How do I comment on the proposed AD? The FAA invites comments on this proposed rule. You may submit whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to include the rule's docket number and submit your comments in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . The FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date. We may amend the proposed rule in light of comments received. Factual information that supports your ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed AD action and determining whether we need to take additional rulemaking action.

Are there any specific portions of the proposed AD I should pay attention to? The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. You may examine all comments we receive before and after the closing date of the rule in the Rules Docket. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each FAA contact with the public that concerns the substantive parts of the proposed AD.

We are re-examining the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents, in response to the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998. That memorandum requires federal agencies to communicate more clearly with the public. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and any other suggestions you might have to improve the clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

How can I be sure FAA received my comment? If you want us to acknowledge the receipt of your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 2001-CE-20-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

What events have caused this AD? The FAA has received reports of flap extension/retraction system failures on Raytheon Model 1900D airplanes. The failures occurred when the inner flexible shaft ends separated or disengaged. One of these failures resulted in an asymmetric flap condition when the flap safety switch failed to function properly.

The flap flexible shafts are designed to carry more torque in one direction than the other. If installed on the wrong side of the airplane, the excessive torque load leads to these failures. Raytheon informed FAA that the flap flexible shafts may have been installed on the wrong side of the airplane on certain Beech Models 1900, 1900C, and 1900D airplanes.

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? Flap extension/retraction failures caused by incorrectly configured flap flexible shaft assemblies could result in loss of flap function or an asymmetric flap condition during flight if the flap safety switch fails to function properly.

Is there service information that applies to this subject? Raytheon has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 27-3397, Issued: January, 2001.

What are the provisions of this service bulletin? The service bulletin inclues procedures for:

What has FAA decided? After examining the circumstances and reviewing all available information related to the incidents described above, including the referenced service bulletin, we have determined that:

What would the proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service bulletin.

How many airplanes would the proposed AD impact? We estimate that the proposed AD would affect 205 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

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

The manufacturer will provide warranty credit for labor and parts to the extent noted under the Warranty Credit section of Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 27-3397, Issued: January, 2001.

Would this proposed AD impact various entities? 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 proposed rule would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Would this proposed AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 has been placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations as follows:

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-163-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-163-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

On September 7, 1995, the FAA issued AD 95-19-09, amendment 39-9371 (60 FR 48639, September 20, 1995), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes, to require an inspection to detect damage, burn marks, or discoloration at certain electrical plugs and receptacles of the sidewall lighting in the passenger cabin, and correction of discrepancies. That AD also requires modification of the electrical connectors, which terminates the inspection requirement. That action was prompted by reports of failures of the electrical connectors in the sidewall fluorescent lighting, which resulted in smoke or lighting interruption in the passenger cabin. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent failures of the electrical connectors, which could result in poor socket/pin contact, excessive heat, electrical arcing, and subsequently, connector burn through and smoke in the passenger cabin.

Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 33-99, Revision 02, dated December 15, 1995, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-33A099, Revision 03, dated January 27, 2000. The inspection, replacement, if necessary, and modification procedures described in these revisions are essentially identical to those in Revision 01 of the service bulletin, which was referenced in AD 95-19-09 as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions in that AD. However, Revision 02 of the service bulletin added additional airplanes to the effectivity listing that are subject to the identified unsafe condition. Accomplishment of the actions specified in these service bulletins 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 supersede AD 95-19-09 to continue to require an inspection to detect damage, burn marks, or discoloration at certain electrical plugs and receptacles of the sidewall lighting in the passenger cabin, and correction of discrepancies. The proposed AD also would continue to require modification of the electrical connectors, which would terminate the inspection requirement. In addition, the proposed AD would expand the applicability of the existing AD to include additional airplanes. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins described previously.

There are approximately 970 Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 470 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.

The actions that are proposed in this AD action would take approximately between 24 and 31 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $1,199 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $1,240,330, and $1,437,730, or between $2,639, and $3,059 per airplane.

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

The regulations 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 ADDRESSES.

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:

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 notice 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 notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-162-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-162-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

As part of its practice of re-examining all aspects of the service experience of a particular aircraft whenever an accident occurs, the FAA has become aware of incidents of smoke in the main cabin on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes. Investigation revealed the presence of water in the lighting ballast interface connectors, which can cause electrical shorts and arcing of the connectors. This condition, if not corrected, could result in smoke in main cabin.

The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes, is continuing to review all aspects of the service history of those airplanes to identify potential unsafe conditions and to take appropriate corrective actions. This proposed airworthiness directive (AD) is one of a series of actions identified during that process. The process is continuing and the FAA may consider additional rulemaking actions as further results of the review become available.

The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80-33A096, Revision 02, dated November 1, 1999. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the interface connectors of the cabin fluorescent lighting ballast in the wiring harness of the overhead stowage compartment with new connectors. 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.

Operators should note that, even though the effectivity listing of the referenced service bulletin only lists “MD-80” series airplanes, the manufacturer's fuselage numbers listed in the effectivity listing include Model MD-88 airplanes. Therefore, the applicability of the proposed AD includes Model MD-88 airplanes, as well as Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes.

There are approximately 747 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 486 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 15 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost $510 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspections proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $685,260, or $1,410 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 ADDRESSES.

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:

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-161-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-161-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

As part of its practice of re-examining all aspects of the service experience of a particular aircraft whenever an accident occurs, the FAA has become aware of instances of tripped circuit breakers, smoke, and odor of an electrical fire in the flight compartment or forward entrance area on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 series airplanes (i.e., Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes). Investigation revealed the cause to be chafed and burned wire assemblies in the electrical/electronics (E/E) compartment, left-side, between stations Y=148.000 and Y=160.000. The chafing and consequent arcing occurred between the air duct shroud of the strake ice protection system or airstair door interlock rod and adjacent wire assemblies. The chafing is caused by insufficient clearance between the wire assemblies and ice protection airduct and airstair door interlock rod. This condition, if not corrected, could result in chafing and consequent arcing of wire assemblies. Such arcing could result in damage to electronic equipment and adjacent structure, or could cause the insulation blankets to ignite, which could result in smoke and fire in the flight deck and main cabin.

The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes, is continuing to review all aspects of the service history of those airplanes to identify potential unsafe conditions and to take appropriate corrective actions. This proposed airworthiness directive (AD) is one of a series of actions identified during that process. The process is continuing and the FAA may consider additional rulemaking actions as further results of the review become available.

The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80-24A126, Revision 02, dated September 22, 1999, which describes procedures for a visual inspection of certain wires to detect chafing and preload; repair, if necessary; and modification of certain wire assemblies. The modification includes tying back wire bundles, and installing spacers and sta-straps. 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.

There are approximately 1,037 Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 830 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 detailed visual inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $49,800, 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 ADDRESSES.

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 99-NM-287-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. 99-NM-287-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

As part of its practice of re-examining all aspects of the service experience of a particular aircraft whenever an accident occurs, the FAA has become aware of instances of smoke and electrical odor in the flight compartment and cabin area of McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 series airplanes. Investigation revealed that long-term use and break down of the internal components of the circuit breakers, manufactured by Wood Electric Corporation or Wood Electric Division of Potter Brumfield Corporation, attributed to internal overheating and arcing of the circuit breakers. This condition, if not corrected, could result in smoke and fire in the flight compartment and main cabin.

The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 series airplanes is continuing to review all aspects of the service history of those airplanes to identify potential unsafe conditions and to take appropriate corrective actions. This proposed airworthiness directive (AD) is one of a series of actions identified during that process. The process is continuing and the FAA may consider additional rulemaking actions as further results of the review become available.

The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A171, Revision 01, dated September 21, 1999, which describes procedures for a one-time visual inspection of circuit breakers to determine the manufacturer of the circuit breakers, and replacement of any circuit breaker manufactured by Wood Electric Corporation or Wood Electric Division of Potter Brumfield Corporation with a new circuit breaker. 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, except as discussed below.

Operators should note that the proposed AD would require replacement of any circuit breaker manufactured by Wood Electric Corporation or Wood Electric Division of Potter Brumfield Corporation with a new circuit breaker within 18 months after the effective date of this AD. The service bulletin recommends that the replacement should be accomplished within 12 months from issuance of the service bulletin. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed action, the FAA considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the availability of required parts. We find that 18 months represents an appropriate time allowable wherein an ample number of required parts will be available for modification of the U.S. fleet within the proposed compliance period. We also find that such a compliance time will not adversely affect the safety of the affected airplanes.

There are approximately 830 Model DC-9 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 540 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 80 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection of circuit breakers (over 700 installed on each airplane), 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 $2,592,000, or $4,800 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 ADDRESSES.

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:

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 2001-NM-06-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. 2001-NM-06-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain BAe Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The CAA advises of two reports indicating that incorrect front and/or rear pressurization discharge valves were found installed on some affected airplanes. In addition, it is possible that some operators may have installed incorrect flight deck-mounted cabin pressure controllers. Because of pressurization problems associated with use of the incorrect discharge valves and cabin pressure controllers, the airframe may be subject to excess stress. This condition, if not corrected, could adversely affect the airframe fatigue life.

