The proposed rule (RIN 0551-AA-59), published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2000 (65 FR 14478-14484), provides for a licensing system for imports of certain SCP which enter under the tariff-rate quota (TRQ) provided for in Additional U.S. Note 8 to chapter 17 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). The TRQ limits certain SCP imports entered from October 1 through September 30 in any given year to 64,709,000 kilograms, of which Canada is allocated 59,250,000 kilograms. The proposed rule was published in response to U.S. industry concerns regarding mandated increases in retail packaged SCP exports required under Canada's export permit system which became effective on October 1, 1999. The Department received public comments on the proposed rule from nearly 100 entities (e.g., importers, packers, industry associations, and government officials) on specific provisions of the proposed rule; potential effects on bulk and retail product importers and packers; and costs or unintended market consequences affecting importers, buyers, and participants in the U.S. SCP re-export program.

On June 20, 2000, the Government of Canada amended its export permit system to rescind the phased increase in export permits allocated for retail packaged SCP shipments to the United States. The amendment also rescinded the Canadian Government's policy of promoting value added SCP exports by altering product availability.

In view of the remedial action taken by the Government of Canada to eliminate its market intervention measures, it is appropriate to withdraw the proposed rule.

This rule has been determined to be exempt for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information for this rule have been previously approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053 through April 30, 2001.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, no consultation with states is required.

This regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. New provisions included in this rule will not impact small entities to a greater extent than large entities. Under the current regulations, every producer is required to complete an application and acreage report. If the crop is damaged or destroyed, the producer is required to give notice of loss and provide the necessary information to complete a claim for indemnity. This regulation does not alter those requirements. The amount of work required of the insurance companies delivering and servicing these policies will not increase significantly from the amount of work currently required. Therefore, this action is determined to be exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), and no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared.

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.

This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. The administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.

This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, and safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

FCIC proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR Part 457) by amending 7 CFR 457.151 Forage Seeding Crop Insurance Provisions effective for the 2002 and succeeding crop years. The changes to provisions for insuring forage seeding are as follows:

1. Section 4—Add a new contract change date for South Dakota counties where the Special Provisions designate both fall and spring final planting dates. This allows for a separation of policies and program changes to be made to each policy in a timely manner.

2. Section 5—Add cancellation and termination dates for South Dakota counties that will be applicable when the Special Provisions designate both fall and spring final planting dates. This is necessary to allow for the separate insurance of fall and spring planted forage.

3. Section 9(g)—Add end of insurance period dates for fall and spring planted acreage in California, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington. This allows forage acreage to be insured continuously with no lapse, or overlap, in coverage between the end of insurance period under the Forage Seeding Crop Provisions and the beginning of the insurance period under the Forage Production Crop Provisions.

Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 7 CFR part 457 as follows:

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of these proposed special conditions by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The proposals described in this action may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must include with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to NM175.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On June 25, 1999, Flight Structures Inc., 4407 172 Street NE, Arlington, Washington, 98223, applied for a supplemental type certificate to install an overhead crew rest compartment in Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. The Boeing Model 777-200 series airplane is a large twin-jet engine transport airplane with four pairs of Type A exits, a passenger capacity of 440, and a range of 5000 miles. The overhead crew rest compartment is a single compartment located at the door three vicinity above the main passenger compartment with eight private bunks and two seats, and is to be certified for a maximum of ten occupants. A stairwell entering from the door three aisle is the main entry. Two escape hatches are located on either side of the entryway door. These proposed special conditions are written for an overhead crew rest compartment that will be occupied only in flight, not during taxi, takeoff, or landing.

Under the provisions of § 21.101, Flight Structures, Inc., must show that the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. T00001SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. T00001SE for the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes include 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-82. The U.S. type certification basis for the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes is established in accordance with 14 CFR 21.29 and 21.17 and the type certification application date. The type certification basis is listed in Type Certificate Data Sheet No. T00001SE.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( i.e., part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 777-200 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, Boeing Model 777-200 series airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

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

While the installation of a crew rest compartment is not a new concept for large transport category airplanes, each compartment design has unique features by virtue of its design, location, and use on the airplane. Previously, crew rest compartments have been evaluated that are installed within the main passenger compartment area of the Boeing Model 777-200 and Model 777-300 series airplanes; other crew rest compartments have been installed below the passenger cabin area, within the cargo compartment. Similar overhead crew rest compartments have also been installed on the Boeing Model 747 airplane. The interfaces of the modification are evaluated within the interior and assessed in accordance with the certification basis of the airplane. However, part 25 does not provide the requirements for crew rest compartments within the overhead area of the passenger compartment for the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes.

This is a compartment that has never been used for this purpose in any previous Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. Due to the novel or unusual features associated with the installation of this crew rest compartment, special conditions are considered necessary to provide a level of safety equal to that established by the airworthiness regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate.

In general, the requirements listed in these proposed special conditions are similar to those previously approved in earlier certification programs, such as for the Boeing Model 747 overhead crew rest compartment. These proposed special conditions establish seating, communication, lighting, personal safety, and evacuation requirements for the overhead crew rest compartment. When applicable, the proposed requirements parallel the existing requirements for a lower deck service compartment and provide an equivalent level of safety to that provided for main deck occupants.

Seats and berths must be certified to the maximum flight loads. Due to the location and configuration of the crew rest compartment, occupancy during taxi, takeoff, and landing would be prohibited, and occupancy limited to crewmembers during flight. Occupancy would be limited to either ten persons, or the combined total of approved seats and berths, whichever is less.

Two-way voice communications and public address speaker(s) would be required to alert the occupants to an inflight emergency. Also, a system to alert the occupants of the crew rest compartment in the event of decompression and to don oxygen masks would be required.

To prevent the occupants from being isolated in a dark area due to loss of the crew rest compartment lighting, either a second independent source of normal lighting or emergency lighting would be required. An emergency lighting system, which is activated under the same conditions as the main deck emergency lighting system, would also be required.

To preclude occupants from being trapped in the crew rest compartment in the event the main entryway is blocked, two evacuation routes, including the entryway, would be required. Each evacuation route must be designed to allow for removal of an incapacitated person from the crew rest compartment to the main deck.

In addition, passenger information signs, supplemental oxygen, and a seat or berth for each occupant of the crew rest compartment would be required. These items are necessary because of turbulence and/or decompression.

Proposed special condition no. 8 requires a means, readily detectable by seated or standing occupants of the crew rest compartment, which indicates when seat belts should be fastened. The requirement for visibility of the sign by standing occupants may be met by a general area sign that is visible to occupants standing in the main floor area or corridor of the crew rest area. It would not be essential to be visible from every possible location in the crew rest area; however, the location should not be easily obscured or remotely located.

