechanism to address that issue to the applicant. The commenter suggests that any new direction should be harmonized with the activities of ARAC.
The FAA does not agree with the commenter. With regard to this policy statement being “rulemaking by policy,” all features discussed in the policy statement are covered by the current 14 CFR 25.1309 (especially § 25.1309(c)) and § 25.1329, as well as several other regulations. This policy statement (and the planned revisions to the associated advisory circulars) only defines one possible implementation that would be acceptable to the regulatory authorities when determining compliance with existing regulations. Neither this policy statement nor any current or future advisory circulars define regulations.
The FAA does intend to incorporate all the material described in the policy statement in the upcoming revision of AC 25.1329-1A. Likewise, the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) also plan to incorporate this material into their parallel Advisory Circular Joint (ACJ) 25.1329.
One commenter states that current autopilot systems have been shown, by operational experience, to be safe. This commenter asserts that the new policy would change the role of the flightcrew, who are currently required to monitor the performance of an engaged autopilot at all times. It could make them more dependent on automatic functions and, thereby, less likely to be constantly monitoring the state of the aircraft.
The FAA does not agree with this commenter. Crew alerting features are intended to increase pilot awareness, not replace or reduce the requirement for crew vigilance and professional aviation skills. Current crew alerting features—such as Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System, Terrain Awareness and Warning System, Engine Fail Indications, or any other alert on modern transport category aircraft—enhance safety. The autopilot alert described in the policy statement is no different in this respect.
While the autopilot systems currently in service are safe, there have been several serious incidents and accidents of transport category aircraft over the last 10 years that have involved the automatic disconnection of an engaged autopilot when the aircraft was in a mis-trimmed configuration or an unusual attitude. The new features described in the policy statement are in direct response those incidents and accidents.
The FAA does not intend for this policy to alter the roles and responsibilities of the flightcrew as they are currently defined. The autopilot alerts discussed are intended as an added safeguard to a vigilant flightcrew. History has shown that pilots sometimes
Several commenters suggest that the policy statement should include language specifying that rules or advisory material promulgated as a result of the parallel work of ARAC (and the Flight Guidance Systems Harmonization Working Group) would supersede this or any existing policy statement if there is a conflict between the two.
The FAA does not consider the suggested language necessary. We plan to “cancel” this policy statement when the next revision of AC 25.1329-1A is published. As indicated previously, this policy statement is interim guidance until the new revision of AC 25.1329-1A is issued. Therefore, there is no need for language in the policy statement that would give priority to any specific document.
One commenter requests the FAA to clarify the definition of “hazardous flight path deviations,” which appeared as paragraph 2.c. in the proposed policy statement. The commenter states that the term “hazardous” is used in multiple ways and this may create confusion.
The FAA finds it appropriate to delete this definition from the final policy statement to avoid confusion. Additionally, the term is not used anywhere else in the policy statement, so its appearance under the heading “Definitions” is not necessary.
Several commenters suggest various changes to proposed paragraph 4. to make it clearer and more consistent with guidance that is already in or planned for inclusion in FAA and JAA advisory material. For example, one commenter suggests that paragraph 4.b. of the proposal be revised to make clear that the autopilot should not be allowed to command unsafe maneuvers, regardless of the ease of recovery. The commenter also suggests that the restrictions on out-of-trim conditions in the event of a manual autopilot disconnect, which were listed in proposed paragraph 4.d., should be added to paragraph 4.c.'s description of the automatic disconnect case. Additionally, the commenter suggests that examples of maneuvers that might be considered “dangerous” be included.
Other commenters state that the text of proposed paragraph 4.d. allows no “credit” for a mis-trim warning and, thus, would require autopilots to have a critical trim function, which most autopilots do not support. Other commenters suggest use of the term “ultimate loads” instead of “limit loads” in proposed paragraph 4.d., because catastrophic failure conditions are normally associated with “ultimate loads,” not “limit loads.” These commenters also suggest using the term “unsafe maneuver” instead of “dangerous maneuver” (as used in proposed paragraph 4.f.), because “dangerous” cannot be explicitly defined.
The FAA has considered these suggestions and has rewritten paragraph 4 with the following specific changes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
(Note that previous references to “dangerous” maneuvers and to “limit loads” have been deleted from the final text.)
The wording in the final policy statement reflects the text that will appear in the upcoming revision of AC 25.1329-1A.
Several commenters consider that the autopilot alert defined in paragraph 5.e. of the policy statement constitutes a significant design challenge. First, these commenters point out that paragraphs 5.e.(1) and 5.e.(2) require “the autopilot to remain engaged for some time period after a failure has been detected by a monitor (assuming that a monitor exists to detect all failure conditions).” To these commenters, this appears contrary to safety in almost all failure conditions. Many failure conditions require an immediate automatic disconnection of the autopilot in order to minimize the adverse effects of the failure. If autopilot engagement is maintained for some time after the failure, the undesirable effects of the failure will persist and, consequently, increase the severity of the failure condition.
Second, these commenters point to paragraph 5.e.(4), which lists the conditions for which the flightcrew alert, and possibly automatic disengagement of the autopilot, should be considered. The commenters state that some of the warning conditions listed in that paragraph are within the normal operating flight envelope, and that it would be difficult to provide useful alerts without producing frequent nuisance alarms.
The commenters request clarification on the intent of paragraph 5.e. and the conditions that should or should not result in an automatic disengagement.
The FAA agrees that clarification is necessary. We recognize that any alert must be carefully designed so it does not cause a nuisance alert and, in doing so, precipitate unnecessary crew actions. This policy statement calls for a more advanced (earlier) autopilot alert to increase the flightcrew's awareness of a potentially dangerous condition that the flightcrew might not otherwise detect in a timely manner.
Examples of situations that could warrant advance crew notification are listed in paragraph 5.e.(4) of the policy statement. It is not required that the crew be alerted prior to any automatic disconnect of an engaged autopilot. All failure conditions that require an immediate automatic disconnect, and whose onset cannot be detected prior to the actual failure condition, must still cause an immediate automatic disconnect. No preceding alert is required. We have clarified the wording of the final policy statement in this regard.
Several commenters consider the detailed list of design specifications contained in paragraph 7 of the proposed policy statement inappropriate for inclusion in an Airplane Flight Manual. One of these commenters states that it is more appropriate for this information to be included in Operations Manuals and training material. Another commenter states that the AFM operating procedures should be limited to only a general description of the autopilot capability. The commenters state that the literal interpretation of what is asked for in this section would require reproduction of extensive logical expressions that are implemented in either hardware or software. These commenters question the usefulness of this information for the flightcrew in actual flight operations.
The FAA agrees somewhat with the commenters. We have revised paragraph 7 in the final policy statement to provide guidance on material that should be provided in the AFM to ensure that the appropriate information related to operation of the flight guidance system is translated into air carrier operations. This information is similar to guidance that will be provided in the upcoming revision to AC 25.1329-1A.
Much of the information presented in this final policy statement has been developed from service experience garnered and flightcrew conventions practiced throughout the years since the guidance contained in AC 25.1329-1A was published in 1968. The FAA has assembled this information and is presenting it in this general statement of policy as a set of “guidelines” that are appropriate for use with § 25.1329 for autopilot certification.
Additionally, as discussed previously, actions currently are underway to revise the applicable airworthiness standards (§ 25.1329) and associated advisory material (AC 25.1329-1A) to more fully address the autopilot system and other flight deck issues. Until then, the guidance provided in this general statement of policy would serve as a reference to assist in the certification of new autopilot systems.
The general policy stated in this document is not intended to establish a binding norm; it does not constitute a new regulation and the FAA would not apply or rely upon it as a regulation. The FAA Aircraft Certification Offices (ACO) that certify transport category airplanes and/or the automatic pilot systems installed on them should generally attempt to follow this policy, when appropriate. However, in determining compliance with certification standards, each ACO has the discretion not to apply these guidelines where it determines that they are inappropriate. The ACO should coordinate with the Transport Airplane Directorate, for purposes of standardization, whenever the ACO determines that some deviation from this policy is appropriate. Applicants should expect that the certificating officials would consider this information when making findings of compliance relevant to new certificate actions.