The manufacturer has issued Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21-148, Revision 1, dated February 6, 2001, which describes procedures for identifying the part numbers of the front and rear pressurization discharge valves and the cabin pressure controllers, and replacing any incorrect part with a new, correct part. For airplanes installed with certain auto-pressurization equipment (installed during BAe Systems Modification HCM50258A), the service bulletin recommends limiting the airplane ceiling until the incorrect parts can be replaced. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued British airworthiness directive 003-11-2000 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom.

These airplane models are manufactured in the United Kingdom and are 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 CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.

The FAA estimates that 20 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection, 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 $3,600, or $180 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 ADDRESSES.

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:

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-378-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-378-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

The FAA has received reports that fatigue cracks have been found in the front spar fitting on the outboard engine nacelle on certain Boeing Model 707 and 720 series airplanes. The cracks originated at the rearmost of the seven fasteners which attach the front spar fitting to the front spar chord. Such cracking, if not corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the nacelle, and result in separation of the engine from the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 1541, Revision 3, dated February 15, 1967, which describes procedures for, among other actions, installation of a preventive modification of the front spar fitting on the outboard engine nacelle. The modification involves replacement of the front spar fitting with a new, improved (stronger) fitting and modification of the front spar chord to distribute stress loads over the entire front spar fitting. 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, except as discussed below.

This proposed rule differs from the service bulletin in the compliance time for the proposed modification. For certain airplanes, the service bulletin recommends accomplishment of the modification of the front spar fitting, but does not specify a compliance time; for other airplanes, the service bulletin specifies that the modification is optional and may be installed on an attrition basis. This proposed AD would require installation of the modification prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the actions. In light of all of these factors, the FAA finds that the proposed compliance time for completing the required actions represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

The proposed rule also differs from the service bulletin in that it would not require the repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the front spar fitting, which are described in the service bulletin. The decision to mandate the preventive modification of the front spar fitting is based on the FAA's determination that long-term continued operational safety will be better assured by design changes to remove the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections. Long-term inspections may not provide the degree of safety assurance necessary for the transport airplane fleet. This, coupled with a better understanding of the human factors associated with numerous continual inspections, has led the FAA to consider placing less emphasis on inspections and more emphasis on design improvements. The proposed modification requirement is consistent with these findings.

Operators should note that Section 3., Part II, “l,” of the service bulletin refers to an incorrect part number for the new, improved front spar fitting. That item reads, “Install applicable new fitting 65-13347-4* * *”; the FAA has determined that the correct part number for the new, improved fitting in this case is 65-13347-5. Figure 1 of the service bulletin references the correct part number.

There are approximately 13 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 64 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed modification, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $1,300 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $15,420, or $5,140 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 ADDRESSES.

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:

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-373-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-373-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

The FAA has received reports of cracking of the cylinder head lugs of the main landing gear (MLG) actuator. Such cracking of the cylinder heads could result in separation of the cylinder head lugs, which could prevent the MLG from extending. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a partial gear-up landing.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Raytheon Service Bulletin (SB) 32-3391, dated August 2000. The service bulletin describes procedures for performing a one-time eddy current inspection to detect cracking or corrosion of the cylinder head lugs of the MLG and follow-on/corrective actions. The follow-on/corrective actions include “vibro-etching” the MLG actuator data plate, painting a blue stripe on the actuator cylinder head, and replacing bushings; applying corrosion protection to the lug bores; and replacing the actuator with a new or overhauled actuator or replacement of the actuator cylinder head with a new cylinder head, as applicable.

The Raytheon service bulletin references Precision Hydraulics Cylinder Maintenance Manual 32-30-1105 for additional service information regarding the replacement of the actuator cylinder head with a new cylinder head.

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 doing the actions specified in the Raytheon service bulletin described previously. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the Raytheon service bulletin described previously.

There are approximately 1,000 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 650 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take approximately 20 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $780,000, or $1,200 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 ADDRESSES.

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:

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-220-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-220-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

On July 3, 2000, the FAA issued AD 2000-14-04, amendment 39-11813 (65 FR 43219, July 13, 2000), applicable to all Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, to require a one-time inspection of the fuselage skin adjacent to the drag splice fitting to detect cracking, and follow-on actions, if necessary. The requirements of that AD are intended to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage, and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.

In the preamble to AD 2000-14-04, the FAA specified that the actions required by that AD were considered “interim action” and that the FAA was considering a separate rulemaking action to address the procedures for repetitive ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, and detailed visual inspections of the fuselage skin adjacent to the drag splice fitting to detect additional cracking, and repair of any cracking detected, as described in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2444, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2000 (which was referenced as the appropriate source of service information in that AD). The FAA now has determined that further rulemaking action is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination.

Since the issuance of AD 2000-14-04, the FAA has received a report of severe cracking on a Model 747 series airplane at approximately 14,540 flight cycles. In light of this report, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2444, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2001. Revision 2 is essentially the same as Revision 1 of the service bulletin, but Revision 2 specifies more comprehensive repetitive inspection procedures and reduces the compliance times specified in Revision 1. Revision 2 also references a procedure in the 747 Structural Repair Manual for the repair of certain cracking without further FAA approval.

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 supersede AD 2000-14-04 to continue to require a one-time inspection of the fuselage skin adjacent to the drag splice fitting to detect cracking, and follow-on actions, if necessary. This proposed AD also mandates new repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin adjacent to the drag splice fitting.

The service bulletin references the 747 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) Subject 53-30-03, Figure 60, as an appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the repair of the fuselage skin. Certain revisions to this chapter of the 747 SRM allow the use of 7075-T6 aluminum as an option for skin replacement when accomplishing the repair on the fuselage skin. Because 7075-T6 aluminum is significantly less durable than 2024-T3 aluminum, the FAA has determined that use of 7075-T6 as a repair material cannot be allowed. Future repairs of the subject area that require skin replacement may only use the 2024-T3 material. Existing repairs of the subject area already made from 7075-T6 aluminum will require follow-on inspections accomplished in a manner approved by the FAA.

Although the service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposal would require the repair of those conditions to be accomplished per a method approved by the FAA, or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, to make such findings.

This is interim action. The manufacturer has advised that it is developing a modification that will positively address the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA may consider additional rulemaking.

There are approximately 1,301 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 260 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 2000-14-04 take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $31,200, or $120 per airplane.

The new inspections that are proposed in this AD action would take approximately 7 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new proposed requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $109,200, or $420 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

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

The regulations 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 ADDRESSES.

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:

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-19-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-19-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes, was published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on September 18, 2000 (65 FR 56264). That NPRM would have required a one-time detailed visual inspection of certain wire bundles located in the aft section of the strut forward fairing panel of both engine struts to detect chafing damage, and repair or replacement of wiring, if necessary. That NPRM was prompted by reports indicating several incidents of severe wire chafing of certain wire bundles in both engine struts. That condition, if not corrected, could result in the potential for dual wire faults from grounded, separated, or shorted wires; and consequent inadvertent takeoff thrust overboost, in-flight loss of thrust, or engine shutdown.

Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 767-73A0049, Revision 3, dated December 20, 2000, which contained certain changes from Revision 2 of the service bulletin (referenced as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the actions specified in the proposed rule). Revision 3 adds airplanes that have been manufactured since the issuance of the NPRM; updates warranty information; corrects a wire part number, and clarifies repair/splice instructions for fire zone wiring. Revision 3 has been added as a revised source of service information for accomplishment of the specified actions, and the references to Revision 2 have been removed from the supplemental NPRM. Additionally, paragraph (a)(2) of the NPRM has been revised. The reference to the repair of the wires as specified in the wiring practices manual has been removed from paragraph (a)(2) because Revision 3 corrects the errors contained in Revision 2 describing repair/splice instructions for wires installed in the fire zone. Paragraph (a)(3) has been changed to a new (b)(1), which specifies the replacement of any wires that are damaged and require a splice repair.

The FAA also has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 767-73A0049, Revision 4, dated April 5, 2001. Revision 4 is essentially the same as Revision 3 (above), but eliminates one airplane that was inadvertently included in the effectivity section of Revision 3. Revision 4 has been added to the supplemental NPRM as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the specified actions.

Due consideration has been given to the comments received in response to the NPRM. Certain comments have resulted in changes to the NPRM.

One commenter asks that Boeing Service Bulletin 767-73-0051, dated December 20, 2000, replace Boeing Service Bulletin 767-73A0049, which was referenced as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the actions specified in the NPRM. The commenter states that the new service bulletin would provide final corrective action for the unsafe condition, and would eliminate the need for further rulemaking. Another commenter states that the action specified in the NPRM was interim action and asks that the manufacturer's final action be included in the supplemental NPRM.