Since the overhead crew rest compartment is remotely located from the main passenger cabin and will not always be occupied, a smoke detection system and fire-fighting equipment would be required to minimize the hazards associated with a fire in the crew rest compartment. The smoke detection system must be capable of detecting a fire in each area of the compartment created by the installation of a curtain or partition. The materials in the crew rest compartment must meet the flammability requirements of § 25.853(a), and the mattresses must meet the fire blocking requirements of § 25.853(c).

The crew rest compartment must be designed such that fires within the compartment can be controlled without having to enter the compartment; or, the design of the access provisions must allow crew equipped for fire fighting to have unrestricted access to the compartment. The time for a crewmember on the main deck to react to the fire alarm, to don the fire fighting equipment, and to gain access must not exceed the time for the crew rest compartment to become smoke filled, making it difficult to locate the fire source.

This proposed special condition requirement concerning fires within the compartment was developed for, and applied to, Boeing Model 777-200 and Model 777-300 series airplanes lower lobe crew rest compartment; it was not applied to the overhead crew rest compartment in earlier certification programs such as the Boeing Model 747. The Model 747 special conditions were issued before the new flammability requirements were developed. This requirement originated from a concern that a fire in an unoccupied crew rest compartment could spread into the passenger compartment, or affect other vital systems, before it could be extinguished. The proposed special conditions would require either the installation of a manually activated fire containment system that is accessible from outside the crew rest compartment, or a demonstration that the crew could satisfactorily perform the function of extinguishing a fire under the prescribed conditions. The manually activated fire containment system would be required only if it could not be demonstrated that a crewmember responding to the alarm could not locate the fire source and successfully extinguish the fire.

These proposed special conditions provide the regulatory requirements necessary for certification of this modification. Other special conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with the applicant, manufacturer, and civil aviation authorities.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. Should Flight Structures, Inc., apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. T00001SE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes, as modified by Flight Structures, Inc., with overhead crew rest compartments.

1. Occupancy of the overhead crew rest compartment is limited to a maximum of ten occupants. There must be an approved seat or berth able to withstand the maximum flight loads when occupied for each occupant permitted in the crew rest compartment.

(a) There must be appropriate placards, inside and outside to indicate:

(1) The maximum number of occupants allowed,

(2) That occupancy is restricted to crewmembers,

(3) That occupancy is prohibited during taxi, take-off and landing, and

(4) That smoking is prohibited in the crew rest compartment.

(b) There must be at least one ashtray on the inside and outside of any entrance to the crew rest compartment.

(c) There must be a means to prevent passengers from entering the compartment in the event of an emergency or when no flight attendant is present.

(d) There must be a means for any door installed between the crew rest compartment and passenger cabin to be capable of being quickly opened, even when crowding occurs at each side of the door.

(e) For all doors installed, there must be a means to preclude anyone from being trapped inside the compartment. If a locking mechanism is installed, it must be capable of being unlocked from the outside without the aid of special tools. The lock must not prevent opening from the inside of the compartment at any time.

2. There must be at least two emergency evacuation routes that could be used by each occupant of the crew rest compartment to rapidly evacuate to the main cabin. In addition—

(a) The routes must be located on opposite sides of the crew rest compartment with sufficient separation within the compartment, and between the evacuation routes, to minimize the possibility of an event rendering both routes inoperative.

(b) The routes must be designed to minimize the possibility of blockage, which might result from fire, mechanical or structural failure, or persons standing below or against the escape route. One of two evacuation routes may not be located where normal movement by passengers occurs ( i.e., main aisle, cross aisle, or galley complex) that would impede egress of the crew rest compartment. If there is low headroom at or near the evacuation route, provisions must be made to prevent or to protect occupants from head injury. The use of evacuation routes must not be dependent on any powered device.

(c) Emergency evacuation procedures must be established and transmitted to the operators for incorporation into their training programs and appropriate operational manuals.

(d) There must be a limitation in the Airplane Flight Manual or other suitable means requiring that crewmembers be trained in the use of evacuation routes.

3. There must be a means for the evacuation of an incapacitated person (representative of a ninety-fifth percentile male) from the crew rest compartment to the passenger cabin floor. The evacuation must be demonstrated for all evacuation routes. A flight attendant or other crewmember may provide assistance in the evacuation. Procedures for the evacuation of an incapacitated person from the crew rest compartment must be established.

4. The following signs and placards must be provided in the crew rest compartment:

(a) At least one exit sign, located near each exit, meeting the requirements of § 25.812(b)(1)(i).

(b) An appropriate placard defining the location and the operating instructions for each evacuation route.

(c) Placards must be readable from a distance of 30 inches under emergency lighting conditions.

(d) The exit handles and instruction placards must be illuminated to at least 160 microlamberts under emergency lighting conditions.

5. There must be a means in the event of failure of the airplane's main power system, or of the normal crew rest compartment lighting system, for emergency illumination to be automatically provided for the crew rest compartment.

(a) This emergency illumination must be independent of the main lighting system.

(b) The sources of general cabin illumination may be common to both the emergency and the main lighting systems if the power supply to the emergency lighting system is independent of the power supply to the main lighting system.

(c) The illumination level must be sufficient for the occupants of the crew rest compartment to locate and transfer to the main passenger cabin floor by means of each evacuation route.

6. There must be means for two-way voice communications between the crewmembers on the flight deck and the occupants of the crew rest compartment. There must also be two-way communications between the occupants of the crew rest compartment and each flight attendant station required to have a public address system microphone per § 25.1423(g) in the passenger cabin.

7. There must be a means for manual activation of an aural emergency alarm system, audible during normal and emergency conditions, to enable crewmembers on the flight deck and at each pair of required floor level emergency exits to alert occupants of the crew rest compartment of an emergency situation. Use of a public address or crew interphone system would be acceptable, providing an adequate means of differentiating between normal and emergency communications is incorporated. The system must be powered in flight, after the shutdown or failure of all engines and auxiliary power units, or the disconnection or failure of all power sources dependent on their continued operation, for a period of at least ten minutes.

8. There must be a means, readily detectable by seated or standing occupants of the crew rest compartment, which indicates when seat belts should be fastened. Seat belt type restraints must be provided for berths and must be compatible for the sleeping attitude during cruise conditions. There must be a placard on each berth requiring that seat belts must be fastened when occupied. If compliance with any of the other requirements of these special conditions is predicated on specific head location, there must be a placard identifying the head position. In the event there are no seats, at least one sign must be provided to cover anticipated turbulence.