Applicants may consider the material contained in this policy statement as supplemental to that currently contained in AC 25.1329-1A when developing a means of compliance with the relevant certification standards.
As with all advisory material, this statement of policy identifies one means, but not the only means, of compliance.
For the convenience of the reader, we have formatted this general statement of policy in outline form.
1.a. Operational experience has shown that flightcrews may not have adequate awareness of potentially hazardous aircraft states or adequate capability to anticipate sudden, unexpected actions of the autopilot. In this regard, the autopilot design should take into consideration conditions that could create hazardous deviations in the flight path, specifically (ref: 14 CFR 25.1329(f), “Automatic pilot system”):
• Conditions that could make continued autopilot operation unsafe; or
• Conditions that could cause the manual control of an upset following autopilot disengagement to require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.
Note that automatic disengagement may not be the safest autopilot response for all cases, particularly with trim conditions that could lead to a significant upset.
1.b. If automatic functions are provided that may be used with the autopilot (e.g., automatic thrust control or yaw damper), and use of the autopilot is permitted with any of these functions inoperative, then the design of the autopilot should comply with the provisions of this general policy statement and Advisory Circular 25.1329-1A, “Automatic Pilot Systems Approval” with these functions operative and inoperative.
1.c. The autopilot should perform its intended function in all configurations in which it may be used throughout all appropriate maneuvers and environmental conditions, including turbulence and icing, unless an appropriate operating limitation or statement is included in the Airplane Flight Manual.
2.a. The term
2.b. The term
2.c. The term
2.d. The term
2.e. The term
3.a. The autopilot system design should not possess characteristics, in normal operation or when failed, that would degrade safety or lead to an unsafe condition, unless such failures can be limited by design or the effects can be limited and mitigated by the pilot response within a reasonable time. The allowable probability of any failure should be based on its safety effects in accordance with the requirements of § 25.1309.
3.b. Adequate precautions should be taken in the design process, and adequate procedures should be specified in the maintenance manual, to prevent the incorrect installation, connection, or adjustment of parts of the autopilot if such errors would create a hazard to the airplane (e.g., torque clutches or limit switches with a range of adjustment such that maladjustment could be hazardous).
3.c. The autopilot should be designed and installed so that the tolerances demonstrated during certification tests can be maintained in service.
4.a. The autopilot should not cause nuisance oscillations, undue control activity, or sudden large attitude changes, especially when configuration or power changes are taking place. All maneuvers should be accomplished smoothly, accurately, and in a manner similar to normal pilot control.
4.b. The autopilot should provide guidance or control, as appropriate, for the intended function of the active mode(s) in a safe and predictable manner within the normal flight envelope.
4.c. In non-maneuvering flight, the engagement of the autopilot should be free of perceptible transient flight control movement. Under dynamic conditions, including maneuvering flight, some minimal flight control transients may be acceptable if they do not cause significant operational difficulty for the flightcrew or unsafe conditions for the occupants.
4.d. Under normal conditions, automatic or manual disengagement of the autopilot should be free of significant transients or out of trim forces that are not consistent with the maneuvers being conducted by the airplane at the time of disengagement. If multiple autopilots are engaged, any disengagement of an individual autopilot should be free of significant transients and should not adversely affect the operation of the remaining autopilot.
4.e. In other than normal conditions, disengagement of the autopilot may result in a significant transient. The flightcrew should be able to respond to a significant transient without:
• Exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength;
• Forces greater than those given in § 25.143 (c); and
• Accelerations or attitudes in the airplane that might result in a hazard to secured or non-secured occupants.
5.a. Unless the probability of failure of the quick-disconnect button on the control wheel, or equivalent, is shown to be extremely improbable, an alternative means of disengagement, that is readily accessible in flight, should be provided.
5.b. The controls, displays, and alerts should be designed to minimize crew errors.
5.c. Mode, state, status, and malfunction indications should be presented in a manner compatible with the procedures and assigned tasks of the flightcrew. The indications should be grouped in a logical and consistent manner and be visible from each pilot's station under all expected lighting conditions.
5.d.
5.d.(1) Disengagement of the autopilot, whether intended by the pilot or not, should trigger both an aural alert and visual warning during any phase of flight, since immediate pilot action is required.
5.d.(2) The aural alert associated with the autopilot disconnect should be unique and distinct. The aural alert should be cancelable by the pilot pushing the quick-disconnect button on the control wheel or stick. The aural alert should sound until cancelled by the pilot, except that a minimum cycle should sound. If the autopilot is disengaged by means of the quick-disconnect button, then an additional push of this button should be required to cancel the aural alert.
5.e. An aural alert and a visual caution should be provided to the flightcrew for conditions that:
• Could make continued autopilot operation unsafe, or
• Could cause the manual control of an upset following autopilot disengagement to require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.
5.e.(1) The flightcrew alert should be generated before the conditions lead to a situation that could require exceptional piloting skill or alertness, such as an automatic disconnect while the airplane is in an unusual attitude, significantly out of trim, or near stall warning.
5.e.(2) Whenever possible, the alert should provide the flightcrew enough time to be prepared to place their hands on the controls and to take appropriate corrective action (e.g., change thrust, set trim, disconnect autopilot).
5.e.(3) The thresholds for triggering the flightcrew alert should be designed carefully, with consideration for undue distraction (e.g., nuisance alerts) and potential “rippling” of multiple alerts triggered by the same or related conditions, which could mask or override the sounding of this alert.
5.e.(4) Conditions that should be considered for a flightcrew alert and possibly automatic disengagement include, but are not limited to:
• Limits of autopilot control authority;
• Out-of-trim;
• Excessive trim rates;
• Airspeeds greater than those intended for autopilot operations;
• Low speeds (e.g., less than 1.2 V
• Bank and pitch angles beyond those intended for autopilot operation.
5.e.(5) Detected failure conditions that require an immediate autopilot disconnect, such as a fault within the autopilot processing unit or a failed autopilot servo, do not require an alert to be displayed prior to automatic disconnection. Only those conditions that are sustained and/or build up over time such that an advance warning could be given to the flightcrew prior to automatic autopilot disengagement (e.g., the autopilot close to its maximum authority in the roll axis for a specific period of time), or conditions that would not by themselves cause an automatic autopilot disengagement, are candidates for an alert.
5.f. The means provided to comply with § 25.1329(h) (mode indications when coupled with airborne navigation equipment) should also give an appropriate indication when:
5.f.(1) The autopilot cannot engage the mode selected by the flightcrew; and
5.f.(2) The system automatically makes a mode change or mode disengagement that is considered operationally significant and, perhaps, unexpected. (For example, a change from altitude capture to altitude hold is significant, but expected; while a change from vertical path mode to vertical speed mode is both operationally significant and unexpected.)
5.g. If the autopilot has envelope limiting or protection capability, the system should provide an alert to indicate to the pilots when envelope limiting or protection is invoked and the condition is sustained and/or flightcrew action is necessary.
If a flight director is available and active, the autopilot should engage in the same mode as the flight director and provide consistent flight path guidance.
The following paragraphs provide guidance on material to be provided in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to ensure that the appropriate information related to flight guidance system (FGS) operation is translated into air carrier operations. For additional guidance, note that FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1581-1 (“Airplane Flight Manual,” dated July 14 1997) addresses requirements of the AFM for transport category aircraft and distinguishes between those aircraft that are used in air carrier operations and those not in air carrier service. The terminology used in the AFM should be consistent with the intended operational use. Appropriate AFM information related to
• AC 120-28D, “Criteria for Approval of Category III Weather Minima for Takeoff, Landing, and Rollout,” and
• AC 120-29A, “Criteria for Approving Category 1 and Category II Landing Minima for FAR 121 Operators.”
7.a.
• Minimum engagement altitude(s) or height(s), if and when necessary.
If Minimum Engagement Altitude(s) or height(s) are not specified, then “maximum displacement deviation” information from a pertinent takeoff flight path and approach profile should be provided in the AFM Normal Procedures section, or in the associated Flight Crew Operation Manual (FCOM).
• Mandatory disengagement requirements, if necessary.