The FAA partially concurs with the commenters. Since the issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 767-73-0051. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacement of the support brackets of the existing wire bundle with a new bridge bracket, support bracket, and wire bundle clamps. Accomplishment of the replacement eliminates the need for the inspection and corrective action required by the NPRM, and as the final action, addresses the unsafe condition. Additionally, the applicability in the NPRM has been changed to the same effectivity listed in the service bulletin, because airplanes having line number 822 and after have been delivered with the new bracket installed. A new paragraph (b) has been added to include the replacement as terminating action, and a spares paragraph has been added to ensure that existing parts are not used for the replacement. However, the new service bulletin (above) will not replace the service bulletin referenced in the NPRM because the existing actions will continue to be required until accomplishment of the terminating action.

Since these changes expand the scope of the originally proposed rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.

Boeing Service Bulletin 767-73-0049 recommends that damaged wires repaired by splicing, as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of the NPRM, be replaced at the next scheduled strut system maintenance check. This supplemental NPRM would require that any wires repaired by splicing, and any damaged wires that need to be spliced, be replaced concurrent with the incorporation of the terminating action specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-73-0051.

Although Boeing Service Bulletin 767-73-0051 recommends doing the replacement at the next convenient opportunity where facilities and manpower are available, the FAA has determined that this compliance time may not ensure that the identified unsafe condition is addressed in a timely manner. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD, the FAA considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the proposed AD. In light of all of these factors, the FAA finds a compliance time of within 6,000 flight hours or 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

There are approximately 185 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 79 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.

It would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $9,480, or $120 per airplane.

It would take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed replacement, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $1,570 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $138,250, or $1,750 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 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 ADDRESSES.

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:

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-146-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-146-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, was published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on June 27, 2000 (65 FR 39574). That NPRM would have required inspection of wire bundles in two junction boxes in the main wheel well to detect chafing or damage, and follow-on actions. That NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that damaged electrical wiring has been found in a junction box formed by electrical disconnect brackets on the right side of the main wheel well on certain Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. That condition, if not corrected, could result in arcing and consequent fire in the main wheel well or passenger cabin, or inability to stop the flow of fuel to an engine or to the auxiliary power unit in the event of a fire.

Due consideration has been given to the comments received in response to the NPRM. One comment has resulted in changes to the proposed rule, which are discussed below.

One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that the FAA revise the NPRM in the following ways:

• Expand applicability to include all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; and Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes, with line numbers 1 through 706 inclusive.

• Expand subject area of inspections and follow-on actions to include two additional junction boxes in the main wheel well.

• Reference revised service information.

The commenter explains that, though the NPRM specified inspections and follow-on actions for only two junction boxes in the main wheel well on certain Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, there are four junction boxes in the main wheel well area that have the same design. Also, junction boxes of the same design are installed on certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The commenter requests that the FAA revise the NPRM to reference new service information that addresses these issues.

The FAA concurs with the commenter's requests. Since the issuance of the proposed rule, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-24-111-B, dated January 16, 2001. (The NPRM referenced Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-24-111, dated February 27, 1996, as the appropriate source of service information for the actions described in the NPRM.) Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-24-111-B differs from the original issue by featuring an expanded effectivity (including Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900) and an expanded inspection area (four junction boxes instead of two). The new service letter also incorporates new instructions for rerouting the wiring that are intended to better protect the wiring from future damage due to chafing than would the instructions in the original service letter. Also, the revised service letter refers only to Boeing Standard Wiring Practices Manual D6-54446, Subject 20-10-13, as an appropriate source of repair instructions if any damaged wiring is found. Accomplishment of the actions in the revised service letter described above is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

Since these changes expand the scope of the originally proposed rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the supplemental NPRM would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the revised service letter described previously, except as discussed below.

Operators should note that, while the service letter does not specify the type of inspection of the wire bundles to detect chafing, this proposed AD would require a detailed visual inspection to detect chafing of the wire bundles. A note has been included in this proposed rule to define that inspection.

Operators also should note that this proposed AD would require the inspection be accomplished within 12 months after the effective date of the AD. The service letter specifies that the actions therein should be accomplished “at a convenient opportunity when facilities and manpower are available.” In developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD, the FAA considered the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the actions (approximately 4 hours). In light of all of these factors, the FAA finds a 12-month compliance time for initiating the required actions to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

There are approximately 3,719 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,467 airplanes of U.S. registry 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. The cost of required parts would be negligible. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $704,160, or $480 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 ADDRESSES.

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:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with the comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 01-AWP-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, at 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Airspace Branch, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedures.

The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify the Glendale Municipal Airport Class D Surface Area at Glendale, AZ. A review of airspace classification and air traffic procedures has made this action necessary. This action proposes to lower the ceiling of the Class D Surface Area so that it would extend from the surface up to, but not including, 3,000 feet MSL. This action would enhance safety of air traffic operations by allowing the airspace to be charted in a manner more consistent with the nature of the operations conducted at Glendale Municipal Airport. Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, through September 15, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in this Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation, as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Comments wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with the comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 01-AWP-11.” The postcard will be date-time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, at 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Airspace Branch, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedures.

The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify the Phoenix-Goodyear Municipal Airport Class D Surface Area at Phoenix, AZ. A review of airspace classification and air traffic procedures has made this action necessary. This action proposes to lower the ceiling of the Class D Surface Area so that it would extend from the surface up to, but not including 3,000 feet MSL. This action would enhance safety of air traffic operations by allowing the airspace to be charted in a manner more consistent the nature of the operations conducted at Phoenix-Goodyear Municipal Airport. Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, through September 15, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in this Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation, as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with the comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 01-AWP-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, at 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Airspace Branch, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedures.

The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify the Phoenix-Deer Valley Municipal Airport Class D Surface Area at Phoenix, AZ. A review of airspace classification and air traffic procedures has made this action necessary. This action proposes to lower the ceiling of the Class D Surface Area so that it would extend from the surface up to, but not including, 4,000 feet MSL. This action would enhance safety of air traffic operations by allowing the airspace to be charted in a manner more consistent with the nature of the operations conducted at Phoenix-Deer Valley Municipal Airport. Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, through September 15, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in this Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation, as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with the comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 01-AWP-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, at 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Airspace Branch, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedures.

The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D Surface Area at Chandler, AZ. A review of airspace classification and air traffic procedures has made this action necessary. This action proposes to lower the ceiling of the Class D Surface Area so that it would extend from the surface up to, but not including, 3,000 feet MSL. This action would enhance safety of air traffic operations by allowing the airspace to be charted in a manner more consistent with the nature of the operations conducted at Chandler Municipal Airport. Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, through September 15, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in this Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation, as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

MMS is limiting the comment period for this proposed rulemaking to 30 days in order to receive comments from the public, make adjustments, and issue a final rule as quickly as possible. Solid mineral reporters need to know our final reporting requirements as much in advance of the October 1, 2001, effective date as possible in order to train employees and modify existing reporting procedures. The date for implementing the reporting changes in this proposed rulemaking cannot be delayed because MMS will be installing its new computer system as of October 1, 2001.

The principal authors of this rule are Glenn W. Kepler, Sr., Cynthia Stuckey, and Herb Wincentsen, of Solid Minerals and Geothermal Compliance and Asset Management, Minerals Revenue Management, MMS, and Geoffrey Heath of the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior.

In April 1996, MMS initiated a reengineering effort to examine our compliance strategy and determine the best approach for the future. In April 1997, we decided to move beyond compliance and reengineer all of our core business processes including our reporting and financial processes. In November 1998, we initiated an operational model for solid minerals to test proposed reengineered business processes and new reporting formats. Our two major goals were as follows:

1. Reduce our compliance time frame from 5 or 6 years to 3 years or less; and

2. Develop and implement more efficient, less burdensome reporting requirements.

We included State and tribal partners from four States and two Indian tribes as full participating members in the operational model. We sought input on our reengineering efforts from MMS's Royalty Policy Committee (RPC), Coal Subcommittee, which is comprised of representatives from industry, States, tribes, and the public. We provided periodic updates to the Coal Subcommittee throughout our reengineering efforts. Each of the solid mineral model respondents was a member of the RPC Coal Subcommittee.

We began the solid minerals operational model with 6 large coal companies that initially reported on 17 mines. These mines included 72 Federal and Indian coal leases and over 40 percent of Federal and Indian coal production. We requested that the original 6 coal companies participate in our reengineering efforts because of the different compliance scenarios their mines presented for testing. For example, these mines included coal washing operations, arm's-length and non-arm's-length sales, free-on-board destination sales, and transportation allowances. In late 2000, we expanded the model to include two additional coal mines and two Indian sand and gravel operations.

On November 24, 1998, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved our emergency information collection request (OMB Control Number 1010-0120) to collect and test reporting formats and frequencies in the solid minerals operational model. This approval included the use of three forms: Form MMS-4430, Solid Minerals Production and Royalty Report; Form MMS-4431, Facility Report; and Form MMS-4432, Marketing Profile. A revised information collection request was submitted to OMB which eliminated Forms MMS-4431 and MMS-4432 because we found industry could submit data using their own internal reports. OMB approved this revision.