9. The following equipment must be provided in the crew rest compartment:

(a) At least one approved hand-held fire extinguisher appropriate for the kinds of fires likely to occur;

(b) One protective breathing equipment device approved to TSO-C116 or equivalent, suitable for fire fighting; and

(c) One flashlight.

10. A smoke detection system (or systems) must be provided that monitors each area within the crew rest including those areas partitioned by curtains. Flight tests must be conducted to show compliance with this requirement. Each system (or systems) must provide:

(a) A visual indication to the flight deck within one minute after the start of a fire;

(b) An aural warning in the crew rest compartment; and

(c) A warning in the main passenger cabin. This warning must be readily detectable by a flight attendant, taking into consideration the positioning of flight attendants throughout the main passenger compartment during various phases of flight.

11. The crew rest compartment must be designed such that fires within the compartment can be controlled without a crewmember having to enter the compartment, or the design of the access provisions must allow crewmembers equipped for firefighting to have unrestricted access to the compartment. The time for a crewmember on the main deck to react to the fire alarm, to don the fire fighting equipment, and to gain access must not exceed the time for the compartment to become smoke-filled, making it difficult to locate the fire source.

12. There must be a means provided to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke or extinguishing agent originating in the crew rest compartment from entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers. The means must include the time periods during the evacuation of the crew rest compartment and, if applicable, when accessing the crew rest compartment to manually fight a fire. Smoke entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers must dissipate within 5 minutes after closing the access to the crew rest compartment. Flight tests must be conducted to show compliance with this requirement.

13. There must be a supplemental oxygen system equivalent to that provided for main deck passengers for each seat and berth in the crew rest compartment. The system must provide:

(a) An aural and visual warning to the occupants of the crew rest compartment to don oxygen masks in the event of decompression; and

(b) A decompression warning that activates before the cabin pressure altitude exceeds 15,000 feet. The warning must sound continuously until a reset pushbutton in the crew rest compartment is depressed.

14. The following requirements apply to a crew rest compartment that is divided into several sections by the installation of curtains or partitions:

(a) To compensate for sleeping occupants, there must be an aural alert that can be heard in each section of the crew rest compartment that accompanies automatic presentation of supplemental oxygen masks. Two supplemental oxygen masks are required in each section whether or not seats or berths are installed in each section. There must also be a means by which the occupants can manually deploy the oxygen masks.

(b) A placard is required adjacent to each curtain that visually divides or separates, for privacy purposes, the overhead crew rest compartment into small sections. The placard must require that the curtain(s) remain open when the private section it creates is unoccupied. The vestibule section adjacent to the stairway is not considered a private area and, therefore, does not require a placard.

(c) For each crew rest section created by the installation of a curtain, the following requirements of these special conditions must be met with the curtain open or closed:

(1) No smoking placard (special condition no. 1),

(2) Emergency illumination (special condition no. 5),

(3) Emergency alarm system (special condition no. 7),

(4) Seat belt fasten signal (special condition no. 8), and

(5) The smoke or fire detection system (special condition no.'s 10, 11, and 12).

(d) Overhead crew rest compartments visually divided to the extent that evacuation could be affected must have exit signs that direct occupants to the primary stairway exit. The exit signs must be provided in each separate section of the crew rest compartment, and must meet the requirements of § 25.812(b)(1)(i).

(e) For sections within an overhead crew rest compartment that are created by the installation of a rigid partition with a door physically separating the sections, the following requirements of these special conditions must be met with the door open or closed:

(1) There must be a secondary evacuation route from each section to the main deck, or alternatively, the evacuation route must show that any door between the sections has been designed to preclude anyone from being trapped inside the compartment.

(2) Any door between the sections must be shown to be openable when crowded against, even when crowding occurs at each side of the door.

(3) There may be no more than one door between any seat or berth and the primary stairway exit.

(4) There must be exit signs in each section meeting the requirements of § 25.812(b)(1)(i) that direct occupants to the primary stairway exit.

(f) For each smaller section within the main crew rest compartment created by the installation of a partition with a door, the following requirements of these special conditions must be met with the door open or closed:

(1) No smoking placards (special condition no. 1),

(2) Emergency illumination (special condition no. 5),

(3) Two-way voice communication (special condition no. 6),

(4) Emergency alarm system (special condition no. 7),

(5) Seat belt fasten signal (special condition no. 8),

(6) Emergency fire fighting and protective equipment (special condition no. 9), and

(7) Smoke or fire detection system (special condition no.'s 10, 11, and 12).

15. The requirements of two-way voice communication with the flight deck and provisions for emergency firefighting and protective equipment are not applicable to lavatories or other small areas that are not intended to be occupied for extended periods of time.

16. Where a waste disposal receptacle is fitted, it must be equipped with an automatic fire extinguisher that meets the performance requirements of § 25.854(b).

17. Materials (including finishes or decorative surfaces applied to the materials) must comply with the flammability requirements of § 25.853(a), as amended by Amendment 25-83. Mattresses must comply with the flammability requirements of § 25.853(c), as amended by Amendment 25-83.

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 those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-ASO-36.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received 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 the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Office of the Regional Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337, 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, Manager, Airspace Branch, ASO-520, Air Traffic Division, P. O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.

The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to amend Class D airspace at Kissimmee, FL Class D airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from the surface are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the 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. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will 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 notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-ASO-37.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Office of the Regional Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337, 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, Manager, Airspace Branch, ASO-520, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.

The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to amend Class E airspace at Lexington, KY. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the 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. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule when promulgated, will 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 notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-AAL-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 notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK, 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.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded, using a modem and suitable communications software, from the FAA regulations section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 202-512-1661).

Internet users may reach the Federal Register's web page for access to recently published rulemaking documents at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, AAL-530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the individual(s) identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Sparrevohn, AK, to create controlled airspace for the instrument approach and departure procedures to RWY 34 and from RWY 16, in order for the approach and departure procedures to be published in the U.S. Government Flight Information Publication, U.S. Terminal Procedures—Alaska. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace for IFR operations at Sparrevohn, AK.

The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the 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. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will 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 notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-AAL-13.” 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 notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK, 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.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded, using a modem and suitable communications software, from the FAA regulations section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 202-512-1661).

Internet users may reach the Federal Register's web page for access to recently published rulemaking documents at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, AAL-530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the individual(s) identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Cape Romanzof, AK, to create controlled airspace for the instrument approach and departure procedures to RWY 20 and RWY 02, in order for the approach and departure procedures to be published in the U.S. Government Flight Information Publication, U.S. Terminal Procedures—Alaska. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace for IFR operations at Cape Romanzof, AK.