• Configuration/envelope restrictions, if and as applicable.
7.b.
7.c.
7.c.(1)
7.c.(2)
7.c.(3)
As discussed previously, the FAA intends to update 14 CFR 25.1329 and associated Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1329-1A to more fully address the autopilot issues found in this general statement of policy and others. Until then, this general statement of policy serves as a reference to supplement § 25.1329, and for use in the certification of new autopilot systems. Please inform the appropriate flight controls and systems designated engineering representatives (DER) of this proposed general statement of policy.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation.
Notice.
The FAA announces that it is reviewing a proposed Noise Compatibility Program submitted by the Williams Gateway Airport Authority for the Williams Gateway Airport, Mesa, Arizona under the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 150. This program was submitted subsequent to a determination by the FAA that associated Noise Exposure Maps submitted under 14 CFR part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements effective May 2, 2000. The proposed Noise Compatibility Program will be approved or disapproved on or before August 18, 2001.
The effective date of the start of the FAA's review of the Noise Compatibility Program is February 20, 2001. The public comment period ends April 20, 2001.
Brian Armstrong, Airport Planner, Airports Division, AWP611.1, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA, 90009-2007; Street Address: 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, CA, 290261; Telephone Number (310) 725-3614. Comments on the proposed Noise Compatibility Program should also be submitted to the above office.
This notice announces that the FAA is reviewing a proposed Noise Compatibility Program for Williams Gateway Airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before August 18, 2001. This notice also announces the availability of this program for public review and comment.
An airport operator who has submitted Noise Exposure Maps that are found by the FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a Noise Compatibility Program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes for the reduction of existing noncompatible uses and for the prevention of the introduction of additional noncompatible uses.
The FAA has formally received the Noise Compatibility Program for Williams Gateway Airport, effective on February 20, 2001. It is requested that the FAA review this material and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a Noise Compatibility Program under Section 104(b) of the Act. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for the submittal of Noise Compatibility Programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before August 18, 2001.
The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR part 150, Section 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the Noise Exposure Maps, the FAA's evaluation of the maps, and the proposed Noise Compatibility Program are available for examination at the following locations:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Request to Release Airport Property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at Fort Worth Meacham International Airport under the provisions of section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2001.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas Airports Development Office, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Ms. Lisa Pyles, Aviation Director, City of Fort Worth at the following address: Fort Worth Meacham International Airport, Aviation Department, 4201 North Main Street, Suite 200, Fort Worth, Texas 76106-2749.
Mr. Mike Nicely, Federal Aviation Administration, TEXAS Airports Development Office, ASW-650, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650.
The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Fort Worth Meacham International Airport under the provisions of the AIR-21.
On February 12, 2001, the FAA determined that the request to release property at Fort Worth Meacham International Airport submitted by the city of Fort Worth met the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 155. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than April 12, 2001.
The following is a brief overview of the request: The city of Fort Worth requests the release of 3.25 acres of airport property. The release of property will allow for the construction of a new intersection of North Main Street and the extension of Meacham Boulevard. The fair market value of the land to be released is estimated to provide $250,000 to Aviation Fund for airfield improvement projects.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Fort Worth Meacham International Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of establishment of the General Aviation Certification and Operations Issues, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).
Notice is given of the decision to combine activities of General Aviation and Business Airplanes with General Aviation Operations. The activities are retitled General Aviation Certification and Operations. This notice informs the public of the decision to consolidate these ARAC activities.
Mike Dahl, Federal Aviation Administration, Central Region Headquarters, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone: (816) 329-4110, FAx (816) 329-4090, or e-mail,
On January 14, 1991, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced the establishment of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (56 FR 2190, January 22, 1991). The committee held its first meeting at Baltimore, MD, on May 23, 1991 (56 FR 20492, May 3, 1991). At that meeting the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory committee accepted General Aviation and Business Airplanes (GABA) as an issue on which it would provide advice and recommendations to the FAA regarding the airworthiness standards for small general aviation and business airplanes. Later that year, the FAA published notice of ARAC's acceptance of activities concerning General Aviation Operations (56 FR 199; October 15, 1991). Under this issue, ARAC would provide advice and recommendations to the FAA on activities concerning operation of general aviation aircraft. The FAA does not anticipate a change in the range of activities as a result of the consolidation of these issues. The decision to combine the two issues should result in more efficient use of resources and ensure that decisions concerning certification and operation of small airplanes are consistently applied. General Aviation Certification and Operations will continue to address those issues, as well as FAA/JAA harmonization issues.
The leadership and operating procedures for General Aviation Certification and Operations will be similar to the current structure, except there will be Co-Assistant Executive Directors with respective alternates working within respective areas of expertise.
Recommendations concerning General Aviation Certification and Operations may include reports, proposed rules, and guidance and advisory materials and should be harmonized to the maximum extent practicable. The ARAC may choose to establish working groups to provide technical support in carrying out the tasks assigned.
The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee on General Aviation Certification and Operations is composed of representatives from organizations who have interest in and can provide the technical expertise needed to develop recommendations on tasks assigned by the FAA. ARAC Members who previously expressed interest in and support activities concerning General Aviation and Business Airplanes or General Aviation Operations and any other members who are now interested in supporting General Aviation Certification and Operations are asked to validate your interest by contacting the person listed under the
Organizations chosen to support General Aviation Certification and Operations are expected to provide a primary representative who will represent that segment of the aviation industry/community and actively participate in activities associated with this issue. Member organizations are expected to support the activities of this issue area to ensure assigned deadlines are met.
The Secretary of Transportation has determined that the formation and use of ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
Meetings of ARAC on General Aviation Certification and Operations will be open to the public. The FAA will make a public announcement of each ARAC meeting on this issue.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Notice of establishment of the Occupant Safety Issues, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).
Notice is given that the issue of Emergency Evacuation has been changed to Occupant Safety to reflect a broader range of rulemaking activity that may be considered by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. This notice informs the public of the change in scope for this ARAC activity.
John McGraw, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region Headquarters, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055, (425) 227-2111, FAX (425) 227-1320, or E-Mail,
On January 14, 1991, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced the establishment of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (56 FR 2190, January 22, 1991). The committee held its first meeting at Baltimore, MD, on May 23, 1991 (56 FR 20492, May 3, 1991). At that meeting the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee accepted Emergency Evacuation as an issue on which it would provide advice and recommendations to the FAA. With respect to this issue, the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee would provide advice and recommendations on enhancing the ability of passengers to quickly and safety evacuate an aircraft in an emergency.
The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee has provided several recommendations on issues involving Emergency Evacuation, and the FAA has determined it appropriate to now expand activities of this issue to include tasks associated with occupant safety and protection. As such, the name has been changed to reflect this broader scope. The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee on Occupant Safety will provide advice and recommendations to the FAA and Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) on a range of rulemaking activities concerning occupant safety and protection and emergency evacuation. Recommendations should consider harmonizing Federal Aviation Regulations and guidance material with Joint Aviation Requirements and advisory circulars joint.
The leadership and operating procedures for Occupant Safety will be similar to that which supported activities concerning Emergency Evacuation and consistent with the terms of the ARAC charter.
Recommendations concerning Occupant Safety may include reports, proposed rules, and guidance and advisory materials and should be harmonized to the maximum extent practicable. The ARAC may choose to establish working groups to provide technical support in carrying out the tasks assigned.
The ARAC Occupant Safety issues area is composed of representatives from organizations who have interest in an can provide the technical expertise needed to develop recommendations on tasks assigned by the FAA. ARAC members who previously expressed interest in an support activities concerning Emergency Evacuation and members who are now interested in supporting Occupant Safety are asked to validate your interest by contacting the person listed under the caption
Organizations chosen to support Occupant Safety are expected to provide a primary representative who will represent that segment of the aviation industry/community and actively participate in activities associated with this issue. Member organizations are expected to support the actions of this issue area to ensure that deadlines are met.
The Secretary of transportation has determined that the formation and use of ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
Meetings of ARAC on Occupant Safety Issues will be open to the public. The FAA will make a public announcement of each meeting of this issue area.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions of prior petitions; correction.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR, dispositions of certain petitions previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before March 15, 2001.