During the model, we asked participants whether our reengineered reporting formats were the best option. Several of the model participants responded with letters supporting Form MMS-4430. Some of the reasons given for their support are as follows:

• Form MMS-4430 is designed to collect the appropriate information from solid mineral lessees at the appropriate time in the business cycle;

• Form MMS-4430 and the three other data collections replace eight separate forms that companies are currently required to file;

• Form MMS-4430 allows for the net reporting of prior period adjustments thus reducing reporting burden by approximately 40 percent; and

• Form MMS-4430, as designed, reduces reporter burden and enhances the accuracy of the data submitted because many fields are automatically populated with and edited against data that MMS maintains.

Because of the success of the operational model, MMS is proposing to revise our reporting requirements for coal and other solid minerals to include all solid mineral reporters in our reengineered compliance process. We believe these requirements will reduce the reporting burden currently placed on industry and enhance our ability to verify that proper royalties were paid.

The new reporting requirements presented in this proposed rulemaking would replace eight existing royalty and production forms with a single form and three other data collections.

Our proposed Form MMS-4430 would provide many improvements over existing reporting requirements including:

• No reporting of codes or converted lease numbers. No product, transaction or adjustment reason codes would be required on Form MMS-4430. Also, we would use the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) lease serial number rather than MMS's converted lease number. This would reduce the time required for a reporter to complete the form but provide the same substantive information.

• Net adjustments reporting. The proposed Form MMS-4430 would allow net reporting so that you would report only the net change in a transaction. Thus, it would eliminate double line entry (that is, line reversal and reentry) when reporting an adjustment.

• Electronic reporting. Our proposed Internet submission of Form MMS-4430 is consistent with our electronic reporting rule for oil and gas leases at 30 CFR parts 210 and 216. Like the oil and gas rule, this would help meet our paperwork reduction goals and reduce our costs associated with document handling. Also, a reporter would be able to access online its historical production and royalty data.

• Form functionality. Our proposed Form MMS-4430 would provide several features that would contribute to reduced reporting burden and error-free submissions. First, the proposed form would combine most production and royalty reporting into a single form. Second, the proposed form would automatically populate various static data fields that are essential to the production and royalty reporting process, including lease number, royalty rate, and products produced. Third, our form would provide arithmetic functions and built-in tools to provide support for mine production and sales allocations back to the individual leases. Fourth, our proposed form would contain electronic edits (internal integrity checks). These edits would prevent the submission of forms containing errors or omissions resulting from oversight or data entry error. Reporter burden, as well as MMS burden, associated with error correction should decrease significantly.

• Eliminate compliance issues from reports. The proposed Form MMS-4430 would eliminate selling arrangement codes that are the source of many compliance issues. We would determine arm's-length and non-arm's-length transactions through the other document submissions discussed below. Further, many solid mineral producers, particularly of coal and metals, have contract provisions that allow for price true-up after the initial sale. Such price true-ups are not normally interest-bearing if they are invoiced timely to the purchaser and if royalty is timely paid. Our proposed form would permit the reporter to indicate on the form that the retroactive price adjustment is not interest-bearing. Our compliance process would determine whether further review of the reported retroactive price adjustment is necessary.

• Eliminate BLM's collection of supplementary information. During BLM's production verification duties, BLM often supplements the data we provide with additional mine data collected from the producer. Our proposed Form MMS-4430 would collect total mine production and sales data. We believe collecting all of the data needed in one data submission will reduce reporter burden and assist BLM with its production verification duties.

• Create a central database for all lease/mine information accessible to all BLM offices nationwide. Data that MMS collects would be immediately accessible to BLM offices nationwide and would eliminate delays found in existing interagency data-sharing processes.

• Collect lease-level data for the entire mine. Form MMS-4430 would collect lease-level production and sales value and volume information for the entire mine (including non-Federal and non-Indian production data). These data were not previously collected in any of our existing forms. Unlike oil and gas lease production occurring from units, communitization agreements or participating agreements, solid mineral lease production from within a mine constantly varies as production panels and pits shift across leases. A basic compliance requirement is to assure that the revenues generated from the mine's sales are allocated to the lease where the production occurred. During the course of a royalty compliance audit, we would normally verify production allocation. Under our reengineered compliance strategy, we would conduct this compliance check contemporaneously.

In addition to Form MMS-4430 described above, we are proposing three other regular data submissions by reporters. These proposed information collections are contract submissions (for certain minerals), sales summaries, and facility data. This data is created and maintained by the reporter as part of its normal business practices. Our goal is to utilize the same data the reporter uses, thus eliminating the need for additional information gathering and preparation. These other data submissions would replace several existing form-based data submissions and would also provide us earlier access to the information normally collected in the audit process.

We need the three associated data submissions as well as the Form MMS-4430 because each individual form or document, standing alone, cannot provide the data necessary to monitor compliance contemporaneously. For example, we removed the selling arrangement code from Form MMS-4430 because other data submittals such as contract documents and sales summaries would provide us information on affiliate sales. The same compliance follow-up would occur had the lessee reported selling arrangement code 200 (non-arm's-length sales) on the Form MMS-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance. Another example is the elimination of several production reports, including the Form MMS-4060, Solid Minerals Facility Report Parts A and B. Facility data that the reporter uses as part of its internal process to monitor processing operations would supplant this production report. We believe this approach is less burdensome to the reporter yet results in equal or better data collected on mineral processing operations.

Almost all of the amendments in part 206 would be nomenclature changes. First, the “Royalty Management Program” reorganized and changed its name to “Minerals Revenue Management” effective October 1, 2000. We would insert the new name of our organization, wherever the old name occurs, and change management titles and the names and addresses of internal working groups that were also affected by the reorganization. Second, we would replace “Form MMS-2014” with “Form MMS-4430” to reflect the proposed reporting requirements in this rulemaking. You will see many of these types of changes throughout the remainder of this proposed rulemaking so they will not be discussed again.

In addition, we propose to remove the requirements in §§ 206.254(a) and 206.453(a) to report quality data on solid minerals because the existing production forms that capture quality data would be eliminated. Therefore, we have inserted more new comprehensive quality requirements for sales summary data in § 210.202 which is summarized in a table. We would also remove §§ 206.263 and 206.462 because the requirement to submit sales contracts in these two sections duplicate or contradict our proposed reporting requirements. The procedures for valuing coal and other solid minerals for royalty purposes would not be affected by this proposed rule.

We would revise § 210.10 to add our proposed information collections to the list of collections approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and remove other information collections eliminated by this rulemaking. See our discussion of §§ 210.200 through 210.205 below for a complete explanation of the new reporting requirements.

We would remove existing §§ 210.200 through 210.204 because they pertain to forms that would be eliminated in this proposed rulemaking. We would add new §§ 210.200 through 210.205 to explain our proposed reporting requirements.

This section would explain that the purpose of this subpart is to specify your production and royalty reporting requirements for Federal and Indian solid mineral leases.

What to submit. We would add this section to explain the requirements to submit Form MMS-4430. Form MMS-4430 would replace Form MMS-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance, and Form MMS-4059, Solid Minerals Operations Report Parts A and B.

Form MMS-4430 would significantly change what data is reported to MMS using a form. For production that is processed prior to sale ( e.g. , washed coal, soda ash, potash, or metal concentrates), you would not report the raw ore production volumes on Form MMS-4430. You would only report the tons that are actually sold and on which royalty is due. For example, if you produce 1,600 tons of trona ore and you refine 1,000 tons of soda ash from that raw production, you would only report the tons of soda ash produced and, separately, the tons sold and the sales proceeds. Raw production and the associated processing activity would be captured on another data submission. This submission called “facility data” is discussed later in this preamble.

Proposed Form MMS-4430 would eliminate reporting of specific but related products and, instead, group related products into a family of products. For example, potash producers, instead of reporting muriates of potash (chemical, coarse, fine, granular, industrial, soluable, or standard) as required by current reporting instructions, would group these muriates of potash and report production only as potash.

Form MMS-4430 also incorporates a new reporting requirement based on the use of remote storage and sales points. If you move unsold production to five or fewer remote storage sites and conduct sales from those sites, you would be required to report the sales for each site separately on the Form MMS-4430. If you conduct sales from more than five remote storage sites, you would be required to combine the sales from all sites on one Form MMS-4430. Our experience from the solid minerals operational model showed that some producers move production, unsold, from the mine to distant points such as from Utah coal mines to the Port of Los Angeles Export Terminal. Producers ship coal to this port facility over several months until a sufficient quantity of coal has accumulated to supply a vessel sale. These remote storage and sales points operate similarly to a mine, gaining and losing inventory based on sales activities. However, inventories at remote storage sites function independently of the mine's inventories. Thus, when a sale occurs at the remote storage site, the allocations of sales proceeds back to the leases would be different from the sales occurring at the mine. Because Form MMS-4430 includes inventory management functions, the sales from five or fewer remote storage sites would be reported separately on the Form MMS-4430.

When to submit. Form MMS-4430 would be due at the end of the month following the month activity occurs assuming your lease requires royalty payments on a monthly cycle. If your lease requires a different royalty payment cycle, you would submit this form at the same time your payment is due in accordance with your lease terms. If the information on a previously reported Form MMS-4430 is incorrect, you must submit a revised report by the end of the month in which you discover the error.