The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the 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. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will 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 notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-AAL-14.” 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 notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK, 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.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded, using a modem and suitable communications software, from the FAA regulations section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 202-512-1661).

Internet users may reach the Federal Register's web page for access to recently published rulemaking documents at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, AAL-530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the individual(s) identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Tin City, AK, to create controlled airspace for the instrument approach and departure procedures to RWY 34 and RWY 16, in order for the approach and departure procedures to be published in the U.S. Government Flight Information Publication, U.S. Terminal Procedures—Alaska. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace for IFR operations at Tin City, AK.

The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the 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. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will 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 notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-AAL-15.” 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 notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK, 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.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded, using a modem and suitable communications software, from the FAA regulations section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 202-512-1661).

Internet users may reach the Federal Register's web page for access to recently published rulemaking documents at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, AAL-530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the individual(s) identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Indian Mountain, AK, to create controlled airspace for the instrument approach and departure procedures to RWY 24 and RWY 06, in order for the approach and departure procedures to be published in the U.S. Government Flight Information Publication, U.S. Terminal Procedures—Alaska. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace for IFR operations at Indian Mountain, AK.

The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the 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. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will 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 notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-AAL-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 notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK, 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.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded, using a modem and suitable communications software, from the FAA regulations section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 202-512-1661).

Internet users may reach the Federal Register's web page for access to recently published rulemaking documents at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, AAL-530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the individual(s) identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Cape Lisburne, AK, to create controlled airspace for the instrument approach and departure procedures to RWY 26 and RWY 08, in order for the approach and departure procedures to be published in the U.S. Government Flight Information Publication, U.S. Terminal Procedures—Alaska. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace for IFR operations at Cape Lisburne, AK.

The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points , dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the 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. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will 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 notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-AAL-12.” 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 notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK, 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.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded, using a modem and suitable communications software, from the FAA regulations section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-3339) or the Federal Register 's electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 202-512-1661).

Internet users may reach the Federal Register 's web page for access to recently published rulemaking documents at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, AAL-530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the individual(s) identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Cape Newenham, AK, to create controlled airspace for the instrument approach and departure procedures to RWY 14 and RWY 32, in order for the approach and departure procedures to be published in the U.S. Government Flight Information Publication, U.S. Terminal Procedures—Alaska. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace for IFR operations at Cape Newenham, AK.

The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points , dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the 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. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will 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:

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations, specifically 21 U.S.C. 802(34) and 21 CFR 1310.02 (c), provide the Attorney General with the authority to specify, by regulation, additional chemicals as “List I” chemicals if they are used in the manufacture of a controlled substance in violation of the CSA and are important to the manufacture of the controlled substance. This authority has been delegated to the Administrator of DEA by 28 CFR 0.100 and redelegated to the Deputy Administrator under 28 CFR 0.104 (Subpart R) Appendix Sec. 12.

This notice proposes the addition of red phosphorus, white phosphorus (also known as yellow phosphorus) and hypophosphorous acid (and its salts) as List I chemicals. Additionally, this notice proposes that no threshold be established for domestic and international transactions.

Phosphorus is a nonmetallic element that can occur in three main allotropic ( i.e. crystalline) forms (white, red and black). Elemental phosphorus is derived from phosphate rock. The most abundant variety produced is white phosphorus (also known as yellow phosphorus). Most other forms of phosphorus and phosphorus chemicals are produced from white phosphorus. The white form is extremely flammable and toxic and must be stored and shipped in water.

The second crystalline form is red phosphorus. Red phosphorus is usually prepared as a powder and is more stable and less toxic than the white form. A black crystalline form of phosphorus is also occasionally made and is similar to graphite in its physical, thermal and electrical properties.

The DEA is proposing that the white and red forms of elemental phosphorus be designated as List I chemicals. Black phosphorus and phosphate rock will not be affected by this proposed action.

Additionally, the DEA is proposing to designate hypophosphorous acid and its salts as List I chemicals. While hypophosphorous acid (H3PO2) is most commonly sold as 10%, 30% or 50% solutions, the DEA is proposing the control of all aqueous dilutions of hypophosphorous acid. Salts of hypophosphorous acid are known as hypophosphite salts. The DEA is also proposing that these salts be included as List I chemicals. Examples of these salts include: ammonium hypophosphite, calcium hypophosphite, iron hypophosphite, potassium hypophosphite, manganese hypophosphite, magnesium hypophosphite and sodium hypophosphite. Sodium hypophosphite is the most commercially available salt and is distributed in a white crystalline form.

DEA's research indicates that there are currently only two domestic producers of elemental phosphorus. The primary material derived from phosphate rock is white phosphorus. Other forms of phosphorus and other phosphorus chemicals are manufactured from white phosphorus. DEA obtained 1998 and 1999 sales data from both producers. Over a two-year period, the two firms had only a few customers. Each customer appears to be a large industrial firm.

The DEA reviewed independent data for 1997 indicating that approximately 250,000 metric tons of elemental phosphorus were consumed in the U.S. Most consumers are large entities, which primarily use elemental phosphorous in the manufacture of phosphorous chemicals not impacted by this proposed regulation.

White phosphorus is primarily used to produce phosphoric acid and other phosphorus compounds including phosphorus trichloride and phosphorous pentasulfide and phosphorus pentoxide. Over 98% of the annual U.S. phosphorus demand is used in the production of these four compounds, none of which is subject to this proposed action.

Industrial uses of red phosphorus include the manufacture of pyrotechnics, safety matches, phosphoric acid and other phosphorus compounds, fertilizers, incendiary shells, smoke bombs, tracer bullets, and pesticides. Very small volumes are used to produce ultra-high-purity phosphorus semiconductor grades) for application in the electronics industry.

Hypophosphorous acid is commonly used by large industry as a bleaching, color stabilization or decoloring agent for plastics, synthetic fibers (primarily polyester) and chemicals. It is also used in the preparation of hypophosphite salts, which are in turn used in synthetic fibers as wetting agents, dispersing agents, anti-static agents and emulsifying agents. Hypophosphorous acid is also used as a chemical intermediate in organic syntheses and as a polymerization and polycondensation catalyst. It also has applications as a reducing agent and as an antioxidant.

The two most common salts of hypophosphorous acid are sodium hypophosphite and manganese hypophosphite. The sodium salt is used primarily in electroless nickel plating. It is also used as a reducing agent, analytical reagent, polymerization catalyst, polymer stabilizer, and fire retardant. While the manganese salt is used primarily in nylon fiber production, it also has application as a chemical intermediate. The DEA has identified two manufacturers of sodium hypophosphite in the United States.