Send comments on any petition to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2000-XXXX at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You must also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You must review the public docket containing the petition, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 pm., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Dockets Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Forest Rawls (202) 267-8033, or Vanessa Wilkins (202) 267-8029, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR §§ 11.85 and 11.91.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for the Future Flight Data Collection Committee meeting to be held March 29, 2001, starting at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
The agenda will include: (1) Welcome and Introductory Remarks; (2) Review Meeting Agenda; (3) Review Previous Meeting Minutes; (4) Receive report on the deliberations of Working Group 1 (Data Needs); (5) Receive report on the deliberations of Working Group 2 (Technology); (6) Receive report on the deliberations of Working Group 3 (Data Use and Protection); (7) Discuss timeline for deliverables from the Working Groups; (8) Review progress on the Final Report; (9) Receive Presentations; (10) Other Business; (11) Establish Agenda for Next Meeting; (12) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (13) Closing.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements, obtain information or pre-register for the committee should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax). Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for RTCA Government/Industry Certification Steering Committee meeting to be held March 23, 2000, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, in the Bessie Coleman Conference Center, Room 2AB.
The agenda will include: (1) Welcome and Introductory Remarks; (2) Review Previous Meeting Minutes; (3) Review Meeting Agenda; (4) Certification Select Committee Progress Report; (5) Working Group Report on Implementation of Task Force 4 Recommendations; (6) Update and Demonstration of FAA Web Site Redesign; (7) Other Business; (8) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (9) Closing.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the co-chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a fact-finding informal airspace meeting to solicit information from airspace users, and others, concerning proposals to revise the Class C airspace area at John Wayne Airport/Orange County, CA. The purpose of this meeting is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present views, recommendations, and comments on this proposal. All comments received during the meeting will be considered prior to any revision or issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.
Debra Trindle, Air Traffic Division, AWP-520, FAA, Western-Pacific Regional Office, telephone (310) 725-6613.
(a) This meeting will be informal in nature and will be conducted by one or more representatives of the FAA Western-Pacific Region. A representative from the FAA will present a briefing on the proposed airspace classification changes. Each participant will be given an opportunity to deliver comments or make a presentation. Only comments concerning the proposed Class C airspace area revision will be accepted.
(b) The meeting will be open to all persons on a space-available basis. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend and participate.
(c) Any person wishing to make a presentation to the FAA panel will be asked to sign in and estimate the amount of time needed for such presentation. This will permit the panel to allocate an appropriate amount of time for each presenter.
(d) The meeting will not be adjourned until everyone on the list has had an opportunity to address the panel.
(e) Position papers or other handout material relating to the substance of the meeting will be accepted. Participants wishing to submit handout material should present three copies to the presiding officer. There should be additional copies of each handout available for other attendees.
(f) The meetings will not be formally recorded. However, a summary of the comments made at the meeting will be filed in the docket.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In January 2001, there were 10 applications approved. This notice also includes information on one application, approved in December 2000, inadvertently left off the December 2000 notice. Additionally, 40 approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed.
The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). This notice is published pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29.
G. Thomas Wade, Southwest Region Airports Division, (817) 222-5613.
Daniel Gaetan, Atlanta Airports District Office, (404) 305-7146.
Suzanne Lee-Pang, Seattle Airports District Office, (425) 227-2654.
Chris Schaffer, Denver Airports District Office, (303) 342-1258.
Sandra E. DePottey, Minneapolis Airports District Office, (612) 713-4363.
Richard M. Owen, Orlando Airports District Office, (407) 812-6331, extension 19.
Richard M. Owen, Orlando Airports District Office, (407) 812-6331, extension 19.
Philip Brito, New York Airports District Office, (516) 227-3800.
Chris Schaffer, Denver Airports District Office, (303) 342-1258.
G. Thomas Wade, Southwest Region Airports Division, (817) 222-5613.
Larry Clark, Beckley Airports Field Office, (304) 252-6216.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Intent To Rule on Application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Easterwood Field under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before April 2, 2001.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate copies to the FAA at the following address: Mr. G. Thomas Wade, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Planning and Programming Branch, ASW-611, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0610.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to John H. Happ, Director of Aviation, Easterwood Field at the following address: Mr. John H. Happ, Director of Aviation, 1 McKenzie Terminal Blvd., Suite 112, Easterwood Field, College Station, TX 77843-1583.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of the written comments previously provided to the Airport under Section 158.23 of Part 158.
Mr. G. Thomas Wade, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Planning and Programming Branch, ASW-611, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0610, (817) 222-5613.
The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Easterwood Field under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On February 13, 2001, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the Airport was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than May 22, 2001.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Brief description of proposed project(s):
Proposed class or classes of air carriers to be exempted from collecting PFC's: None.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at Easterwood Field, College Station, Texas.
Accuride Corporation of Evansville, Indiana, a major manufacturer of truck rims and wheels, has determined that approximately 3,700 20 × 7.5 FL side rings produced by Accuride de Mexico (AdM), Accuride's wholly-owned subsidiary, at its Monterrey, Mexico plant and Industria Automotriz S.A. de C.V. (IaSa), a Mexican corporation and Accuride's Mexican joint venture partner contain a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 120, “Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.”
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Accuride has petitioned for a determination that this condition is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.”
This notice of receipt of an application is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the application.
The noncompliance relates to the mis-stamping of the marking of the rings. The stamped symbol which indicates the size and type of the ring, in this case was inadvertently stamped as “R7.5 × 20 FL” instead of “20 × 7.5 FL.” Accuride states “All other stampings and markings required by FMVSS 120 and Accuride, including the part number and load rating, are correctly identified on each of the components in question. This ring marking is for information only and there is no safety-related issue potentially arising from the exclusion of these symbols on the rings.” A total of approximately 896 rings were produced by AdM from January 3, 2000 and February 18, 2000 and approximately 2,804 rings were produced by IaSa and sold by Accuride prior to January 3, 2000.
Accuride believes that there is no safety-related issue with respect to this equipment.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on the application described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested that two copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the
Mazda Motor Corporation has determined that all Mazda MPV minivans produced beginning with the 1989 model year through 2001 models manufactured prior to October 6, 2000, and all 1979 through 1993 Mazda B-Series pickup trucks do not meet the labeling requirements of paragraph 5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120 “Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.” This includes approximately 1,449,000 vehicles.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Mazda has petitioned for a determination that this condition is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.”
This notice of receipt of an application is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the application.
The noncompliance with paragraph 5.3 of FMVSS 120 relates to labeling. The vehicles are all equipped with both certification labels required by 49 CFR Part 567 and tire information labels as specified in paragraph 5.3(b) of FMVSS 120. However the tire information labels do not include the appropriate gross vehicle weight rate (GVWR) and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) as required.
Mazda supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance by stating that in all cases, the Part 567 certification labels that include the GVWR and GAWR information are located on the B-pillar and the tire information is located on the door, both of which are visible when the door is open. The information is also included in the owner's manual for all the subject vehicles beginning with the 1988 model year. Mazda believes that this noncompliance presents no risk to motor vehicle safety and therefore seeks exemption from the notification and remedy requirements.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments on the application described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested that two copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before April 2, 2001.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before April 2, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8819, Dollar Election Under Section 985.
Written comments should be received on or before May 1, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8703, Annual Certification of a Residential Rental Project.
Written comments should be received on or before May 1, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5307, Application for Determination for Adopters of Master or Prototype, Regional Prototype or Volume Submitter Plans.
Written comments should be received on or before May 1, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Title: Application for Determination for Adopters of Master or Prototype, Regional Prototype or Volume Submitter Plans.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5471 (and related schedules), Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect To Certain Foreign Corporations.
Written comments should be received on or before May 1, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Title: Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect To Certain Foreign Corporations.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1128, Application To Adopt, Change, or Retain a Tax Year.
Written comments should be received on or before May 1, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1120-ND, Return for Nuclear Decommissioning Funds and Certain Related Persons.