How to submit. Form MMS-4430 would be submitted to MMS using the Internet. The production and royalty module associated with this Internet application would allow solid mineral reporters to submit and maintain solid mineral data via the Internet for the first time. A system user would be furnished a valid log-in identification and password. MMS's Internet application would handle all security and authentication required by system users.

We have provided two exceptions to the electronic reporting requirement to prevent undue burden on small businesses. One, you would not be required to report electronically if you report only annual obligations such as rent or minimum royalty. Two, you would not be required to report electronically if you are a small business, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration, and you have no computer and no plans to purchase a computer or contract with an electronic reporting service.

What to submit. We intend to collect the sales summary data in the least burdensome manner. This means, to the extent possible, using information that you, as a solid minerals reporter, have already generated as part of your normal business practices. The following table summarizes the sales summary data elements you would be required to submit for a specific lease type or mineral:

When to submit. For leases with ad valorem royalty terms, you would be required to submit sales summaries monthly. For leases with no ad valorem royalty terms (that is, leases with royalty terms that do not depend upon sales value to determine royalty due such as cents-per-ton or dollars-per-unit), you would submit sales summaries monthly only if you are specifically requested to do so.

How to submit. Sales summary data is not submitted on a form. Sales summary data would be submitted in the same format the producer uses. Our experience from the solid minerals operational model shows that most companies maintain sales summary data using off-the-shelf spreadsheet software such as Microsoft Excel. We would prefer that you submit these data electronically, using electronic mail. Electronic submission of data allows us to transfer that data to our internal systems and formats for analysis. We would establish an electronic mailbox for receipt of these data. We would also accept sales summary data in paper copy; however, this approach is not preferred because of the additional cost, handling and storage burden.

What to submit. You would be required to submit sales contracts, agreements, contract amendments or other documents that affect gross proceeds received for the sale of lease production.

When to submit. You would be required to submit sales contracts, agreements, contract amendments or other documents affecting gross proceeds as follows:

• If you produce Federal or Indian coal, you would submit your sales contracts to us quarterly. Contracts or contract amendments entered into during the preceding quarter would be submitted to us whether or not sales under that contract had commenced.

• If you produce sodium or potassium compounds from Federal or Indian leases, you would submit sales contracts to us quarterly only if requested by MMS. We are proposing less frequent contract submission for sodium and potassium producers because most sodium and potassium products are sold in refined form that have identical quality from month to month and from customer to customer. Thus, many of the pricing issues related to quality variables that appear in coal and metal concentrate contracts do not occur in sodium and potassium sales agreements.

• Phosphate producers consume most, if not all, production internally in complex chemical processing plants, which produce elemental phosphorus and different fertilizer compounds. MMS determines value in these cases using a non-arm's-length valuation process. However, some phosphate ore by-products are produced and sold at arm's-length. For these sales, you would submit sales contracts quarterly only if requested by MMS.

• If you produce metals from Federal or Indian leases, you would submit your sales contracts (typically net smelter return contracts) to us quarterly.

• If you produce from any other ad valorem lease, you would submit sales contracts on a quarterly basis only if requested by MMS. Minerals in this category vary considerably and include, for example, garnets, limestone, gilsonite, quartz crystals, and some sand and gravel leases.

• If you produce from any other lease with no ad valorem royalty terms—that is, leases in which the royalty due is not dependent upon sales price such as cents-per-ton or dollars-per-unit—you would not be required to submit sales contracts.

How to submit. You would be required to submit paper copies of your contracts to us using either courier service or the U.S. Postal Service and the addresses in § 210.203(c).

What to submit. We are proposing to eliminate the Form MMS-4060, Solid Minerals Facility Report Parts A and B, relating to solid mineral processing operations. We would replace the data normally supplied on these forms with other types of facility data. The facility data you would supply would include the total throughput of the plant, including Federal, Indian, non-Federal, and non-Indian lease production. This approach to collecting facility data is consistent with the physical operations of processing plants because production from the various leases in the mine is normally commingled at the time the production is input to the plant.

How to submit. Facility data would not be submitted on a form. Generally, facility data would be submitted in the same format normally used by the producer because all producers who process solid minerals prior to sale maintain records of processing plant operations. As a minimum, your facility data submissions must include identification of your facility, the mines served, input quantity, output quantity, and output quality or product grades. We would prefer that you submit these data electronically, using electronic mail. Electronic submission of data allows us to transfer data to our internal systems and formats for analysis. We would establish an electronic mailbox for receipt of these data. We would also accept facility data in paper copy; however, this approach is not preferred because of the additional costs, handling and storage burden.

When to submit. You would be required to submit monthly facility data for the following leaseable minerals:

1. Coal— If you wash coal, you would submit facility data.

2. Sodium or potassium— If you refine sodium or potassium products, including dissolution, crystallization, compacting, or other processing to make products to which ad valorem royalty terms apply, you would submit facility data.

3. Metals— If you concentrate metal-bearing ores to produce a metal concentrate to which ad valorem royalty terms apply, you would submit facility data.

4. All other ad valorem lease production— If you process raw lease production through any form of a beneficiation, concentration, or any other mineral processing prior to sale, and ad valorem royalty terms apply to the value of the processed product, you would submit facility data.

We added this section to emphasize that Federal and Indian lease terms allow us to request other information to support our compliance activities; however, we will request the additional information only as needed, not as a regular submission.

We would revise § 216.11 to add the reference to electronic reporting requirements for Form MMS-4430.

We would revise § 216.15 to inform solid minerals reporters where they may obtain solid mineral reporting instructions.

In § 216.16, we would add MMS addresses where reporters would send paper reports for solid mineral leases.

We would revise § 216.21 to remove the references to the Production Accounting and Auditing System (PAAS) because it will be replaced by a new system effective October 1, 2001.

We would revise § 216.40 to include assessments for lines related to production reported on the Form MMS-4430.

We would remove §§ 216.200 through 216.204 that describe existing reports and reporting requirements. These reports would be eliminated by the proposed information collection in this rule.

We would revise § 218.40 to add assessments for lines related to royalty reported on the Form MMS-4430. We are also making a technical correction to remove assessments under this section with respect to oil and gas leases. Assessments for oil and gas leases for chronic erroneous reporting are now governed by 30 U.S.C. 1725, enacted as part of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996.

We would make nomenclature and address changes as necessary.

We would refer solid mineral reporters to § 218.51 for reporting instructions except that:

(1) The definition of “report” would be Form MMS-4430, rather than Form MMS-2014;

(2) Solid mineral reporters would include both their customer identification and customer document identification numbers on their payment document, rather than the information required under § 218.51(f)(1); and

(3) For rental payments not reported on Form MMS-4430, solid mineral reporters would include the MMS Courtesy Notice, when provided, or write their customer identification number and government-assigned lease number on the payment document, rather than the information required under § 218.51(f)(4)(iii).

We would make nomenclature and address changes as necessary.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours and on our Internet site at www.mrm.mms.gov. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

We have summarized below the economic impacts of this rule on the groups affected by our regulations: Industry, State and local governments, Indian tribes and allottees, and the Federal Government. All costs summarized below are associated with reporting changes. As stated previously, this rule does not affect the valuation—for royalty purposes—of Federal or Indian coal or other solid minerals. The cost and benefit information in this Item 2 of Procedural Matters is used as the basis for the Departmental certifications in Items 3-12.

The effect of the information collection changes in this proposed rulemaking would be a net savings of $173,000 per year for all solid minerals reporters, calculated as follows:

Cost—New Information Collection. We estimate that there are 200 solid mineral lessees who are required to report production and royalty information to us. Using the annual reporting burden experienced by the participants in the operational model, we estimate the annual cost of the new information collection proposed in this rulemaking to be $68,100, calculated as follows:

Form MMS-4430. The average reporting burden for completing Form MMS-4430 is 20 minutes per month. We estimate that all 200 solid minerals lessees will submit Form MMS-4430, and that this annual reporting burden will be 800 hours (200 lessees × 1/3 hour per month × 12 months).

Sales summaries. The average reporting burden for sales summaries is 15 minutes per month. We estimate that 120 lessees will submit sales summary data and that this annual reporting burden will be 360 hours (120 lessees × 1/4 hour per month × 12 months).

Facility data. The average reporting burden for facility data is 15 minutes per month. We estimate that 30 lessees will submit facility data and that this annual reporting burden will be 90 hours (30 lessees × 1/4 hour per month × 12 months).

Contracts and contract amendments. Contracts and contract amendments will be copied and sent to MMS. The average reporting burden for providing contracts and contract amendments to us is 1 hour. We estimate that 90 lessees (predominantly coal companies) will submit contracts and contract amendments. Consequently, the annual reporting burden is 90 hours (90 lessees × 1 hour per year).

Additional documents or evidence. Federal and Indian lease terms allow us to request detailed statements, documents, or other evidence that supports our compliance and asset management responsibilities. We will request this additional information as we need it, not as a regular submission. We estimate that 10 percent of the 200 solid minerals lessees, or 20 lessees, will submit this additional information annually, and that each lessee will require 1 hour to submit this information for a total annual reporting burden of 20 hours.

Method of Payment. Each payment document associated with Form MMS-4430 (Electronic Funds Transfer or hard copy check) must be annotated with the lessee's customer identification and the customer document identification numbers. For each rental payment document not reported on Form MMS-4430, the lessee must include the MMS Courtesy Notice, when provided, or annotate the payment document with the customer identification number and Government-assigned lease number. This requirement will help MMS link payments with Form MMS-4430 submittals.

The annual reporting burden for all of these documents is summarized below:

Cost—Planning Meetings. Submitting this information to us will not require an initial capital cost by the respondent. We will meet with each reporter's information technology staff to coordinate computer-related issues with the implementation of this information collection and to assist us in developing software requirements and describing the company's hardware and software configuration. We will provide the necessary electronic reporting software interface with our financial and production application systems for the companies to submit the required information.

Benefit—Eliminating Eight Existing Reports. MMS currently requires solid minerals reporters to submit eight separate forms:

1. Form MMS-4030, Payor Information Form (PIF), OMB Control Number 1010-0064. This form is used to establish and maintain the payor accounts required for processing Form MMS-2014. Estimated annual burden hours are 173.

2. Form MMS-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance, OMB Control Number 1010-0022. This form serves as the monthly report form on which payors report all royalty and lease-level transactions. Estimated annual burden hours for solid mineral payors are 1,884.

3. Form MMS-4050, Mine Information Form (MIF), OMB Control Number 1010-0063. This form is used to establish and maintain mine-level production reporting. Estimated annual burden hours for forms in this number 3 and numbers 4 through 8 below are 2,763.

4. Form MMS-4051, Facility and Measurement Information Form (FMIF), OMB Control Number 1010-0063. This form is used to establish and maintain facilities in the volume-tracking system including identifying key sales/transfer measurement points that are required to track production and identify all secondary processing and remote storage facilities.

5. Form MMS-4059-A, Solid Minerals Operations Report, Part A (SMOR-A), OMB Control Number 1010-0063. This form is used to identify, for a mine, the quantity and quality of all raw material produced from each Federal or Indian lease, specify the disposition of those raw materials including sales, transfers, and adjustments, and track raw material inventories.

6. Form MMS-4059-B, Solid Minerals Operations Report, Part B (SMOR-B), OMB Control Number 1010-0063. This form is used to allocate sales from a secondary processing or remote storage facility back to individual Federal or Indian leases within a mine.

7. Form MMS-4060-A, Solid Minerals Facility Report, Part A (SMFR-A), OMB Control Number 1010-0063. This form is used to provide detailed information on a secondary processing facility's inputs/outputs.

8. Form MMS-4060-B, Solid Minerals Facility Report, Part B (SMFR-B), OMB Control Number 1010-0063. This form is used to show a secondary processing or remote storage facility's raw material receipts, production, inventory, and disposition.

These eight forms would be replaced by Form MMS-4430 and other data submissions described in the cost section above. The combined annual burden that will be eliminated if these eight forms are no longer submitted by solid mineral reporters is 4,820 hours or a total cost of $241,000. The effect of replacing these eight forms with the new information collection (costing $68,100) would be an estimated savings of $173,000 per year.

Issues Affecting Small Businesses. Approximately 200 solid mineral reporters submit forms and other information to MMS, 91 percent of which are small businesses because they have 500 employees or less. As noted earlier, the effect of the information collection changes in this proposed rulemaking would be a net savings of $173,000 per year for all solid minerals reporters. We expect small businesses to benefit proportionately from the reduction in reporting burden.

Using the experience gained through the model, our reengineered initiative ensures that the information requested is the minimum necessary and places the least possible burden on industry. We have further provided two exceptions to the requirement to submit the Form MMS-4430 electronically to avoid placing undue burden on small businesses. You would not be required to report electronically if you report only annual obligations such as rent or minimum royalty. Further, you would not be required to report electronically if you are a small business, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration, and you have no computer and no plans to purchase a computer or contract with an electronic reporting service. For other data submissions, respondents including small businesses or other small entities would have the flexibility to submit information to us via hard copy or electronic submissions.

During the summer 2001, we plan to hold several seminars to explain the revised reporting requirements. We will encourage all solid mineral lessees to attend one of these seminars to familiarize themselves with the revised reporting requirements and to prepare to implement these requirements.

We will meet with each company's information technology staff to assist in setting up hardware and software configuration. We plan to provide the necessary electronic reporting software that will interface with our financial and production application systems. We will also cover the cost associated with the development and implementation of the reporting software. We will provide any initial software formatting or other assistance needed to get a company ready to comply with the new information collection proposed in this rule by October 1, 2001.

This rulemaking would not impose any additional costs on State or local governments.

This rulemaking would not impose any additional costs on Indian tribes or allottees.

MMS is reengineering its financial and compliance processes to transform its function-based program to a process-centered organization. The new reengineered MMS will be highly integrated and positioned to provide royalty management services at less cost to the Nation. Some of the more important goals for the reengineering initiative include cutting in half the time necessary to collect and verify mineral revenues, distributing revenue to States and Indian mineral owners within 1 business day, reducing industry reporting requirements, and modernizing our computer and software systems.

We are undertaking this reengineering initiative because new legislative mandates, such as the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996, and market changes require MMS to replace its outdated computer systems to facilitate a more cost-effective operation. MMS expects significant reduction in annual operating costs of administration, accelerated cash flows through reductions in current business cycle times, and increased revenue through improved compliance coverage.

Although all benefits of this rulemaking cannot be quantified at this time, the Federal Government should see significant savings and far greater efficiencies.

The quantifiable costs and benefits of this proposed rulemaking to the Federal Government is a cost of $424,700 in the first two years after this rule is effective and a savings of $20,800 each year thereafter, as calculated below.

Benefit—Personnel. We estimate that Solid Minerals and Geothermal Compliance and Asset Management's 23 employees will allocate about 10 percent of their time to collect and analyze contracts, sales summaries, and facility data required by this rulemaking for a total cost of $239,200 (2.3 employees × 2,080 hours/year × $50/hour) annually. However, under current reporting processes, Solid Minerals and Geothermal Compliance and Asset Management allocates the equivalent of 2.5 employees annually to error correction. Under this rulemaking error correction is expected to be negligible. Therefore this rulemaking nets no additional personnel cost but rather a minimal savings of .2 employees or $20,800 (.2 employees × 2,080 hours/year × $50/hour) annually.

These employees will also resolve compliance issues using end-to-end processes that eliminate handoffs that would otherwise occur between functionally aligned units which also improves efficiencies.

This rule would allow substantial administrative dollar savings to MMS. Owing to the elimination of eight separate reporting forms under this proposed rule, MMS can utilize its solid minerals personnel more efficiently and effectively for verification of mineral revenues. Solid minerals personnel would review and process only one reporting form in place of eight existing reporting forms, which would result in associated reductions in error corrections, document handling issues, data entry problems, and time spent correcting those issues with industry personnel.

Cost—Computer software. MMS is also building a computer platform and associated database as the host for data collected. This computer platform, and associated cost to MMS, will involve data from the Onshore, Offshore, and Solid Minerals Operational Models and all exception processing and compliance activity. We estimate the cost for the solid minerals portion of the new computer system to be about $445,500 within the first and second years after implementation of this rule or $891,000 over 2 fiscal years ($891,000 ÷ 2 = $445,500).

MMS has allocated the cost of its solid minerals portion of the new computer system in its reengineering budget requests. Accordingly, MMS will not need additional funds for computer systems as a result of the provisions proposed in this rulemaking.

This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.

(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.

The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant adverse effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). For additional information on small business issues, see the cost and benefit data in item 2 of these Procedural Matters.

Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agricultural Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions in this rule, call 1-888-734-3247.

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 or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule does not impose conditions or limitations on the use of any private property; consequently, a takings implication assessment is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. This rule does not substantially or directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments or impose costs on States or localities.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

We are soliciting comments on the information collection associated with this rulemaking. The information collection is titled “Solid Minerals Compliance and Asset Management Process” and has been submitted to OMB for review and approval. Written comments should be submitted on or before July 5, 2001.

You may submit comments directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Interior Department (OMB Control No. 1010-0120), 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503. Also, please submit copies of your comments to Carol Shelby, Regulatory Specialist, Regulations and FOIA Team, Minerals Revenue Management, MS 320B2, P.O. Box 25165, Denver, CO 80225-0165. Courier or overnight delivery address is Building 85, Room F421, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225.

You may also comment via the Internet to mrm.comments@mms.gov . Submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Also include the title of the information collection and the OMB control number along with your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact Carol Shelby at (303) 231-3151 or FAX (303) 231-3385.

After the comment period closes, we will post public comments on the Internet at http://www.mrm.mms.gov . We make paper copies of these comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may also be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act requires each agency “to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated techniques and other forms of information technology.

On August 3, 2000, we published a Federal Register Notice (65 FR 47802), soliciting comments on revising the Solid Minerals Operational Model information collection (OMB Control Number 1010-0120).

We received comments from two organizations on the August 3, 2000, notice—one from an industry partner in the operational model and one from an association whose membership includes coal, metal and non-metal mineral producers as well as manufacturers of mining and processing equipment and engineering, consulting and financial institutions serving the industry. These comments are addressed in the information collection request submitted to OMB.