The DEA has identified these chemicals as being used in the illicit production of methamphetamine. The public health consequences of the manufacture, trafficking, and abuse of methamphetamine are well known and documented.

These phosphorus chemicals play an important role in the chemical reaction to produce methamphetamine. A review of the 50 largest methamphetamine laboratories seized by DEA in 1998 was recently conducted. The study revealed that in those instances where the production method could be ascertained, red phosphorus was used in 87% of these laboratories. Additionally, a review of calendar years 1998-1999 clandestine laboratory seizure data (reported by the El Paso Intelligence Center and the Western States Information Network) indicated that more than 3750 seized methamphetamine laboratories were confirmed as utilizing phosphorus.

The majority of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories seized in the U.S. utilize phosphorus chemicals as catalysts to drive the chemical conversion of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine. Since catalysts are necessary for the preferred method used by illicit laboratory operators, these phosphorus chemicals are important to the production of methamphetamine.

While the vast majority of these laboratories utilized red phosphorus, DEA is aware that a number of seized laboratories have used white phosphorus. DEA believes that the use of white phosphorus is under-reported. Many forensic laboratories do not differentiate samples as being white versus red phosphorus. These analytical laboratories have historically identified seized material simply as ‘phosphorus’.

The Idaho State Police, however, have closely monitored the illicit use of white phosphorus. Their information indicates that in southeastern Idaho, white phosphorus is frequently encountered in methamphetamine laboratories. From 1997 through the first quarter of 2000, 86 methamphetamine laboratories were seized in this region of Idaho. White phosphorus was encountered at 35 of these laboratories; red phosphorus was encountered at 27 laboratories and the type of phosphorus was not identified at 24 of these laboratories.

Recently the DEA has noted a small but increasing use of hypophosphorous acid at seized clandestine laboratories. During 1998, the DEA identified a total of only six methamphetamine laboratories utilizing hypophosphorous acid. In 1999, the DEA documented an additional 48 laboratories utilizing hypophosphorous acid. The trend continues into calendar year 2000.

The DEA has also noted that detailed recipes describing the production of methamphetamine (using red phosphorus, white phosphorus and hypophosphorous acid) are being disseminated on the Internet. If red phosphorus alone is controlled, DEA has concluded that clandestine laboratory operators would rapidly move to white phosphorus and hypophosphorous acid. This would be an undesired consequence, since both the white phosphorus and hypophosphorous acid methods of illicit methamphetamine production are significantly more hazardous methods. White phosphorus is much more flammable and toxic than red phosphorus. If not stored in a solution, white phosphorus spontaneously combusts. The hypophosphorous acid method is also extremely hazardous since it produces phosphine gas. If not confined within the reaction vessel, ingestion of this poisonous gas can result in death. Therefore, use of these alternate methods poses increased hazards for both law enforcement and for the public.

Based on analysis of chemistry and actual illicit use, DEA finds that these three chemicals are important to the manufacture of methamphetamine and therefore meet the definition of List I chemicals. Hence, this Notice proposes that these chemicals be subject to CSA regulatory controls for List I chemicals, including registration, recordkeeping, reporting, and import/export requirements as specified in 21 CFR parts 1309, 1310 and 1313. DEA believes that these regulatory controls are needed to prevent the diversion of these phosphorus chemicals to clandestine laboratories.

As List I chemicals, red phosphorus, white phosphorus, and hypophosphorous acid and its salts will become subject to the chemical regulatory control provisions and civil and criminal sanctions of the CSA. As such, recordkeeping, reporting and import/export notification requirements (as described in 21 U.S.C. 830 and 971 and 21 CFR parts 1310 and 1313) shall apply. Manufacturers, distributors, importers and exporters of white phosphorus, red phosphorus and hypophosphorous acid (and its salts) will be required to register with the DEA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822 and 823 and 21 CFR part 1309.

Handlers of these chemicals will also be required to maintain records and meet CSA import/export notification requirements for “regulated transactions” of these chemicals. The CSA (21 U.S.C. 802(39)) defines the term “regulated transaction” as a “distribution, receipt, sale, importation, or exportation of, or an international transaction involving the shipment of, a listed chemical, or if the Attorney General establishes a threshold amount for a specific listed chemical,” a transaction involving a threshold amount”. The CSA, therefore, provides the Attorney General with authority to establish a threshold amount for “listed chemicals” if the Attorney General so elects.

As noted above, these chemicals are used as catalysts in the illicit synthesis of methamphetamine. Therefore, the manufacture of methamphetamine requires only small quantities of these chemicals.

DEA has not been able to identify any household uses for red phosphorus, white phosphorus or hypophosphorous acid and its salts. However, these materials are being distributed in small quantities via Internet on-line auctions and through chemical supply houses directly to consumers. It is common to find 500 ml bottles of hypophosphorous acid or multi-ounce quantities of red phosphorus repackaged in unlabeled bags at seized laboratories.

Therefore the DEA believes that all transactions should be regulated, regardless of size, to prevent the diversion of these phosphorus chemicals to clandestine laboratories. This notice proposes, therefore, that no threshold be established for domestic and international transactions.

DEA recognizes that these chemicals have legitimate industrial uses and that regulation of these phosphorus chemicals may have some effect upon certain industries. Therefore, DEA has sought information on the phosphorus chemical trade so that diversion of these chemicals may be prevented with minimal impact on legitimate industry.

Since red phosphorus was the phosphorus chemical most frequently encountered in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, the DEA initially published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on February 2, 2000 (65 FR 4913) to solicit input from potentially affected parties regarding: (1) The nature of the legitimate red phosphorus industry; (2) the legitimate uses of red phosphorus at all levels of distribution (including industrial uses and use by individual end-users at the retail level of distribution); (3) the potential burden such regulatory controls may have on legitimate industry (particularly with respect to the impact on small businesses); (4) the potential number of individuals/firms which may be adversely affected by increased regulatory requirements; and (5) any other information on the manner of manufacturing, distribution, consumption, storage, disposal, and uses of red phosphorus by industry and others. Both quantitative and qualitative data were invited.

The DEA did not receive any comments or input from the phosphorus industry in response to this Notice. The DEA did receive six comments from law enforcement entities and two comments from Federal prosecutors in support of the control of red phosphorus as a listed chemical.

Since laboratory seizure data sparked concerns over the illicit use of white phosphorus and hypophosphorous acid, the DEA broadened the scope of its research to include the entire phosphorus chemical industry. Since no industry input was received in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DEA directly contacted domestic producers of elemental phosphorus and importers of phosphorus chemicals.