Written comments should be received on or before May 1, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Clifford Taffet, room 7266, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Brian Rooney, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-41, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Clifford Taffet at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 757-200 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate (STC) SA1727GL. This proposal would require deactivation of the air-to-ground telephone system approved by that STC. This action is necessary to prevent the inability of the flight crew to remove power from the telephone system when necessary. Inability to remove power from the telephone system during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-228-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-228-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
Wess Rouse, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ACE-117C, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone (847) 294-8113; fax (847) 294-7380.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-228-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-228-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 757-200 series airplanes modified by STC SA1727GL. The In-Flight Phone Corporation air-to-ground telephone system approved by this STC is connected to an electrical bus that cannot be deactivated without also removing power from airplane systems necessary for safe flight and landing. Also, there is no means, other than pulling circuit breakers, to allow the flight crew or cabin crew to remove power from the telephone system when necessary. Additionally, the flight crew and cabin crew emergency procedures have not been revised to advise the crew that they cannot remove power from the telephone system. This condition, if not corrected, could result in inability to remove power from the telephone system during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require deactivation of the air-to-ground telephone system approved by STC SA1727GL. Accomplishment of the actions specified in this proposed AD is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
The holder of the STC addressed by this proposed AD, In-Flight Phone Corporation, is no longer in business, and the FAA has developed the proposed actions.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
As stated above, the STC holder is no longer in business. Thus, the FAA is unable to determine how many airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
For an airplane subject to this AD, it would take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $35 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD is estimated to be $215 per affected airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent the inability of the flight crew to remove power from the telephone system when necessary, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, deactivate the In-Flight Phone Corporation air-to-ground telephone system approved by STC SA1727GL. Accomplish the deactivation in accordance with the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5) of this AD.
(1) Remove the circuit breakers listed in the following table:
(2) Remove wire between circuit breaker C340 and C334 bus connection in P70 Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment Panel.
(3) Remove wire between circuit breaker C340 and C1292 bus connection in P70 Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment Panel.
(4) Remove wire between circuit breaker CB9012 and C560 in P11-2 Overhead Cockpit panel.
(5) Cap and stow any remaining wires associated with the circuit breakers listed in the table above.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install an IFE system in accordance with STC SA1727GL, on any airplane.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Chicago ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Chicago ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-51 and DC-9-83 series airplanes modified by Supplemental Type Certificate SA8026NM. This proposal would require deactivation of the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system and removal of the system from the airplane. This action is necessary to prevent the inability of the flight crew to remove power from the IFE system when necessary. Inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-229-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-229-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Hollingsead International, Inc., 7416 Hollister Avenue, Goleta, California 93117. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
George Mabuni, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5341; fax (562) 627-5210.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-229-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-229-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-51 and DC-9-83 series airplanes modified by STC SA8026NM. While a means, other than pulling the circuit breakers, exists to remove power from the IFE system, the emergency procedures for the flight crew and cabin crew have not been revised to advise the crew that this means is available to remove power from the IFE system when necessary. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Hollingsead International Service Bulletin 2526-2332-001, dated July 19, 2000, which describes procedures for deactivation of the IFE system and removal of the system from the airplane. The procedures include removal of circuit breakers, stowage of associated wires, installation of plug buttons in circuit breaker holes, and removal of audio and video equipment. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. In addition, the operators of the affected airplanes have informed the FAA that the IFE systems installed in accordance with STC SA8026NM are no longer in use, and the operators are removing them.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
Operators also should note that the service bulletin specifies that the actions therein should be accomplished within 1 year after the date of issuance of the service bulletin. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, the availability of necessary parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of all of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
There are approximately 6 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 3 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $720, or $240 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
19 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent the inability of the flight crew to remove power from the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system when necessary; which, during a non-normal or emergency situation, could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, deactivate the IFE system and remove the system from the airplane, in accordance with Hollingsead International Service Bulletin 2526-2332-001, dated July 19, 2000.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install an IFE system in accordance with STC SA8026NM on any airplane.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate (STC) ST00054SE. This proposal would require removal of the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system installed by that STC. This action is necessary to prevent inability of the flight crew to remove power from the IFE system when necessary. Inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-231-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-231-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
Stephen S. Oshiro, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2793; fax (425) 227-1181.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-231-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-231-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 series airplanes modified by STC ST00054SE. The IFE
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require removal of the IFE system installed by STC ST00054SE. The action would be required to be accomplished by a method approved by the FAA. Subsequent to the FAA's review of STC ST00054SE, the STC holder informed the FAA that the IFE system installed by that STC has been removed from all affected airplanes. However, the FAA finds it necessary to propose this AD to ensure that all operators have indeed removed the IFE system and to prohibit future installation of the system in other eligible airplanes.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
As stated previously, the STC holder has informed the FAA that the subject IFE system has been removed from all affected airplanes. Therefore, the FAA expects that there will be no future cost impact on U.S. operators as a result of the proposed rule.
However, if an airplane subject to this AD is identified, the FAA estimates that removal of the IFE system would take approximately 12 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on an affected airplane is estimated to be $720 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on information that the subject IFE system has been removed from all affected airplanes. The cost impact figures discussed in most proposed AD actions are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements, and that no operator
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent the inability of flight crew to remove power from the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system when necessary; which, during a non-normal or emergency situation, could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the IFE system installed by STC ST00054SE by a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a removal method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an IFE system by STC ST00054SE on any airplane.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing 767-300 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate (STC) SA5765NM or SA5978NM. This proposal would require removal of the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system installed by those STC's. This action is necessary to prevent the inability of the flight crew to remove power from the IFE system when necessary. Inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-232-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-232-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
Stephen S. Oshiro, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2793; fax (425) 227-1181.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-232-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-232-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 767-300 series airplanes modified by STC SA5765NM or SA5978NM. The IFE system on these airplanes is connected to an electrical bus that cannot be deenergized without also removing power from airplane systems necessary for safe flight and landing. Additionally, the airplane manufacturer's published flight crew and cabin crew procedures do not advise the crewmembers on removing power from the IFE system. This condition, if not corrected, could result in inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require removal of the IFE system installed by STC SA5765NM or SA5978NM. The action would be required to be accomplished by a method approved by the FAA. Subsequent to the FAA's review of these STC's, the STC holder informed the FAA that the IFE systems installed by these STC's have been removed from all affected airplanes. However, the FAA finds it necessary to propose this AD to ensure that all operators have indeed removed the IFE systems and to prohibit future installation of the systems in other eligible airplanes.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
As stated previously, the holder of the STC's has informed the FAA that the subject IFE systems have been removed from all affected airplanes. Therefore, the FAA expects that there will be no future cost impact on U.S. operators as a result of the proposed rule.
However, if an airplane subject to this AD is identified, the FAA estimates that removal of the IFE system would take approximately 12 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on an affected airplane is estimated to be $720 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on information that the subject IFE systems have been removed from all affected airplanes. The cost impact figures discussed in most proposed AD actions are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if the proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent the inability of flight crew to remove power from the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system when necessary; which, during a non-normal or emergency situation, could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the IFE system installed by STC SA5765NM or STC SA5978NM by a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a removal method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install an IFE system in accordance with STC SA5765NM or SA5978NM on any airplane.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 767-200 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate SA5134NM. This proposal would require modification of the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system. This action is necessary to prevent the inability of the flight crew to remove power from the IFE system when necessary. Inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-235-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-235-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Flight Structures, Inc., 4407 172nd Street NE, Arlington, Washington 98223. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Elias Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1279; fax (425) 227-1181.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-235-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-235-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 767-200 series airplanes modified by STC SA5134NM. The IFE system on these airplanes is connected to an electrical bus that cannot be deactivated without also cutting power to airplane systems necessary for safe flight and landing. Also, there is no means available to the flight or cabin crew to remove power from the IFE system without pulling circuit breakers for the system, which are located in the electronics bay and not accessible to the crew. The airplane flight manual and cabin crew manual also do not provide instructions on how to remove power from the IFE system when responding to an emergency. This condition, if not corrected, could result in inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Flight Structures Service Bulletin 90FS062-23-01, Revision 2, dated September 21, 2000, which describes procedures for modification of the IFE system. This modification changes the source of electrical power for the IFE system from the main bus to a utility bus from which power can be removed manually or automatically without affecting systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
There are approximately 13 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that all 13 airplanes are of U.S. registry and would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $300 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $10,140, or $780 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in
To prevent the inability of flight crew to remove power from the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system when necessary, which, during a non-normal or emergency situation, could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the IFE system to change the source of electrical power for the IFE system from the main bus to a utility bus, in accordance with Flight Structures Service Bulletin 90FS062-23-01, Revision 2, dated September 21, 2000.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an IFE system in accordance with STC SA5134NM, on any airplane, unless it is modified in accordance with this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 737-300 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate ST00171SE. This proposal would require installation of a master switch to apply and remove power from the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system, and revision of the Airplane Flight Manual. This action is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the IFE system when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action. Inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-237-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-237-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Flight Structures, Inc., 4407 172nd Street NE, Arlington, Washington 98223. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Elias Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1279; fax (425) 227-1181.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-237-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-237-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 737-300 series airplanes modified by STC ST00171SE. The IFE system on these airplanes is connected to an electrical bus that cannot be deactivated without also cutting power to airplane systems necessary for safe flight and landing. Also, there is no means available to the flight or cabin crew to remove power from the IFE system without pulling circuit breakers for the system. The airplane flight manual and cabin crew manual also do not provide clear instructions on how to remove power from the IFE system when responding to an emergency. This condition, if not corrected, could result in inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Flight Structures Service Bulletin 94FS492-23-01, Revision 2, dated September 21, 2000, which describes procedures for installation of a master switch to apply and remove power from the IFE system. The service bulletin also includes a Temporary Revision to the Airplane Flight Manual, which advises the flight crew on using the master switch to remove power from the IFE system. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. The single airplane included in the applicability of this rule currently is operated by a non-U.S. operator under foreign registry; therefore, it is not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that the subject airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take approximately 24 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $1,500 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD would be $2,940 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the in-flight
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Flight Structures Service Bulletin 94FS492-23-01, Revision 2, dated September 21, 2000.
(1) Install a master switch to apply and remove power from the IFE system.
(2) Insert the Temporary Revision included in the service bulletin into the Emergency Procedures section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), to advise the flight crew on procedures for using the master switch installed in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this AD. Once the AFM has been formally revised to include the information in the Temporary Revision, the Temporary Revision may be removed from the AFM.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an IFE system in accordance with STC ST00171SE on any airplane, unless it is modified and the AFM is revised in accordance with this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 767-200 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate SA4998NM. This proposal would require modification of the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system to connect it to a different power source. This action is necessary to prevent the inability of the flight crew to remove power from the IFE system when necessary. Inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-238-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-238-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Flight Structures, Inc., 4407 172nd Street NE., Arlington, Washington 98223. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Elias Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1279; fax (425) 227-1181.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-238-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-238-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 767-200 series airplanes modified by STC SA4998NM. The IFE system on these airplanes is connected to an electrical bus that cannot be deactivated without also removing power from airplane systems necessary for continued safe flight and landing. Also, there is no means available to the flight or cabin crew to remove power from the IFE system without pulling circuit breakers for the system. The airplane flight manual and cabin crew manual also do not provide clear instructions on how to remove power from the IFE system when responding to an emergency. This condition, if not corrected, could result in inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Flight Structures Service Bulletin 89FS134-23-01, Revision 2, dated September 21, 2000, which describes procedures for modification of the in-flight entertainment system to change the power source from the main electrical bus to a utility electrical bus. Power can be removed from the utility electrical bus without removing power from systems necessary for continued safe flight and landing. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
There are approximately 17 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that all 17 airplanes are of U.S. registry and would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $300 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $13,260, or $780 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent the inability of the flight crew to remove power from the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system when necessary; which, during a non-normal or emergency situation, could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the in-flight entertainment system to change the power source from the main electrical bus to a
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an IFE system in accordance with STC SA4998NM on any airplane, unless it is modified in accordance with this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 747-100 and −200 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate SA8622SW. This proposal would require deactivation of the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system. This action is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is able to remove power from the IFE system when necessary. Inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-240-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-240-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Continental Airlines, Inc., 600 Jefferson Street HQJAV, Houston, Texas 77002. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas.
Ingrid Knox, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-5139; fax (817) 222-5960.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-240-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-240-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 747-100 and -200 series airplanes modified by STC SA8622SW. The IFE system (an in-seat video system) on these airplanes is connected to an electrical bus that cannot be deenergized without also cutting power to airplane systems necessary for safe flight and landing. Also, there is no means available to the flight or cabin crew to remove power from the IFE system without pulling circuit breakers for the system, and the airplane flight manual and cabin crew manual do not provide instructions on how to remove power from the IFE system when responding to an emergency. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The operator of the affected airplanes has informed the FAA that none of the affected airplanes are currently in service: All affected airplanes have been placed in storage, dismantled, or converted to freighters. Thus, the operator has chosen to deactivate the IFE system on these airplanes. The FAA has reviewed and approved Continental Airlines Engineering Change/Repair Authorizations (EC/RA) 2330-02321, 2330-02322, 2330-02323, 2330-02324, 2330-02325, 2330-02326, 2330-02327, and 2330-02328; all dated August 29, 2000. These EC/RA's describe procedures for deactivating the IFE system, which involves opening and collaring certain circuit breakers, and capping and stowing certain wires. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the applicable EC/RA is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the applicable EC/RA described previously.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions. In consideration of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
There are approximately 8 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 8 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $480, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To ensure that the flight crew is able to remove power from the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system when necessary; which, if not done during a non-normal or emergency situation, could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, deactivate the IFE system, in accordance with Continental Airlines Engineering Change/Repair Authorization 2330-02321, 2330-02322, 2330-02323, 2330-02324, 2330-02325, 2330-02326, 2330-02327, or 2330-02328; all dated August 29, 2000; as applicable.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install an IFE system in accordance with STC SA8622SW on any airplane.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Fort Worth ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate SA8452SW. This proposal would require modification of the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system and revision of the Airplane Flight Manual and the Inflight Manual. This action is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the IFE system when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action. Inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-241-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-241-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Continental Airlines, Inc., 600 Jefferson Street HQJAV, Houston, Texas 77002. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas.
Ingrid Knox, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-5139; fax (817) 222-5960.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-241-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-241-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 series airplanes modified by STC SA8452SW. The IFE system (an in-seat video system) on these airplanes is connected to an electrical bus that cannot be deenergized without also cutting power to airplane systems necessary for safe flight and landing. Also, there is no means available to the flight crew or cabin crew to remove power from the IFE system without pulling circuit breakers for the system, and the Airplane Flight Manual and Inflight Manual do not provide instructions on how to remove power from the IFE system when responding to an emergency. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Continental Airlines Top Drawing 2330DA11072, Revision B, dated September 15, 2000, which describes procedures for modifying the IFE system to incorporate a toggle switch and relay. Installation of the toggle switch will enable the cabin crew to remove power from the IFE system when necessary. Top Drawing 2330DA11072, Revision B, refers to the following Continental Airlines drawings as additional sources of information for accomplishment of the modification:
• 1100DB11064, Revision A, dated September 5, 2000;
• 2330DB11063, dated August 2, 2000;
• 2500DB11059, Revision A, dated August 18, 2000;
• 2330DB11073, Revision A, dated September 5, 2000;
• 2330DA11074, Revision A, dated September 5, 2000; and
• 2330DB11075, Revision A, dated September 5, 2000.
Top Drawing 2330DA11072, Revision B, also refers to Continental Airlines Engineering Change/Repair Authorizations (EC/RA) 2330-02334 and 2330-02335, both dated September 15, 2000. EC/RA 2330-02334 describes a revision to the “Electrical Fire or Smoke Source Unknown Checklist” in the Airplane Flight Manual, to alert the flight crew to the existence of the master power switch for the IFE system. EC/RA 2330-02335 describes revisions to the “Fires” section, “General Procedures” paragraph, and “Smoke in the Cabin” section of the Inflight Manual to alert the flight crew and cabin crew to the existence of the master power switch for the IFE system and to ensure that the flight crew and cabin crew are informed of where to find and how to operate the switch.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the drawings and EC/RA's described previously is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the drawings and EC/RA's described previously.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, the availability of necessary parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operator. In consideration of all of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
There are approximately 31 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 31 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
It would take approximately 16 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $2,000 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification on the affected U.S. operator is estimated to be $91,760, or $2,960 per airplane.
It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed manual revisions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed manual revisions on the affected U.S. operator is estimated to be $1,860, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this AD.
(1) Modify the IFE system to incorporate a master power switch and relay, in accordance with Continental Airlines Top Drawing 2330DA11072, Revision B, dated September 15, 2000.
(2) Revise the “Electrical Fire or Smoke Source Unknown Checklist” in the Airplane Flight Manual to alert the flight crew to the existence of the master power switch for the IFE system, in accordance with Continental Airlines Engineering Change/Repair Authorization (EC/RA) 2330-02334, dated September 15, 2000.
(3) Revise the “Fires” section, “General Procedures” paragraph, and “Smoke in the Cabin” section of the Inflight Manual to alert the flight crew and cabin crew to the existence of the master power switch for the IFE system and to inform the flight crew and cabin crew of where to find and how to operate the switch, in accordance with Continental Airlines EC/RA 2330-02335, dated September 15, 2000.
Continental Airlines Top Drawing 2330DA11072, Revision B, refers to the following drawings as additional sources of information for accomplishment of the modification: 1100DB11064, Revision A, dated September 5, 2000; 2330DB11063, dated August 2, 2000; 2500DB11059, Revision A, dated August 18, 2000; 2330DB11073, Revision A, dated September 5, 2000; 2330DA11074, Revision A, dated September 5, 2000; and 2330DB11075, Revision A, dated September 5, 2000.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install an IFE system in accordance with STC SA8452SW on any airplane, unless it is modified and the applicable manuals are revised in accordance with this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Fort Worth ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 737-700IGW series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate ST09100AC-D, ST09104AC-D, ST09105AC-D, or ST09106AC-D. This proposal would require modifying the passenger entertainment system (PES) installed by those STC's and revising the Airplane Flight Manual. This action is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the PES when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action. Inability to remove power from the PES during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-242-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-242-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Raytheon Systems Company, Intelligence Information and Aircraft Integration Systems, 7500 Maehre Road, Waco, Texas 76705. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas.
Ingrid Knox, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-5139; fax (817) 222-5960.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-242-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-242-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 737-700IGW series airplanes modified by STC's ST09100AC-D, ST09104AC-D, ST09105AC-D, or ST09106AC-D. Currently, multiple circuit breakers in the flight and avionics compartments control power to various components of the passenger entertainment system (PES) installed by those STC's. To remove power from the PES in the event of an emergency, the flight crew must locate and open each of the subject circuit breakers. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure to remove power from the entire PES system during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Raytheon Service Bulletin 737IGW-24-1, dated August 11, 2000. The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the PES by installing a power switch and a load-shed circuit breaker as well as associated relays and wiring. The FAA has also reviewed and approved Raytheon Flight Manual Supplement B737-700 IGW, dated October 16, 2000, which is supplied with the service bulletin. The Flight Manual Supplement contains a revision of the Non-Normal Procedures section of the FAA-approved AFM to advise the flight crew on using the power switch to remove power from the PES in the event of an emergency related to smoke or fire. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin, including the Flight Manual Supplement, is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
Operators should note that the service bulletin specifies that a Flight Manual Supplement for the Boeing 737-700IGW is included with the service bulletin. However, the service bulletin does not specify what action operators must take with regard to this Flight Manual Supplement. The FAA has determined that revision of the AFM is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is aware of the installation of a power switch for the PES and that they are advised of appropriate use of the switch. Therefore, paragraph (a)(2) of this proposed AD would require operators to revise the AFM by inserting the Flight Manual Supplement supplied with the service bulletin.
Operators also should note that the service bulletin specifies that the actions therein should be accomplished at the next maintenance opportunity, but not later than 12 months after receipt of the service bulletin. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, the availability of necessary parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of all of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been
There are approximately 4 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 2 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
It would take approximately 141 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $95,968 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification in this proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $208,856, or $104,428 per airplane.
It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed AFM revision, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AFM revision in this proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $120, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the passenger entertainment system (PES) when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Modify the PES by installing a power switch and a load-shed circuit breaker as well as associated relays and wiring, in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin 737IGW-24-1, dated August 11, 2000.
(2) Revise the Non-Normal Procedures Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to advise the flight crew on using the power switch installed by paragraph (a)(1) to remove power from the PES in the event of an emergency related to smoke or fire, in accordance with Raytheon Flight Manual Supplement B737-700 IGW, dated October 16, 2000, which is supplied with Raytheon Service Bulletin 737IGW-24-1, dated August 11, 2000.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install a PES in accordance with STC ST09100AC-D, ST09104AC-D, ST09105AC-D, or ST09106AC-D on any airplane, unless it is modified and the AFM is revised in accordance with this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Fort Worth ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 767-200 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate ST09022AC-D. This proposal would require modifying the passenger entertainment system (PES) and revising the Airplane Operations Manual. This action is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the entire PES when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action. Inability to remove power from the PES during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-243-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-243-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Raytheon Systems Company, Intelligence Information and Aircraft Integration Systems, 7500 Maehre Road, Waco, Texas 76705. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas.
Ingrid Knox, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, ASW-150, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-5139; fax (817) 222-5960.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-243-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-243-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 767-200 series airplanes modified by STC ST09022AC-D. Power to the Airshow System, a subsystem of the passenger entertainment system (PES) installed by that STC, is not currently controlled by the same power switch that controls power to the rest of the PES. Thus, there is no means available to the flight crew to remove power from the Airshow System without locating and pulling circuit breakers for the system. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure to remove power from the entire PES during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Raytheon Service Bulletin 767VIP-24-1, dated August 28, 2000, which describes procedures for modifying the PES to install a load shed relay and associated wiring for the Airshow System portion of the PES. This modification will allow power for the Airshow System to be controlled by the same switch as power to the remainder of the PES.
The FAA also has reviewed and approved Raytheon Airplane Operations Manual Supplement 767-27G, dated October 18, 2000, which describes revisions to certain sections of the Airplane Operations Manual to advise the flight crew of the function of the utility bus switch located on the flight deck, including the use of this switch to remove power from the PES. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin and the Airplane Operations Manual Supplement is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin and Airplane Operations Manual Supplement described previously, except as discussed below.
Operators should note that the service bulletin specifies that the actions therein should be accomplished at the next maintenance opportunity, but not later than 12 months after receipt of the service bulletin. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, the availability of necessary parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of all of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. The single airplane included in the applicability of this proposed rule currently is operated by a non-U.S. operator under foreign registry; therefore, it is not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this proposed rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that the subject airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take approximately 80 work hours to accomplish the proposed modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $165,673 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification would be $170,473.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take approximately 1 work hour to accomplish the proposed manual revision, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed manual revision would be $60.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the entire passenger entertainment system (PES) when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Modify the PES to install a load shed relay and associated wiring for the Airshow System portion of the PES, in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin 767VIP-24-1, dated August 28, 2000.
(2) Revise the Airplane Operations Manual to describe the function of the utility bus power switch located on the flight deck, including the use of this switch to remove power to the PES, in accordance with Raytheon Airplane Operations Manual Supplement 767-27G, dated October 18, 2000.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install a PES in accordance with STC ST09022AC-D on any airplane, unless it is modified and the Airplane Operations Manual is revised in accordance with this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Fort Worth ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 747SP series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate ST09097AC-D. This proposal would require modifying the passenger entertainment system (PES) installed by that STC and revising the Airplane Flight Manual. This action is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the PES when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action. Inability to remove power from the PES during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-244-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-244-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Raytheon Systems Company, Intelligence Information and Aircraft Integration Systems, 7500 Maehre Road, Waco, Texas 76705. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas.
Ingrid Knox, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, ASW-150, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-5139; fax (817) 222-5960.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-244-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-244-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 747SP series airplanes modified by STC ST09097AC-D. Currently, multiple circuit breakers in the flight and avionics compartments control power to various components of the passenger entertainment system (PES) installed by that STC. To remove power from the PES in the event of an emergency, the flight crew must locate and open each of the subject circuit breakers. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure to remove power from the entire PES during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Raytheon Service Bulletin 747(SP)VIP-24-1, dated September 22, 2000, which describes procedures for modifying the PES by installing a master power switch and load shed circuit breaker in the flight compartment, and associated relays and wiring. Installation of this switch will enable the flight crew to remove power from all components of the PES quickly and easily. The FAA also has reviewed and approved Raytheon Flight Manual Supplement 747SP-21, dated October 16, 2000, which is supplied with the service bulletin. That Flight Manual Supplement includes revisions to the Normal Procedures section of the AFM to describe the location and function of the power switch for the PES, and to the Emergency Procedures section of the AFM to advise the flight crew of proper procedures for using the switch to remove power from all components of the PES in the event of an emergency related to smoke or fire. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin and Flight Manual Supplement is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin and Flight Manual Supplement described previously, except as discussed below.
Operators should note that the service bulletin specifies that a Flight Manual Supplement for the Boeing Model 747SP is included with the service bulletin. However, the service bulletin does not specify what action operators must take with regard to this Flight Manual Supplement. The FAA has determined that revision of the AFM is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is aware of the installation of a power switch for the PES and that they are advised of appropriate procedures for using the switch. Therefore, paragraph (a)(2) of this proposed AD would require operators to revise the AFM by inserting
Operators also should note that the service bulletin specifies that the actions therein should be accomplished at the next maintenance opportunity, but not later than 12 months after receipt of the service bulletin. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, the availability of necessary parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of all of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. The single airplane included in the applicability of this rule currently is operated by a non-U.S. operator under foreign registry; therefore, it is not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that the subject airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take approximately 72 work hours to accomplish the proposed modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $93,369 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification would be $97,689.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take approximately 1 work hour to accomplish the proposed manual revision, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed manual revision would be $60.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the passenger entertainment system (PES) when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Modify the PES by installing a power switch and a load-shed circuit breaker as well as associated relays and wiring, in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin 747(SP)VIP-24-1, dated September 22, 2000.
(2) Revise the Normal Procedures and Emergency Procedures sections of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to advise the flight crew on using the power switch installed by paragraph (a)(1) to remove power from the PES in the event of an emergency related to smoke or fire, in accordance with Raytheon Flight Manual Supplement 747SP-21, dated October 16, 2000, which is supplied with Raytheon Service Bulletin 747(SP)VIP-24-1, dated September 22, 2000.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install a PES in accordance with STC ST09097AC-D, on any airplane, unless it is modified and the AFM is revised in accordance with this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Fort Worth ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate SA8843SW. This proposal would require modifying the passenger entertainment system (PES) installed by that STC and revising the Airplane Flight Manual. This action is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the PES when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action. Inability to remove power from the PES during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-245-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-245-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Raytheon Systems Company, Intelligence Information and Aircraft Integration Systems, 7500 Maehre Road,
Ingrid Knox, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, ASW-150, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-5139; fax (817) 222-5960.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-245-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-245-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes modified by STC SA8843SW. Currently, multiple circuit breakers in the flight and avionics compartments control power to various components of the passenger entertainment system (PES) installed by that STC. To remove power from the PES in the event of an emergency, the flight crew must locate and open each of the subject circuit breakers. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure to remove power from the entire PES during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Raytheon Service Bulletin 747(400)VIP-24-1, dated September 22, 2000, which describes procedures for modifying the PES by installing load shed relays and cable assemblies. Installation of these relays and cable assemblies will allow power to all components of the PES system to be controlled by existing “UTILITY BUS ON/OFF” power switches in the cockpit.
The FAA also has reviewed and approved Raytheon Flight Manual Supplement 747-430, dated October 17, 2000. That Flight Manual Supplement includes revisions to the Non-Normal Procedures section of the FAA-approved AFM to advise the flight crew that the “UTILITY BUS ON/OFF” power switches control power to the PES and
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin and Flight Manual Supplement described previously, except as discussed below.
Operators also should note that the service bulletin specifies that the actions therein should be accomplished at the next maintenance opportunity, but not later than 12 months after receipt of the service bulletin. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, the availability of necessary parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of all of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. The single airplane included in the applicability of this rule currently is operated by a non-U.S. operator under foreign registry; therefore, it is not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that the subject airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take approximately 80 work hours to accomplish the proposed modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $94,574 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification would be $99,374.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take approximately 1 work hour to accomplish the proposed manual revision, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed manual revision would be $60.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the entire passenger entertainment system (PES) when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Modify the PES to install load shed relays and associated cable assemblies for the PES, in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin 747(400)VIP-24-1, dated September 22, 2000.
(2) Revise the Non-Normal Procedures section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to advise the flight crew on using the “UTILITY BUS ON/OFF” power switches to control power to the PES, in accordance with Raytheon Flight Manual Supplement 747-430, dated October 17, 2000.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install a PES system in accordance with STC SA8843SW on any airplane, unless it is modified and the AFM is revised in accordance with this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Fort Worth ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A340-211 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate ST09092AC-D. This proposal would require modifying the passenger entertainment system (PES) and revising the Flight Crew Operating Manual. This action is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the entire PES when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action. Inability to remove power from the PES during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 2, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-246-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-246-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Raytheon Systems Company, Intelligence Information and Aircraft Integration Systems, 7500 Maehre Road, Waco, Texas 76705. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas.
Ingrid Knox, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, ASW-150, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-5139; fax (817) 222-5960.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed 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 above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-246-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-246-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STC's issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers? [i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?]
• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Airbus Model A340-211 series airplanes modified by STC ST09092AC-D. While power to certain components of the passenger entertainment system (PES) installed by that STC is controlled through the “COMMERCIAL” load shed switch in the flight compartment, a portion of the PES is not included in the existing load shed circuits for the airplane. Thus, there is no means available to the flight crew to remove power from that portion of the PES without locating and pulling circuit breakers for the system, which are located in the avionics compartment. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure to remove power from the entire PES during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
Raytheon has issued Service Bulletin A340VIP-24-1, dated August 28, 2000, which describes procedures for modifying the PES by replacing a three-unit busbar with a two-unit busbar and installing associated wiring. This
Raytheon has also issued Electrical Controls and Indicators, 1.24.20, page 4, Revision 07, which revised the “Electrical Controls and Indicators” section of the Airbus A340 Flight Crew Operating Manual. The revision advises the flight crew that power to the PES can be removed by using the “COMMERCIAL” switch.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin and Flight Crew Operating Manual revision is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, 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 products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
Operators should note that the service bulletin specifies that the actions therein should be accomplished at the next maintenance opportunity, but not later than 12 months after receipt of the service bulletin. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, the availability of necessary parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of all of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
This proposed action is one of a number of proposed AD's on airplanes modified by STC's that have been determined to be subject to similar unsafe conditions. Other currently proposed AD's include the following airplanes and STC's:
None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. The single airplane included in the applicability of this rule currently is operated by a non-U.S. operator under foreign registry; therefore, it is not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that the subject airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take approximately 28 work hours to accomplish the proposed modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $162,597 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification would be $164,277.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take approximately 1 work hour to accomplish the proposed manual revision, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed manual revision would be $60.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 draft regulatory 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the entire passenger entertainment system (PES) when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Modify the PES by replacing the three-unit busbar with a two-unit busbar and installing associated wiring, in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin A340VIP-24-1, dated August 28, 2000.
(2) Revise the Electrical Controls and Indicators section of the Airbus A340 Flight Crew Operating Manual to advise the flight crew that power to the PES can be removed by using the “COMMERCIAL” switch in the flight compartment, by inserting Electrical Controls and Indicators, 1.24.20, page 4, Revision 07.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install a PES system in accordance with STC ST09092AC-D on any airplane, unless it is modified and the Flight Crew Operating Manual is revised in accordance with this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Fort Worth ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with § 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.