We estimate that there are 200 solid mineral lessees who are required to report production and royalty information to us. Using the annual reporting burden experienced by the participants in the operational model, we estimate the annual reporting burden for this information collection is 1,362 hours.

Form MMS-4430. The average reporting burden for completing Form MMS-4430 is 20 minutes per month. We estimate that all 200 solid minerals lessees will submit Form MMS-4430, and that this annual reporting burden will be 800 hours (200 lessees × \1/3\ hour per month × 12 months).

Sales summaries. The average reporting burden for sales summaries is 15 minutes per month. We estimate that 120 lessees will submit sales summary data and that this annual reporting burden will be 360 hours (120 lessees × \1/4\ hour per month × 12 months).

Facility data. The average reporting burden for facility data is 15 minutes per month. We estimate that 30 lessees will submit facility data and that this annual reporting burden will be 90 hours (30 lessees × 1.4 hour per month × 12 months).

Contracts and contract amendments. Contracts and contract amendments will be copied and sent to MMS. The average reporting burden for providing contracts and contract amendments to us is 1 hour. We estimate that 90 lessees (predominantly coal companies) will submit contracts and contract amendments. Consequently, the annual reporting burden is 90 hours (90 lessees × 1 hour per year).

Additional documents or evidence. Federal and Indian lease terms allow us to request detailed statements, documents, or other evidence that supports our compliance and asset management responsibilities. We will only request this additional information as we need it, not as a regular submission. We estimate that 10 percent of the 200 solid mineral lessees, or 20 lessees, will submit this additional information annually, and that each lessee will require 1 hour to submit this information for a total annual reporting burden of 20 hours.

Method of Payment. Each payment document associated with Form MMS-4430 (Electronic Funds Transfer or hard copy check) must be annotated with the lessee's customer identification and the customer document identification numbers. For each rental payment document not reported on Form MMS-4430, the lessee must include the MMS Courtesy Notice, when provided, or annotate the payment document with the customer identification number and Government-assigned lease number. This requirement will help MMS link payments with Form MMS-4430 submittals.

The annual reporting burden for all of these documents is as follows:

Using an average cost of $50 per hour, we estimate the annual cost to respondents for the hour burden will be $68,100 (1,362 hours × $50).

The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications that impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with this clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” appears in bold type and is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading, for example, “§ 210.200 What is the purpose of this subpart?”) (5) Is the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

For reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR parts 206, 210, 216, and 218 are proposed to be amended as follows:

As noted in the SUMMARY, NARA is rewriting its regulations on implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998. The proposed rule is written in plain language. Each section is written in the question and answer format. This format not only simplifies the regulations and its application, but it personalizes the regulation to the customer. The proposed rule specifies how NARA collects, maintains and uses personal information collected and maintained by NARA and defunct agencies under the Privacy Act. The proposed rule explains the authority under which NARA collects and disseminates this information, how a person can obtain access to such information, and how to amend or correct such information.

NARA last amended its Privacy Act regulations in 1998 (63 FR 70342). In preparing to rewrite the regulations in plain language, we reviewed our policies and procedures. We have also reviewed all of our Privacy Act systems of records. As a result of these actions, we are making several substantive changes to the regulations. First, NARA does not forward requests for other agencies' records stored in a NARA record center to the appropriate agency; therefore, in the proposed rule we tell the requester that he/she must request those records from that agency directly. Second, to strengthen our controls to prevent improper access to information protected by the Privacy Act, we are adding a requirement for subject individuals to submit a certification statement or have their signature notarized when requesting records about themselves. Finally, we are exempting an additional NARA Privacy Act system, NARA 18, General Legal Files, from access/amendment provisions of the Act on the basis of the law enforcement exemption.

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it only affects individuals and entities seeking access or disclosure of information contained in NARA Privacy Act systems of records. This proposed rule does not have any federalism implications.

For the reason set forth in the preamble, NARA proposes to revise part 1202 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as follows:

This document proposes to amend our regulations set forth in 38 CFR Part 46 concerning the reporting of physicians, dentists, and other health care practitioners to the NPDB. These regulations concern malpractice payment reporting and clinical privileges actions reporting.

With respect to malpractice payment reporting, the regulations currently provide that VA will file a report with the NPDB regarding any payment for the benefit of a physician, dentist, or other health care practitioner which was made as the result of a settlement or judgment of a claim of medical malpractice. The regulations also state that the report will identify the practitioner for whose benefit the payment is made. Currently, the regulations provide for facility directors to file a report when they affirm a recommendation from a peer review body regarding whether payment was made for the benefit of a practitioner. Also, currently the regulations provide that the peer review bodies are to be appointed by facility directors. We propose to change the delegation of authority for making the determinations of whether payment was made for the benefit of a practitioner by delegating this function to malpractice payment review panels appointed by the Director of Medical-Legal Affairs. We believe that this will be a more efficient process and help ensure independent decisionmaking. We propose that this new process be used in all cases for which a panel is appointed on or after the effective date of the final rule.

The current regulations further provide for reporting to the NPDB if it is determined that payment was made for the benefit of a practitioner. We propose to delegate this reporting authority to the Director of the facility in which the acts or omissions occurred and the Chief Patient Care Services Officer. These are the appropriate reporting officials within VA. Further, to help ensure that the reported practitioner is aware of the reporting, the reporting official would be required to send a copy of the report to the reported practitioner.

For malpractice payment determinations, the current regulations provide for review of documents pertinent to the claim, including, to the extent practicable, information collected directly from the individual for whose benefit payment was made. The regulations also provide that individuals under consideration for malpractice payment reporting are to be given an opportunity for discussion with the facility director and any other individual designated by the facility director before a reporting determination is made. We propose to eliminate the discussion provisions and otherwise change these procedures as follows:

• Written notice shall be provided to the practitioner whose actions are under review stating that VA is considering whether to report the practitioner to the NPDB because of a specified malpractice payment made, and providing the practitioner with the opportunity to submit a written statement concerning the care that led to the claim within 30 days of receipt of the notice. The written notice shall be hand-delivered to the practitioner whose actions are under review or sent return-receipt requested to the last known address of such practitioner.

• Prior to making a determination, the malpractice payment review panel will review documents pertinent to the care that led to the claim. This may include information prepared in response to a request from the panel.

We believe these procedures provide for more efficient and timely reporting while preserving the practitioner's right to fair and impartial consideration of his or her actions.

With respect to malpractice payment reporting, we also propose to establish special reporting criteria for licensed trainees and for health care professionals who supervise trainees. We propose that actions of a licensed trainee acting within the scope of his or her training program that otherwise would warrant reporting for substandard care, professional incompetence, or professional misconduct will be reported only if the panel, by at least a majority, concludes that such actions constitute gross negligence or willful professional misconduct. Also, we propose to report a physician, dentist, or other health care practitioner in their supervisory capacity, if the panel concludes, by at least a majority, that the health care practitioner was acting in a supervisory capacity when the event occurred; that the payment was related to substandard care, professional incompetence, or professional misconduct of the trainee and not the supervisor; and that the trainee did not commit gross negligence or willful misconduct. Such report would note that the physician, dentist, or other health care practitioner is being reported in a supervisory capacity. These provisions are intended to ensure that reporting reflects responsibility for actions.

With respect to malpractice payment reporting, the regulations currently state that it is intended that malpractice reports be filed within 30 days of the date payment is made. However, the regulations acknowledge that VA may not be able to report within 30 days if VA is not notified of such payments within sufficient time to report within the 30-day period. We propose to add an additional example specifically acknowledging that the 30-day period would not be met if the malpractice payment review process were delayed. The examples are designed to ensure that VA officials understand that reporting must still occur even if there is a valid reason for not reporting within the 30-day period.

In addition, we propose to add provisions regarding both malpractice payment reporting and clinical privileges actions reporting. We propose to add provisions stating that NPDB reporting, including copies to State Licensing Boards, may not be the subject of any negotiation in any settlement agreement, employee action, legal proceedings, or any other negotiated settlement. Also, we propose to note that independent contractors are subject to NPDB reporting under the regulations. We believe these provisions are consistent with the statutory framework for establishing NPDB reporting (42 U.S.C. 11101-11157). Further, this policy will help ensure that NPDB reporting occurs when warranted.

The provisions of § 46.4 set forth a mechanism for reporting based on actions regarding clinical privileges. The current provisions inadvertently indicated that the original report and a copy would be filed with the State Licensing Board in the State in which the facility is located, and a copy filed with the State Licensing Board in the State(s) in which the practitioner is licensed. However, this would be corrected to state that the report will be filed with the National Practitioner Data Bank, with a copy to the State Licensing Board in the State(s) in which the practitioner is licensed and in which the facility is located.

The current regulations at § 46.4(a)(2) provide that one basis for reporting to the NPDB is the acceptance of the surrender of clinical privileges or any restriction of such privileges by a physician or dentist either while under investigation by the health care entity relating to possible incompetence or improper professional conduct, or in return for not conducting such an investigation or proceeding. We propose to specify that the acceptance of the surrender of clinical privileges would include the surrender of clinical privileges inherent in resignation or retirement. We believe that the need for reporting would be the same regardless of how an individual surrendered these clinical privileges. Also, to advise affected individuals of the reporting under § 46.4(a)(2) and to advise them that copies will be sent to State Licensing Boards, we propose to require that, as soon as practicable following the determination to report, VA shall provide written notice to the practitioner that a report shall be filed with the National Practitioner Data Bank with a copy to the State Licensing Board in each State in which the practitioner is licensed and in the State in which the facility is located.

We also propose to make nonsubstantive changes for purposes of clarity, including adding legal definitions of “gross negligence” and “willful professional misconduct.”

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), a collection of information is set forth in proposed 38 CFR 46.3(c). Accordingly, under section 3507(d) of the Act, VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the proposed collection of information.

OMB assigns a control number for each collection of information it approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Comments on the proposed collection of information should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies mailed or hand-delivered to: Director, Office of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Room 1154, Washington, DC 20420. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AJ76.”

Title: Submission of Evidence.

Summary of collection of information: Under proposed § 46.3(c), written notice shall be provided to the practitioner whose actions are under review stating that VA is considering whether to report the practitioner to the NPDB because of a specified malpractice payment made, and provide the practitioner with the opportunity within 30 days of receipt to submit a written statement concerning the care which led to the malpractice payment. The peer review panel would also request written information as needed.

Description of need for information and proposed use of information: This information would be needed for the malpractice payment review panels to determine whether an affected health care professional should be reported to the NPDB.

Description of likely respondents: Health care professionals who are under consideration for reporting to the NPDB and any other individual involved in the care, which led to a claim resulting in a malpractice payment.

Estimated number of respondents: 350 per year.

Estimated frequency of responses: 1 per year.

Estimated average burden per collection: 5 hours.

Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: 1750 hours.

The Department considers comments by the public on proposed collections of information in—

• Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimizing the burden of the collections 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.

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register . Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment on the proposed regulations.

This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

The Secretary hereby certifies that the adoption of this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This rulemaking proceeding affects only individuals. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of §§ 603 and 604.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 38 CFR part 46 is proposed to be revised as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On October 6, 2000, this rule submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

EPA approved a version of Rule 405 into the SIP on August 11, 1978.

ICAPCD Rule 405 includes the following significant changes from the current SIP:

• The effluent process gas from sulfur recovery units, sulfuric acid units, and fuel burning equipment shall not exceed 500 ppm by volume of sulfur compounds calculated as sulfur dioxide; or 200 lbs. per hour of sulfur compounds calculated as sulfur dioxide. Additionally, sulfur recovery units shall not discharge more than 10 ppm by volume of hydrogen sulfide.

• A person shall not burn any gaseous fuel containing sulfur compounds in excess of 50 grains per 100 cubic feet of gaseous fuel, calculated as hydrogen sulfide at standard conditions; or a sulfur content in excess of 0.5 percent by weight.

• The use of non-complying fuel may be allowed with approval where process conditions or control equipment will reduce emissions at a level equal to or less than emissions associated with the use of complying fuel.

• Several test methods are included to determine compliance. The TSD has more information about this rule.

Generally, SIP rules for SO 2 must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). ICAPCD is listed as being attainment for the national ambient air quality standards (see 40 CFR 81) for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). Therefore, for purposes of controlling SO 2 , Rule 405 needs only to comply with the general provisions of Section 110 of the Act.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific enforceability requirements include the following:

1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register Notice,” (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register .

2. “SO 2 Guideline Document,” EPA-452/R-94-008.

This rule improves the SIP by establishing requirements for sulfur emissions and listing the appropriate test methods. This rule is largely consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability. One deficiency that does not meet the evaluation criteria summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

This rule lacks recordkeeping requirements for sources subject to the rule and prevents full approval of the SIP revision.

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing a limited approval of the submitted rule to improve the SIP. If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP, including the identified deficiency. This approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the rule under section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is finalized, sanctions will be not be imposed under section 179 because this an attainment area and not a required submittal. Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the ICAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from enforcing it.

We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

Sulfur dioxide is formed by the combustion of fuels containing sulfur compounds and causes harm to human health and the environment. This rule is designed to reduce SO 2 emissions.

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

Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Equal Opportunity 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

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

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

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

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

This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

EPA's proposed disapproval of the state request under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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

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

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

EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

On February 17, 2000, we published in the Federal Register a 90-day finding on a petition to list the yellow-billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus ) as endangered, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) (65 FR 8104). We determined that the petition presented substantial information that the listing of the yellow-billed cuckoo may be warranted, and initiated a status review which will result in a 12-month finding at the conclusion of the review. The information presented suggested that the yellow-billed cuckoo may be endangered in a significant portion of its range (i.e., the western United States), and that the western United States represents the range of a valid subspecies, termed the western yellow-billed cuckoo. In our 90-day petition finding, while we determined that the listing of the yellow-billed cuckoo may be warranted, the taxonomy of the species is unclear.

To clarify the validity and range of a western subspecies, the Service and USGS solicited proposals for a genetic analysis throughout the species breeding range in the United States and Mexico. We selected and funded a proposal submitted by Dr. Robert Fleischer of the Smithsonian Institution from a total of five proposals. We received the final genetics study prepared by Dr. Fleischer on April 24, 2001.

We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any of several methods:

(1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825.

(2) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: FW1YBC@fws.gov. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a conformation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at telephone number 916/414-6600.

(3) You may hand-deliver comments to our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at the address given above.

Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the 12-month petition finding to list the yellow-billed cuckoo, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed under (1) above. Copies of the study and the 90-day petition finding are available by writing to the Field Supervisor at the address under (1) above.

The primary authors of this notice are Stephanie Brady (see ADDRESSES section), and Barbara Behan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232.

The black sea bass fishery is a major fishery on the Atlantic coast that extends from Cape Hatteras north to Maine. Regulations implementing Amendment 9 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (61 FR 58461, November 16, 1996) control fishing mortality on black sea bass through a variety of management measures including a commercial quota, a limit on the number of commercial permits, gear regulations, and minimum fish size restrictions.

The most recent assessment on black sea bass, completed in June 1998, indicates that black sea bass are over-exploited and at a low biomass level (27th Stock Assessment Workshop). However, more recent results from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s spring survey indicate that the black sea bass biomass has increased in recent years. In fact, the preliminary biomass index for 2000 is the highest in the time series since 1976.

Commercial landings of black sea bass, which are harvested in Federal and state waters using a variety of gears, have varied without trend since 1981, ranging from a low of 2.0 million lb (907.2 mt) in 1994, to a high of 4.3 million lb (1950.4 mt) in 1984. Since 1998, commercial landings have been constrained by quotas at an annual level of 3.025 million lb (1372.1 mt).

A moratorium on the entry of additional commercial vessels into the black sea bass fishery was put in place on November 16, 1996, with the implementation of Amendment 9 to the FMP. However, the qualifying criteria for obtaining initial permits under the moratorium were liberal and only required that vessels provide a black sea bass landing receipt demonstrating at least 1 lb (0.45 kg) of black sea bass landed between January 26, 1989, and January 26, 1993. Based on this criterion, a number of vessels attained a permit even though those vessels only rarely or occasionally landed black sea bass during this period. There were 992 and 974 Federal black sea bass permit holders in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Based on dealer reports, 795 and 727 of these vessels in 1999 and 2000, respectively, landed black sea bass. However, 83 percent of the permit holders participating in the black sea bass fishery in 1999 accounted for less than 9 percent of the black sea bass landings. The 1999 fishing year is the last full fishing year of complete landings information.

The management measures for black sea bass implemented under Amendment 9 to the FMP have begun to rebuild the black sea bass stock. Although the Council and NMFS are concerned that increasing stock abundance may stimulate the use of unused capacity or effort by permit holders, there is equal concern that management measures have reduced fishing opportunities and income for commercial fishermen who have historically depended on black sea bass for a major portion of their income. An activation of latent effort could quickly erode the benefits to traditional operators who have sacrificed income as part of the rebuilding program.

A control date of June 5, 2001 is intended to discourage speculative activation of previously unused effort or capacity in the black sea bass fishery while alternative allocation schemes and potential management regimes to control capacity or latent effort are discussed and possibly developed and implemented. The control date may be used by the Council and NMFS in determining historical or traditional participation in the black sea bass fishery. The control date communicates to black sea bass permit holders that performance or fishing effort after that date may not be treated the same as performance or effort that was expanded prior to the control date. The Council and NMFS could choose different and variably weighted methods to qualify fishermen based on the type and length of participation in the fishery or on the quantity of landings. A control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to develop any particular management regime or criteria for participation in this fishery. The Council or NMFS may choose a different control date, or may choose a management program that does not make use of such a date.

The Council and NMFS may also choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery, in which case the control date may be rescinded. Any action by the Council or NMFS will be taken pursuant to the requirements for FMP development established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the black sea bass fishery in Federal waters.

This control date has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.