DEA has identified only two domestic producers of white phosphorus. While producers of white phosphorus will be required to register with DEA and maintain records of each regulated transaction ( i.e . all transactions of these chemicals), over 98% of the phosphorus distributed by these two producers is eventually converted to a form not impacted by this proposed regulation. Handlers which acquire phosphorus and convert it to non-regulated forms will not be subject to CSA regulatory requirements.

The remaining 2% of the phosphorus (used domestically) is utilized in its elemental form ( i.e . as red phosphorus or white phosphorus) or used to produce all other phosphorus chemicals including sodium hypophosphite and hypophosphorous acid. Therefore, this proposed regulation will only affect the distribution of less than 2% of the industry at the end user level. It is believed that there are few firms handling these regulated forms ( i.e . red phosphorus, white phosphorus and hypophosphorous acid and its salts.) Additionally, it appears that these chemicals have only industrial uses. The DEA has not been able to identify any ‘household’ uses for red phosphorus, white phosphorus, or hypophosphorous acid (and its salts).

In an effort to better estimate the potential impact of this proposed action, the DEA conducted an analysis of various data sources relating to the manufacture, distribution, and use of phosphorus, hypophosphorous acid, and the hypophosphites. This included an analysis of current chemical producers and marketing directories (to identify companies listing themselves as sources of these chemicals). In addition, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) were collected. Companies creating MSDSs for chemicals are likely to manufacture or distribute the chemicals.

DEA also examined Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reporting requirements pertaining to phosphorus, hypophosphorous acid, and the hypophosphites. Of the three chemicals subject to this proposed rule, only phosphorus is regulated under programs that require reporting to EPA. Phosphorus is covered by the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program, which requires an annual report to EPA listing the maximum quantity on site, the uses of the chemical, releases to the environment, and transfers offsite. The TRI data have the advantage that they provide information on the quantity of a chemical transferred offsite as a waste, and the name of the offsite treatment facility. The last element is important because, while there are few manufacturers of the chemical, there are users who may come under the proposed regulations because they distribute the chemical to waste treatment facilities.

Phosphorus is also subject to Department of Transportation (DOT) hazardous material (“hazmat”) regulations so that interstate and intrastate transportation require shipping papers. Additionally, hypophosphorous acid is covered in interstate commerce. The MSDSs located for the hypophosphites indicate that they are not covered by the DOT hazmat rules.

The analysis concluded that there are only two bulk manufacturers of phosphorus, most of whose product is sold to chemical manufacturers or exported. A limited number of other facilities manufacture phosphorus as a by-product or import phosphorus. The hypophosphites are similarly produced by very few facilities. The analysis identified two main producers of the hypophosphites. Additionally, two producers of hypophosphorous acid were identified. One of the two producers recently acquired the other. Therefore, only five manufacturers are likely to be affected by this proposed regulation.

A review of chemical marketing directories identified at least 39 companies, other than the manufacturers, that claim to sell these substances.

In 1998, 53 facilities reported to EPA for phosphorus. Most of these companies would not be required to register with DEA unless they sell phosphorus or transfer it offsite. Twenty-one of the 53 facilities reporting phosphorus under TRI sent phosphorus offsite to 30 separate places for treatment as waste. Many of the transfers were for recovery or recycling and a few were for disposal in landfills. A few reported releasing the substance to publicly owned treatment works ( i.e., wastewater treatment).

This waste material would likely be considered a chemical mixture containing phosphorus. While chemical mixtures are currently exempt from CSA chemical regulatory requirements, the DEA is preparing regulations pertaining to such mixtures.

This proposed regulation is not considered to have an impact upon a substantial number of firms, given the limited distribution of these three chemicals. Additionally, it is likely that the CSA recordkeeping requirements are already being met as part of normal business practice. For phosphorus, compliance with EPA and DOT regulations should document distributions to customers and offsite waste transfers. Hypophosphorous acid shipments should be documented, but shipments of the hypophosphites may not be. Nonetheless, it is likely that chemical distributors do maintain records of shipments and customers even if shipping papers are not required.

According to 1999 maritime data (as reported by the Pier Import Export Reporting Service), imports of phosphorus chemicals into the U.S. totaled 101 shipments for a total of 2,500 metric tons to 36 different firms. U.S. exports totaled approximately 180 shipments of 4,300 metric tons by 32 firms.

Prior to preparing this proposal the DEA also solicited information directly from importers. This data indicated that most all the material appeared to be for large industrial uses.

This notice solicits input regarding: (1) The nature of the legitimate phosphorus industry; (2) the legitimate uses of phosphorus at all levels of distribution (including industrial uses and use by individual end-users at the retail level of distribution); (3) the potential impact such regulatory controls may have on legitimate industry (particularly with respect to the impact on small businesses); (4) the potential number of individuals/firms which may be affected by increased regulatory requirements; and (5) any other information on the manner of manufacturing, distribution, consumption, storage, disposal, and uses of phosphorus by industry and others. Comments must be submitted on or before November 24, 2000.

The Deputy Administrator hereby certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in a manner consistent with the principles of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). It will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.

The Deputy Administrator further certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in accordance with the principles in Executive Order 12866 section 1(b). DEA has determined that this is not a significant rulemaking action. Therefore, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, and it has been determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The Drug Enforcement Administration makes every effort to write clearly. If you have suggestions as to how to improve the clarity of this regulation, call or write Patricia M. Good, Chief, Liaison and Policy Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, telephone (202) 307-7297.

For reasons set out above, it is proposed that 21 CFR Part 1310 be amended as follows:

On November 24, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Montana plan as administered by the Department of State Lands. You can find general background information on the Montana plan, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Montana plan in the October 24, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 70445). You can also find later actions concerning Montana's plan and plan amendments at 30 CFR 926.21 and 926.25.

By letter dated August 15, 2000, Montana sent us a proposed amendment to its plan (SPATS No. MT-021-FOR, Administrative Record No. MT-18-01) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). Montana sent the amendment in response to the required plan amendment at 30 CFR 926.21(a) and at its own initiative. The full text of the plan amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES .

Montana proposes to delete its AMLR rule definitions of “abandoned mine land reclamation fund,” “emergency,” and “extreme danger” at ARM 26.4.301 and its definitions of “abandoned mine land reclamation fund,” “emergency,” “expended,” “extreme danger,” “fund,” “left or abandoned in either an unreclaimed or inadequately reclaimed condition,” “Montana abandoned mine reclamation program,” and “reclamation activities” at ARM 26.4.1231.

Montana proposes to delete the AMLR rules at ARM 26.41232 through 26.41242, which concern the AMLR fund, eligible lands and water, reclamation objectives and priorities, reclamation project evaluation, consent to enter lands, land eligible for acquisition, procedures for acquisition, acceptance of gifts of land, management of acquired lands, disposition of reclaimed lands, and reclamation on private land.

In lieu of the deleted rules, Montana intends to rely on the requirements of its AMLR plan and on the statutory provisions at Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 82-4-239, 82-4-371, and 82-4-445. Montana proposes to revise MCA 82-4-239 to reflect the reorganized duties of the Board of Environmental Review and Department of Environmental Quality. Montana has changed the wording to delete “Board” and insert “Department” as approporiate. These proposed revisions are the same as those proposed by Montana on May 16, 1995 (SPATS No. MT-017-FOR, Administrative Record No. MT-14-01). At that time, OSM found no problems with the revisions to MCA 82-4-239 but deferred a decision on it due to a lack of information concerning the 1995 Montana reorganization and its impact on the AMLR plan. (For more information, see final rule Federal Register notice, 64 FR 3604, dated January 22, 1999.)

Lastly, in this amendment, Montana presents its 1995 reorganization moving the AMLR program from the Department of State Lands to the Department of Environmental Quality.

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 884.15(a), OSM requests your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable State reclamation plan approval criteria of 30 CFR 884.14. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Montana plan.

Send your written comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. In the final rulemaking, we will not consider or include in the Administrative Record any comments received after the time indicated under DATES or at locations other than the Casper Field Office.

Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: SPATS No. MT-021-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Casper Field Office at (307) 261-6550.

We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law.

Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their 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 review in their entirety.

If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., m.d.t., October 10, 2000. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold the hearing.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings will be open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the Administrative Record.

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that, to the extent allowable by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of Montana AMLR plans and revisions thereof since each such plan is drafted and promulgated by Montana, not by OSM. Decisions on proposed Montana AMLR plans and revisions thereof submitted by a Montana AMLR are based on a determination of whether the submittal meets the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-1243) and the applicable Federal regulations at 30 CFR Parts 884 and 888.

This rule does not have Federalism implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13132. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 405 of SMCRA authorized the creation of State AMLR programs for the purpose of reclaiming and restoring land and water resources adversely affected by past coal mining operations. Section 405(d) of SMCRA specifies the criteria for the approval and disapproval of these State abandoned mine reclamation programs which are funded at 100 percent by grants from the Federal government.

No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since agency decisions on proposed Montana AMLR plans and revisions thereof are categorically excluded from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the Department of the Interior (516 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq. ).

The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The Montana submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements established by SMCRA or previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by Montana. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions in the analyses for the corresponding Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule (a) does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, or Federal, State or local governmental agencies; and (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 determination is based upon the fact that the Montana submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.

On April 1, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Montana program. You can find background information on the Montana program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Montana program in the April 1, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 21560). You can also find later actions concerning Montana's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 926.15, 926.16, and 926.30.

By letters dated July 20 and August 17, 2000, Montana sent us a proposed amendment to its program (Administrative Record No. MT-17-01) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). Montana sent the amendment in response to a June 5, 1996, letter (Administrative Record No. MT-17-03) that we sent to Montana in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c), and to include the changes made at its own initiative by the 1997 State legislature. In addition, Montana has included revisions from the 1995 State legislature which OSM approved in the January 22, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR 3604). The full text of this program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES .

The provisions of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) that Montana proposes to revise or add are: 82-4-203(21), MCA (Definitions); 82-4-232(7), MCA (Area mining required-bond-alternative plan); 82-4-233, MCA (Planting of vegetation following grading of disturbed area); 82-4-243, MCA (Subsidence); 82-4-253(2), MCA (Suit for damage to water supply); and 82-4-254(4), MCA (Violation-Penalty-Waiver).

Specifically, Montana proposes to revise the Montana program to (1) include uranium mining using in situ methods in the definition of operator; (2) require newspaper publication of alternate reclamation plans; (3) allow introduced species to compose a major or dominant component of the reclaimed vegetation for lands mined, disturbed, or redisturbed after May 2, 1978, and seeded prior to January 1, 1984; (4) allow for the prompt repair or compensation for material damage to any occupied residential dwelling and related structures and to any noncommercial building resulting from subsidence caused by underground mining operations; (5) promptly replace any drinking, domestic, or residential water supply from a well or spring that was in existence prior to the permit application that has been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption resulting from underground coal mining operations; (6) include an editorial revision to MCA 82-4-253(2); and (7) propose a revision at MCA 82-4-254(4) to reflect the 1995 State reorganization to designate a director of environmental quality.

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM requests your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Montana program.

Send your written comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. In the final rulemaking, we will not necessarily consider or include in the Administrative Record any comments received after the time indicated under “ DATES ” or at locations other than the Casper Field Office.

Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: SPATS No. MT-020-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet meassage. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Casper Field Office at (307) 261-6550.

We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their 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 review in their entirety.

If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., m.d.t. on October 10, 2000. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold the hearing.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone schedule to speak has been heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone schedule to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the Administrative Record.

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Executive Order 12866.

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive order 12988 and had determined that, to the extent allowable by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.

This rule does not have Federalism implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13132. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a decision on a proposed State regulatory program provision does not constitute a major Federal action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has been made that such decisions are categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 8.4.A).

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq. ).

The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (4 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The State submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements established by SMCRA or previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule (a) does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, or Federal, State or local governmental agencies; and (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 determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are involved in the production, sale, use, or regulation of one or more of the four chemicals or formulations specified in this regulation. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations, ” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-250129. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action found in docket numbers 0PP-36190 and 36190A, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

Section 25(a)(2) of FIFRA provides that the Administrator must provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of any regulation at least 30 days before signing it for publication in the Federal Register . The draft final rule is not available to the public until after it has been signed by EPA. If the Secretary comments in writing regarding the draft final rule within 15 days after receiving it, the Administrator shall include in the final rule when published in the Federal Register the comments of the Secretary and the Administrator's response to those comments. If the Secretary does not comment in writing within 15 days after receiving the draft final rule, the Administrator may sign the final rule for publication in the Federal Register anytime after the 15-day period.

No. This document is not a rule, merely a notification of submission to the Secretary of Agriculture. As such, none of the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this document.

No. This action is not a rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804(3), and will not be submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General. EPA will submit the final rule to Congress and the Comptroller General as required by the CRA.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j) implements migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union, 1978). These treaties protect certain migratory birds from take, except as permitted under the Act. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, the Fish and Wildlife Service controls the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20.

The purpose of this proposed rule is to allow the hunting public to use tin shot for hunting migratory birds. Accordingly, we are proposing to amend 50 CFR 20.21, which describes illegal hunting methods for migratory birds. Paragraph (j) of § 20.21 pertains to prohibited types of shot. We are proposing to amend § 20.21(j) to allow the use of tin shot (99.9 percent tin with <1 percent residual lead) as nontoxic shot for waterfowl and coot hunting for the 2000-01 hunting season only.

Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify shot that does not pose a significant toxic hazard to migratory birds or other wildlife. Currently, only steel, bismuth-tin, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer shot are approved as nontoxic. On September 5, 2000 (65 FR 53936) we published a final rule that grants permanent approval to tungsten-matrix shot. We previously granted temporary approval for tin shot during the 1999-2000 hunting season (August 19, 1999; 64 FR 45400). Compliance with the use of nontoxic shot has increased over the last few years (Anderson et al. 2000). We believe that compliance will continue to increase with the approval and availability of other nontoxic shot types.

ITRI's candidate shot is made from commercially pure tin; no alloying or other alterations are intentionally made to the chemical composition of the shot. This shot material has a density of approximately 7.29 g/cm 3 , and is 99.9 percent tin, with a low level of iron pickup due to the steel production equipment. The tin shot application from ITRI contains a description of the shot, a toxicological report (Thomas 1997), results of a 30-day toxicity study (Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998), and results of a 150-day reproductive/chronic toxicity study (Gallagher et al. 2000). The toxicological report incorporates known toxicity information (a synopsis of acute and chronic toxicity data for mammals and birds, potential for environmental concern, and toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles) and information on environmental fate and transport (shot alteration, environmental half-life, and environmental concentration). On August 19, 1999 (64 FR 45400) we published a detailed literature review on toxicity, environmental fate, and known effect of tin on birds, as well as results from ITRI's 30-day toxicity testing of tin shot.

ITRI's chronic toxicity/reproductive study revealed no adverse effects when mallards were dosed with eight No. 4 size tin shot and monitored over a 150-day period (Gallagher et al. 2000). At initiation of the test (day 0), and on days 31, 60, and 90, 21 male and 22 female adult mallards were orally dosed with eight No. 4 tin shot. On the same days, 22 male and 22 female adult mallards were dosed with eight No. 4 steel shot (negative control group). An additional 4 male and 4 female mallards were dosed with a single No. 4 lead shot (positive control group). Two lead-dosed birds (1 female, 1 male) died from lead toxicosis on day 10 and 17, respectively, during the study; whereas no mortalities occurred in the other test groups. Biochemical results from blood samples collected during tests revealed no biologically meaningful treatment-related differences between the tin group and the steel shot control group. Low, but measurable levels of tin were found in the testes of males from the steel shot group and in the livers and femurs of both males and females from the tin group. Additionally, low, but measurable, levels of tin were found in the liver and gonads of offspring from the steel group and in gonads of offspring from the tin group. For all treatment groups, mean levels of tin were below the limit of detection in egg yolks and whites. Liver and kidney tissues collected for examination revealed no treatment-related abnormalities.

No significant differences occurred in egg production, fertility, or hatchability of eggs from birds dosed with tin when compared to steel-dosed ducks. No differences occurred in survival or body weight of ducklings from ducks dosed with tin when compared to ducklings from steel-dosed ducks. Blood measurements of ducklings from tin-dosed ducks were similar to measurements from ducklings from steel-dosed ducks. Overall, results of the 150-day study indicated that tin shot repeatedly administered to adult mallards did not adversely affect them, or the offspring they produced.

The nontoxic shot approval process contains a tiered review system and outlines three conditions for approval of shot types. The first condition for nontoxic shot approval is toxicity testing. Based on the results of the toxicological report and the toxicity tests discussed above, we conclude that tin shot does not pose a significant danger to migratory birds or other wildlife.

The second condition for approval is testing for residual lead levels. Any shot with lead levels equal to or exceeding 1 percent will be considered toxic and, therefore, illegal. We have determined that the maximum environmentally acceptable level of lead in any nontoxic shot is trace amounts of <1 percent, and incorporated this requirement in the new approval process. ITRI has documented that tin shot meets this requirement.

The third condition for approval involves law enforcement. In the August 18, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 43314), we indicated our position that a noninvasive field detection device to distinguish lead from other shot types was an important component of the nontoxic shot approval process. At that time, we stated that final approval of bismuth-tin shot would be contingent upon the development and availability of a noninvasive field detection device (60 FR 43315). We incorporated a requirement for a noninvasive field detection device in the revised nontoxic shot approval process published on December 1, 1997 (62 FR 63608); 50 CFR 20.134(b)(6). A field detection method to distinguish tin shot from lead currently is being developed by ITRI. Granting temporary approval for tin shot during the 2000-01 hunting season will facilitate completion of development of such a device. However, we will not consider either additional temporary approvals, or final approval, of tin shot beyond the 2000-01 season until a reliable and acceptable field detection method is developed and is readily available to law enforcement personnel.

As stated previously, this proposed rule would amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) by temporarily approving tin shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots during the 2000-2001 hunting season only. It is based on the toxicological report, acute toxicity study, and the reproductive/chronic toxicity study submitted by ITRI. Results of these studies indicate the absence of any deleterious effects of tin shot when ingested by captive-reared mallards. The comment period for the proposed rule has been shortened to 30 days. This time frame will make it possible for tin shot, if temporarily approved, to be available for use by hunters during the 2000-01 hunting season. This will increase the number of nontoxic shot options available to hunters.

In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), we prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for temporary approval of tin shot in August, 2000. The EA is available to the public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), provides that Federal agencies shall “insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) habitat * * *” We are completing a Section 7 consultation under the ESA for this proposed rule. The result of our consultation under Section 7 of the ESA will be available to the public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which includes small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. This rule proposes to approve an additional type of nontoxic shot that may be sold and used to hunt migratory birds; this rule would provide one shot type in addition to the existing four that are approved. We have determined, however, that this rule will have no effect on small entities since the approved shot merely will supplement nontoxic shot already in commerce and available throughout the retail and wholesale distribution systems. We anticipate no dislocation or other local effects, with regard to hunters and others.

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866. OMB makes the final determination under E.O. 12866.

We invite comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the proposed rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this proposed 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

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. We have examined this regulation under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) and found it to contain no information collection requirements. However, we do have OMB approval (1018-0067; expires 08/30/2000; renewal submitted) for information collection relating to what manufacturers of shot are required to provide to us for the nontoxic shot approval process. For further information, see 50 CFR 20.134.

We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502, et seq. , that this proposed rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities.

We, in promulgating this proposed rule, have determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This proposed rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this proposed rule allow hunters to exercise privileges that would be otherwise unavailable; and, therefore, reduces restrictions on the use of private and public property.

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects.

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 20, subchapter B, chapter 1 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: