A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 88-11-03, amendment 39-5922 (53 FR 17018, May 13, 1988), which is applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-70 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38220). The action proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections and repair or replacement, if necessary, of the generator power feeder cables, supporting brackets, and clamps at all the engine pylons. The action also proposed to require accomplishment of a terminating action for the repetitive inspections, and replacement of the support clamps of the generator power feeder cable on engine nacelles/pylons 1, 2, 3, and 4 with new support clamps.

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

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

There are approximately 108 Model DC-8-70 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 98 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The inspection that is currently required by AD 88-11-03, and retained in this AD, takes approximately 12 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $70,560, or $720 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new replacement specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service Bulletin 24-72, dated January 14, 1992, that is required in this AD will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $675 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this replacement required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $83,790, or $855 per airplane.

The new inspection and application of sealants specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service Bulletin 24-71, Revision 1, dated February 25, 1991, that are required in this AD will take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection and application of sealants required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $29,400, or $300 per airplane.

The new replacement specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 Service Bulletin 24-73, dated May 30, 1990, that is required in this AD will take approximately 16 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $715 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this replacement required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $164,150, or $1,675 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38217). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection for damage (i.e., chafing) of the power feeder wire bundle for the auxiliary power unit (APU) generator and the first officer's elevator down control cable and for proper separation between that wire bundle and control cable, and corrective action, if necessary. For certain airplanes, that action also proposed to require attaching the power feeder wire bundle to adjacent wire bundles.

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

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

There are approximately 136 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 47 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,820, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38214). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection for chafing of certain wire bundles behind the flight engineer's panel; repairs, if necessary; and a modification to reroute a certain electrical wire bundle to ensure sufficient clearance between that wire bundle and an adjacent flood light support bracket.

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

The commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed rule to state that airplanes modified according to the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-2407, dated November 18, 1977, are not subject to the inspection specified in paragraph (a) of this AD. The commenter notes that it performed the modification in that service bulletin on its fleet of Model 747 series airplanes more than 20 years ago.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The original issue of the referenced service bulletin does not contain procedures for an inspection for chafing of affected wire bundles, or repair of chafed wire bundles. We find these actions are necessary to ensure that any chafed wire bundles are found and fixed. Therefore, airplanes modified according to the original issue of the service bulletin are still subject to the inspection and any necessary corrective actions described in Revision 1 of the service bulletin, dated September 23, 1999, as required by paragraphs (a) and (a)(1) of this AD.

Since the issuance of the proposed AD, however, the FAA has reviewed the modification procedures in the original issue of the service bulletin and determined that those procedures are acceptable for accomplishing the modification required by paragraph (a)(2) of this AD. Therefore, a new Note 3 has been added to this AD (and subsequent notes reordered accordingly) to specify that modifications accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD according to the original issue of the service bulletin are considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph (a)(2) of this AD, but the inspection required by paragraph (a) and any applicable corrective actions required by paragraph (a)(1) of this AD must still be accomplished.

The applicability statement of the proposed AD specified that the proposed AD would apply to certain airplane models as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A2407, Revision 1, dated September 23, 1999. For the convenience of affected operators, we have revised the applicability statement of this AD to specify the line numbers of airplanes subject to this AD.

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

There are approximately 217 Model 747-100, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 108 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 12 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts per airplane will be negligible. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $77,760, or $720 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38211). That action proposed to require performing a one-time inspection for chafing of certain electrical wire bundles behind the flight engineer's panel in the cockpit; repairing any chafed wire bundles, if necessary; and installing Teflon sleeving over the inspected wire bundles and rerouting them.

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

The commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed AD to specify that accomplishment of the necessary actions according to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-24A2118, Revision 3, dated June 24, 1999, OR EARLIER REVISIONS, is acceptable for compliance. The commenter states that it has done the actions on its airplanes according to revisions of the service bulletin prior to Revision 3 and believes that this meets the intent of the proposed AD.

The FAA concurs and has added Note 3 to this final rule (and reordered subsequent notes accordingly) to state that inspections and follow-on actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD according to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-24-2118, dated February 9, 1989; Revision 1, dated May 11, 1989; or Revision 2, dated December 21, 1989; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by this AD.

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

There are approximately 443 Model 747 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 164 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts per airplane will be negligible. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $29,520, or $180 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-200C and -200F series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38209). That action proposed to require installation of drip shields over certain shelves in the main equipment bay.

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

The commenter supports the proposed rule, including the proposed 18-month compliance time. The commenter states that this is the minimum compliance time that will allow sufficient time for the proposed installation to be accomplished on affected airplanes.

Note 2 of this final rule has been revised to correct an error in the reference to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-38-2073.

Also, the statement of unsafe condition in the “Summary” section and preceding the requirements of this AD have been revised to clarify that this AD concerns floor panels of the main deck cargo bay.

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

There are approximately 59 Model 747-200C and “200F series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 21 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 32 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $4,497 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $134,757, or $6,417 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38206). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection for chafing between the hose for the passenger oxygen system (hereinafter called the “oxygen hose”) and adjacent electrical wire bundles at certain passenger service units (PSU), and corrective actions, if necessary. That action also proposed to require rerouting or reorienting the oxygen hose to ensure sufficient clearance between the hose and electrical wire bundles.

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

The commenter requests that the FAA extend the compliance time for the actions in the proposed AD from 12 months to 18 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenter states that it will take about 40 work hours per airplane to do the proposed actions, and this work would best be performed during a heavy maintenance check where appropriate time and expertise is available.

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. We find that such an increase in the compliance time will not adversely affect safety and will allow the required actions to be completed during a regularly scheduled maintenance visit. We have revised paragraph (a) of this AD accordingly.

The commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed AD to state that only airplanes with PSU configurations delivered by Boeing and as shown in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-35A2035 are subject to the proposed AD. The commenter states that it has accomplished extensive interior modifications and replaced the PSUs on its airplanes through a supplemental type certificate.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. We do not consider the illustrations contained in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-35A2035, Revision 1, dated July 22, 1999, as revised by Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 747-35A2035 IN 01, dated September 23, 1999, to be an adequate method of establishing the applicability of this AD. Because the service bulletin does not indicate that the chafing condition is limited to specific PSU part numbers, all airplanes identified in the effectivity listing of the service bulletin must be considered to be subject to the identified unsafe condition. Note 1 of this AD states that, for airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

There are approximately 469 Model 747 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 166 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, and that the average airplane has approximately 150 PSUs installed (though the actual number varies considerably between airplane configurations). It will take approximately 38 work hours per airplane (0.25 work hours per PSU) to accomplish the required actions, at the average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $5,250 per airplane ($35 per PSU). Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,249,980, or $7,530 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 92-27-06, amendment 39-8440 (57 FR 60115, December 18, 1992), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38203). The action proposed to continue to require repetitive visual and eddy current inspections to detect cracking of the rudder pedals adjuster hub assembly, and replacement of the assembly with a new assembly, if necessary. That action also proposed to require accomplishment of a terminating action for the repetitive inspections, and to add airplanes to the applicability of the existing AD.

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

The commenter requests that the FAA withdraw the NPRM, since the inspections required by existing AD 92-27-06 provide an appropriate degree of safety assurance. The commenter states that there have been no loss of rudder pedal control incidents reported since the start of the inspections required by AD 92-27-06. The commenter further states that the loss of rudder pedal control by a flightcrew member is a temporary unsafe condition, since the other flightcrew member can immediately control the airplane with his/her rudder pedals. The commenter also states that of the 107 inspections it has performed on DC-8 rudder pedal adjuster hub assemblies since June 1994, no inspections have resulted in finding cracks. The commenter points out that a review of the FAA Service Difficulty Reports database reveals that no DC-8 rudder pedal control has been lost during flight or taxi because of a cracked rudder pedal adjuster hub assembly.

This same commenter suggests in lieu of withdrawing the NPRM to remove the compliance time of “Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total landings, or within 3,500 landings after the effective date of this AD” in paragraph (e) of the NPRM, so that the replacement requirement is optional.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter to withdraw the NPRM or remove the mandatory replacement requirement. As specified in the “Background” section of the NPRM, the FAA has determined that, based on the results of investigations described in the NPRM and recommendations of the Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC), corrective action is necessary to minimize the potential hazards associated with wire and mechanical flight control systems degradation and related causal factors ( e.g., inadequate maintenance, contamination, improper repair, and mechanical damage).

In addition, the FAA has determined that long-term continued operational safety will be better assured by modifications or design changes to remove the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections. Long-term inspections may not be providing the degree of safety assurance necessary for the transport airplane fleet. This, coupled with a better understanding of the human factors associated with numerous repetitive inspections, has led the FAA to consider placing less emphasis on special procedures and more emphasis on design improvements. The terminating action required by paragraph (e) of this final rule is consistent with these considerations.

Paragraph (c) of the proposed AD states “If no crack is detected as a result of the inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 3,500 landings.” The FAA's intent was that the repeat inspections be accomplished if no crack is detected as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, as indicated in service bulletins referenced in the AD. Therefore, we have revised the final rule accordingly.

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

There are approximately 264 Model DC-8 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 245 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The inspection that is currently required by AD 92-27-06 takes approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $44,100, or $180 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new actions that are required by this AD will take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $4,296 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,170,120, or $4,776 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 96-02-05, amendment 39-9493 (61 FR 6922, February 23, 1996), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes; Model MD-88 airplanes; and C-9 airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38200). The action proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the rudder pedal adjuster hub assembly, and replacement of the assembly, if necessary. The action also proposed to require accomplishment of a new terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

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

Two commenters request that the FAA withdraw the NPRM, since the inspections required by existing AD 96-02-05 provide an appropriate degree of safety assurance. One commenter states that there have been no loss of rudder pedal control incidents reported since the start of the inspections required by AD 96-02-05. The commenter further states that the loss of rudder pedal control by a flightcrew member is a temporary unsafe condition, since the other flightcrew member can immediately control the airplane with his/her rudder pedals. The commenter also states that of the 304 inspections it has performed on DC-9 rudder pedal adjuster hub assemblies since June 1992, only 2 inspections have resulted in finding cracks. The commenter points out that a review of the FAA Service Difficulty Reports database reveals that no DC-9 rudder pedal control has been lost during flight or taxi because of a cracked rudder pedal adjuster hub assembly.

One commenter provides the following two suggestions in lieu of withdrawing the NPRM:

1. Remove the compliance time of “Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total landings, or within 3,500 landings after the effective date of this AD” in paragraph (c) of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), so that the replacement and reidentification requirements are optional; or

2. Revise the compliance time specified in paragraph (c) of the NPRM from 18 months to 3,500 landings.

The other commenter also requests that, if further regulatory action is still deemed necessary, the NPRM specify “more” frequent inspections rather than mandate a component replacement. The commenter did not suggest what interval would suffice for “more” frequent inspections.

The FAA does not agree with the commenters to withdraw the NPRM, remove the mandatory replacement requirement, or require “more” frequent inspections. As specified in the “Background” section of the NPRM, the FAA has determined that, based on the results of investigations described in the NPRM and recommendations of the Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC), corrective action is necessary to minimize the potential hazards associated with wire and mechanical flight control systems degradation and related causal factors (e.g., inadequate maintenance, contamination, improper repair, and mechanical damage).

In addition, the FAA has determined that long-term continued operational safety will be better assured by modifications or design changes to remove the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections. Long-term inspections may not be providing the degree of safety assurance necessary for the transport airplane fleet. This, coupled with a better understanding of the human factors associated with numerous repetitive inspections, has led the FAA to consider placing less emphasis on special procedures and more emphasis on design improvements. The replacement and reidentification required by paragraph (c) of this AD are consistent with these considerations.

One commenter notes that the heading of paragraph (a) of the NPRM contains a typographical error. The NPRM reads, “RESTATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS OF AD 97-02-05,” but the correct AD number is AD 96-02-05. The FAA agrees and has revised the final rule to reflect this correction.

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

There are approximately 1,845 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes; Model MD-88 airplanes; and C-9 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,086 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The inspection that is currently required by AD 96-02-05 takes approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $195,480, or $180 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new actions that are required by this new AD will take approximately 9 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $4,314 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,271,444, or $4,854 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4, A300 B4-600 and B4-600R, and A310 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2001 (66 FR 44990). That action proposed to require modification of the terminal blocks of the starter feeder line of the auxiliary power unit (APU).

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

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

The FAA estimates that 153 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. It will take approximately 1 to 3 work hours per airplane (depending on configuration) to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $60 to $180 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, and -40 series airplanes and C-9 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38198). That action proposed to require modification of the spoiler control system, and installation of protective interlock box assemblies in the spoiler circuit. That action was proposed to prevent smoke/fire in the flight compartment in the event that the automatic spoiler actuator overheats, and/or loss of the spoiler control system, which could significantly reduce the braking effectiveness of the airplane.

The FAA has been advised by the manufacturer that there may be a problem in supplying an adequate number of parts to modify the spoiler control system and to install protective interlock box assemblies in the spoiler circuit within the 1-year compliance time proposed in the NPRM. Consequently, we have extended the compliance times of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD to within 18 months after the effective date of this AD. We have determined that such an extension of the compliance times will accommodate the time necessary for affected operators to order, obtain, modify, and install certain parts necessary to accomplish the requirements of paragraph (a) and (b) of the AD, without adversely affecting safety.

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

The commenter states that the service bulletin (Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A-147, Revision 03, dated May 8, 2001) referenced in the proposed rule specifies that Service Bulletin DC9-27-103 should be incorporated as a prerequisite. However, the commenter states that Service Bulletin DC9-27-103 is not mentioned in the proposed rule. The commenter concludes that compliance with the other service bulletin is implied, but not mandated by the proposed rule. The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting clarification.

The FAA acknowledges the request for clarification. Paragraph (a) of the final rule requires modification of the spoiler control system per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A147, which references Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-27-103. Specifically, however, paragraph (b) of the final rule does require installation of protective interlock box assemblies in the spoiler circuit per McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 27-103, dated March 19, 1968. The compliance time for accomplishing that installation is clearly stated in paragraph (b) of the final rule as: “Prior to or in conjunction with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.” No change to the final rule is necessary.

The commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed rule to require the procedures described in Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-27-283, which further modifies the spoiler interlock box by replacing the relay with an improved 6-pole double throw relay. Additionally, the commenter suggests that a “proposed” service bulletin that modifies the interlock box with the 6-pole relay and an “as-yet-undefined” service bulletin that describes procedures for modifying interlock boxes without the 6-pole relay be considered by the FAA. The commenter states that these service bulletins have been issued or soon will be issued.

The FAA does not concur with the request to add additional service information to the final rule. Installation of the time-delay relay (as part of the actions required by this AD) will terminate power to the actuator in 10 seconds after energizing the spoiler automatic actuator, and provides adequate protection against overheating of the actuator. To add further requirements to this rule as the commenter proposed, we would have to reissue the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as a Supplemental NPRM in order to provide an appropriate time for public comment. Furthermore, we cannot require implementation of actions of service bulletins not yet developed and approved by the FAA. Therefore, we find that, in order to adequately address the unsafe condition in a timely manner, implementation of the required actions as proposed are warranted.

This same commenter also requests that the 3 work hours estimated in the proposed rule for the installation of the protective interlock box assemblies in the spoiler circuit be revised to 24 work hours. The commenter also requests that the estimated cost of replacement parts specified as $20 in the proposed rule be revised to $2,750. The commenter provides this justification based on information retrieved from its SCEPTRE database.

The FAA does not concur that the cost estimates should be revised. We used the work hours specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 27-103(which is referenced in the AD as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the required installation). We note that the economic analysis of this AD represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators may incur “incidental” costs in addition to the “direct” costs. As indicated in the preamble of the NPRM, the cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically does not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up; planning time; or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost impossible to calculate. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary.

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

There are approximately 504 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, and -40 series airplanes and C-9 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 272 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $937 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $336,464, or $1,237 per airplane.

It will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed installation, and the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $20 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the installation proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $54,400, or $1,237 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10 and -30 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38195). That action proposed to require an inspection of the power feeder cable for evidence of chafing, and repair of any chafed power feeder cable. That action also proposed to require replacement of the wiring support clip (standoff) of the power feeder cable with a new, improved wiring support clip.

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

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

There are approximately 162 Model DC-9-10 and -30 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 107 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $102 or $204 per airplane depending on the airplane configuration. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $17,334 or $28,248; or $162 or $264 per airplane depending on the airplane configuration.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, -30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), and -40 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38193). That action proposed to require modification of the battery ground cable installation in the center accessory compartment.

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

The commenters object to the proposed AD as being unnecessary. One operator, having operated affected airplanes for 29 years, reports that the subject battery ground stud and cable installations have been inspected numerous times during this period in accordance with the FAA-approved DC-10 maintenance program. This operator notes that there has been no history of arcing due to loosening of the ground stud and cable attachments. The commenter adds that any deterioration related to arcing would have been identified and corrected by the maintenance program.

The FAA does not concur with the request to withdraw the proposed AD. The FAA acknowledges that Model DC-10 series airplanes have an extensive life of service and that numerous inspections have been performed as part of the FAA-approved DC-10 maintenance program. (All operators are required to maintain their airplanes in accordance with an FAA-approved maintenance program as required for continued airworthiness.) However, the FAA finds that the subject inspections of the maintenance program do not adequately address certain in-service difficulties and thus do not adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, the FAA has determined that the proposed rule is appropriate and warranted.

In lieu of withdrawal of the proposed AD, the commenters request an extension of the proposed compliance time. The commenters state that the extensive in-service history concerning the subject area supports an extension of the compliance time. In addition, the commenters assert that the proposed actions would be best accommodated during planned multiple-day maintenance visits within a compliance time of 18 months.

The FAA does not concur. Due to the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, an 18-month compliance time would not provide an adequate level of safety. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The commenters disagree with the proposed AD's estimate of 2 work hours required for the modification. The commenters estimate that the modification would take 9.5 work hours.

The FAA has reconsidered the amount of time necessary to accomplish the modification and has increased its estimate to 5 work hours per airplane. The cost impact section of this final rule has been revised accordingly.

The FAA finds that Model DC-10-10F, -30F, and -40F series airplanes were not specifically identified by model in the applicability of the proposed AD; however, they were identified by manufacturer's fuselage numbers in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A174, dated June 29, 2001 (which was referenced in the applicability statement of the proposed AD for the identification of the specific affected airplanes). Therefore, the FAA has revised the applicability throughout the final rule to include Model DC-10-10F, -30F, and -40F series airplanes.

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

There are approximately 402 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 312 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $2,282 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $805,584, or $2,582 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, -30, -30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), and -40 series airplanes; and Model MD-10-10F series airplanes; was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38191). That action proposed to require an inspection of the power feeder cable assembly of the auxiliary power unit (APU) for chafing, correct type of clamps, and proper clamp installation; and corrective actions, if necessary.

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

The commenters request that the proposed AD be revised to clarify whether the inspection requirement includes verifying the clamp part number. The commenters assert that the proposed AD underestimates the work hours necessary to accomplish the inspection, if the part number verification is also required. The commenters request that the compliance time be extended to accommodate the anticipated additional work hours. According to the commenters, the APU generator must be removed for easy access to the subject support cables—which are installed in an extremely confined space—to verify the part number. The commenters estimate that the inspection, including removal of the APU generator, would take 22.5 work hours. Because the task is best suited to planned multiple-day maintenance visits, the commenters anticipate extended downtime for the affected airplanes and request that the compliance time be extended from 12 months to 18 months.

The FAA partially concurs. In light of the possible confusion regarding certain requirements of the AD, the FAA has determined that clarification may be necessary. Therefore, paragraph (a) has been revised in this final rule to include verification of the clamp part number.

However, the FAA does not concur with the request to extend the compliance time. The FAA has confirmed with the manufacturer that, while removing the APU generator might improve accessibility to the inspection area, it is not necessary. Further, as indicated in the proposed AD, the cost estimates represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. Those figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access. This AD does not require removal of the APU generator to perform the inspection. Therefore, the work hour estimate in the proposed AD is appropriate, and the proposed compliance time of 12 months is sufficient. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed AD describes the conditions for which no corrective action is required (“If no wire chafing, correct type of clamps, and proper clamp installation are found * * *”). Because of the potentially misleading description of these negative inspection findings, paragraph (a)(1) has been revised in this final rule to more accurately distinguish the conditions that require corrective action.

The FAA finds that Model DC-10-10F, -30F, and -40F series airplanes were not specifically identified by model in the applicability of the proposed AD; however, they were identified by manufacturer's fuselage numbers in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A137, Revision 01, dated May 31, 2001 (which was referenced in the applicability statement of the proposed AD for the identification of the specific affected airplanes). Therefore, the FAA has revised the applicability throughout the final rule to include Model DC-10-10F, -30F, and -40F series airplanes.

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

There are approximately 372 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 282 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $16,920, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-10-03, amendment 39-11727 (65 FR 31253, May 17, 2000), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 series airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F and -30F series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38188). The action proposed to continue to require a one-time detailed visual inspection to determine if wire segments of the wire bundle routed through the feed through on the aft side of the flight engineer's station are damaged or chafed, and corrective actions, if necessary. The action also proposed to require revising the wire bundle support clamp installation at the flight engineer's station.

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

The commenter requests that the proposed AD be withdrawn. The commenter states that it recently inspected the subject harness installation per AD 2000-10-03 on airplanes with a minimum of 13 years in service and a maximum of 29 years in service. The inspections revealed no chafed or damaged wires or broken support clamps. Therefore, the commenter concludes that the requirements of the proposed AD are unnecessary.

The FAA does not agree. As discussed in the preamble of the proposed AD, we determined that the revision of the wire bundle support clamp installation required by AD 2000-10-03 for certain airplanes does not adequately address the identified unsafe condition. In addition, we determined that all affected airplanes must incorporate this new, improved support clamp, because the procedures specified in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 01, dated July 28, 1999 (which was referenced in AD 2000-10-03 as the appropriate source of service information), do not prevent electrical arcing or chafing even if no chafed or damaged wire bundles located behind the flight engineer's panel were found during the required one-time inspection. Therefore, we find that the requirements of this AD are warranted to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

If the AD is issued as proposed, the commenter requests that the compliance time for the proposed revision of the wire bundle support clamp installation be revised from 1 year to 18 months. The commenter states that the work scope of the proposed AD is best suited for “a planned multiple-day maintenance visit.”

The FAA does not agree. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered not only those safety issues in developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, but the recommendations of the manufacturer, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required revision within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. In consideration of all of these factors, we determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval in which the required revision can be accomplished in a timely manner within the fleet and still maintain an adequate level of safety.

In addition, the FAA finds that operators of affected airplanes on the U.S. Register should have already accomplished the one-time inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD (the effective date for compliance was June 21, 2001) which is a restatement of the requirements of AD 2000-10-03). Operators are given credit for work previously performed by means of the phrase in the “Compliance” section of the AD that states, “Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.” Therefore, operators should be able to accomplish the additional work of revising the wire bundle support clamp installation required by paragraph (b) of this AD within the 1-year compliance time during regularly scheduled maintenance intervals. However, under the provisions of paragraph (c) of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety.

The commenter disagrees with the FAA's estimate of two work hours to accomplish the revision of the wire bundle support clamp installation in the Cost Impact section of the proposed AD. The commenter estimates four work hours per airplane, because of the confined space and numerous wire bundles in the area of the modification.

The FAA does not concur. We used the work hours specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 02, dated April 5, 2001 (which is referenced in the AD as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the required modification). We note that the economic analysis of this AD represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators may incur “incidental” costs in addition to the “direct” costs. As indicated in the preamble of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically does not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up; planning time; or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost impossible to calculate. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary.

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

There are approximately 412 Model DC-10 series airplanes and Model MD-10-10F and -30F series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 300 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 2000-10-03, and retained in this AD, take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $18,000, or $60 per airplane.

The new actions that are required in this AD action will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $36,000, or $120 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, -30F (KC-10A and KDC-10 military), and -40 series airplanes; and Model MD-10-10F series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38185). That action proposed to require an inspection to verify that the wire connections at circuit breakers are properly connected, and correction of any incorrect wire connection at the circuit breakers.

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

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

There are approximately 352 Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, -30F (KC-10A and KDC-10 military), and -40 series airplanes; and Model MD-10-10F series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 259 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $15,540, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38183). That action proposed to require an inspection to detect chafing or overheat damage of the electrical wires located at fuselage station Y=110.000 bulkhead of the lower nose left tunnel; and corrective actions, if necessary. That action also proposed to require replacing the external power ground stud with a new ground stud using new attaching parts, torquing new attachments, and installing a nameplate.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received. Although the commenters generally support the proposed rule, they have made a number of recommendations, as described in the following paragraphs.

On behalf of its members, the Air Transport Association of America requests that the proposed AD be modified to include more specific details for wire location, bundle numbers, and allowable damage limits. The commenters' specific requests are described in the following paragraphs.

• One commenter requests that more detailed work instructions for the specific area or wire bundle be included either in Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000, or the proposed AD. The commenter states that Figure 1 in the service bulletin does not include specific details as to the location of the wiring within the left tunnel and does not specify the bundle numbers. In addition, that figure includes details for only the ground stud location, buildup, and placard location, and does not include the necessary details for wiring installation.

• One commenter requests that either the proposed AD or Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000, be revised to clearly identify the wiring damage limits used to determine whether to repair or replace the wiring. The commenter contends that the service bulletin should at least provide specific chapter, page, and task number references in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) and Standard Wiring Practices Manual (SWPM). The work instructions in the service bulletin provide only a general reference to the AMM and SWPM.

The FAA does not concur. We point out that the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000, provides a specific reference to Chapter 20 of the AMM and Chapter 20 of the SWPM for repair of electrical wiring. We consider that the procedures referenced in those documents include the specific details required to enable operators to accomplish any necessary corrective actions. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests revising the compliance time for the corrective actions in the proposed AD. The proposed AD would require those actions to be accomplished in conjunction with the wiring inspection before further flight. However, the commenter contends that, if wiring damage is found, continued operation of the airplane should be allowed provided external electrical power is not used, as provided for in the master minimum equipment list (MMEL). This would allow operators to accomplish any extensive wiring repairs at maintenance stations where the required tools and materials are available. If no damage is found, replacement of ground studs and installation of nameplates should be allowed prior to the compliance deadline. This would allow inspections to be accomplished at the maximum number of stations while allowing operators to concentrate on the required materials at a limited number of stations.

The FAA partially concurs. We agree that the compliance time in paragraph (b) of the final rule should be changed to allow operators that do not find any chafing or damage during the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD to accomplish the corrective actions within 18 months after the effective date of this AD instead of before further flight. We consider that such a change still provides an adequate level of safety for the fleet. However, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with chafing or overheat damage of the electrical wires located at fuselage station Y=110.000 bulkhead of the lower nose left tunnel, the corrective actions specified by paragraphs (c) and (d) of this AD must be accomplished before further flight. Further, we do not consider it appropriate to allow continued operation on a revenue-bearing flight when the external electrical power is not used. Paragraph (b) of the final rule has been changed accordingly.

One commenter requests revising the torque value in the proposed AD to require the standard torque value of 85 to 95 in-lb, and modification of the nameplate to indicate the higher torque value for the jam nut. The commenter states that it began inspections and modifications on some of its fleet per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24-135 in 1999, but discontinued those inspections after it was notified that the jam nut torque seemed inadequate to keep the wire connection from moving. Investigation revealed that the 70 in-lb torque value specified in the service bulletin was lower than that specified in both Douglas Process Standard 1.834-6 and Section 20-20-03 of the SWPM, which show the standard torque value for an AN315 jam nut to have a torque value of 85 to 95 in-lb. The commenter states that it was informed by the manufacturer, Boeing, that the 70-in-lb torque value is adequate, but that it has no technical objection to a 90-in-lb torque value. The commenter considers it necessary to comply with the 70-in-lb torque value specified in the service bulletin. However, since the intent of the proposed AD and the service bulletin is to prevent loose external power ground wires and consequent arching and overheating of the wire installation, the commenter does not understand why the service bulletin requires a lower torque value than the standard torque value cited in the referenced Boeing documents.

The FAA does not concur. After careful review of the referenced service bulletin, we have determined that the torque values specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin are adequate. In addition, we point out that the commenter has not provided substantial evidence regarding the necessity of requiring a higher torque value for the ground stud installation. For these reasons, we have determined that no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The FAA has revised paragraphs (c) and (d) of the final rule to clarify that the limits of any chafing or damage are referenced in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000. In addition, in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the proposed AD, we inadvertently included the phrase “if necessary” instead of “as applicable,” and have revised those paragraphs in the final rule to reflect this clarification.

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

There are approximately 1,908 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 967 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $35 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $149,885, or $155 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -30, and -40 series airplanes and C-9 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38180). That action proposed to require revising the wiring of the sidewall lights in the forward and aft passenger compartment.

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

One commenter recommends that, because the proposed rule cites a specific Douglas service bulletin, which, in turn, cites a specific set of part numbers, the proposed rule apply only to those airplanes that have not been modified and still use the original Douglas switch and transformer assemblies. Another commenter also recommends that the proposed rule be changed to apply only to airplanes that have not been modified. The first commenter states that Note 1 of the proposed rule specifies that the rule applies to airplanes identified in the applicability provision, regardless of whether the airplanes have been modified, altered, or repaired in the area affected by the AD. The commenter also notes that paragraph (a) of the proposed rule references McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-33A062, Revision 01, dated April 24, 2000, which identifies specific switch and transformer part numbers that need to be reworked to prevent the possibility of a shorted switch causing the flight attendant switch panel to overheat. The commenter adds that as part of its “Interior 2000” modification it removed the switches and transformers cited in the referenced service bulletin, and now uses a different switch with a different part number, and does not use the transformers at all.

The FAA does not concur with the requests to revise the applicability in the final rule to specify unmodified airplanes only. If an airplane has been modified in such a manner that the service information referenced in the final rule does not apply, Note 1 of the final rule states that the owner/operator must request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). If the commenter can provide data that show that an acceptable level of safety can be achieved through the modification it described, the commenter may request approval of an AMOC in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The FAA has changed paragraph (a) of the final rule that requires revising the wiring of the sidewall lights in the forward and aft passenger compartments, per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-33A062, Revision 01, dated April 24, 2000, and McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 33-63, dated May 6, 1976. The FAA inadvertently used “and” instead of “or” for revising the wiring per both service bulletins; however, either service bulletin may be used for accomplishment of the action.

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

There are approximately 588 Model DC-9-10, -30, and -40 series airplanes and C-9 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 288 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 21 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $500 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $506,880, or $1,760 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; and Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes; was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38178). That action proposed to require modification of the light switch of the applicable cargo compartments.

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

The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its members, recommends that the FAA withdraw the proposed AD. The commenter states that the proposed AD does not increase the level of safety, because it does not address the root cause of the incident (i.e., the missing cover from the cargo compartment light). The commenter suggests that, instead of the proposed modification, the FAA should mandate scheduled maintenance action. In an attached comment, one ATA member recommends repetitive inspections to verify that the light cover is installed, as well as rewiring of the cargo door switch to the cargo light switch, so the cargo light cannot stay on. In another attached comment, another ATA member recommends changes to the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) to prohibit operation of the airplane with a missing light cover, unless the exposed bulb is removed or the lighting system for the cargo compartment(s) is deactivated. The ATA and one of its members also point out that all airplanes that would be subject to the proposed AD are required by Federal Aviation Regulations to have a smoke and fire detection and suppression system installed in the cargo compartment(s) of the airplane.

The FAA does not concur with the request to withdraw the proposed AD. In the “Identification of Unsafe Condition” section of the proposed AD, we explain that the identified unsafe condition related not only to the cover missing from the cargo compartment light, but also the fact that the light did not automatically shut off when the cargo compartment was closed. Thus, we have determined that the action required by this AD (i.e., modification of the light switch in the cargo compartment) is adequate to address the identified unsafe condition. Under paragraph (b) of this AD, we may consider a request for approval of an alternative means of compliance (AMOC) with this AD, provided that data are submitted that show that the means of compliance provides an acceptable level of safety.

With regard to the commenters' suggestions to mandate scheduled maintenance action or revise the MMEL, the mechanism that exists to rectify an FAA finding that an unsafe condition exists is an amendment to part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39). In addition, under existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we are obligated to advise foreign airworthiness authorities of unsafe conditions relating to products produced in the United States, and the means of doing this is an amendment to part 39.

No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that, if the FAA does not agree to withdraw the proposed AD, it revise the applicability of the proposed AD to exclude airplanes equipped with a certain smoke and fire detection and suppression system installed in the cargo compartment(s) by a certain supplemental type certificate (STC). The commenter points out that the unsafe condition addressed by the proposed AD requires three events to occur: a missing cover on the cargo compartment light, cargo stacked against that light, and the light being illuminated for the entire flight. The commenter states that the STC for installing the referenced smoke and fire detection and suppression system specifies a restriction against stacking cargo within two inches of the ceiling of the cargo compartment. Thus, there would be no contact with the cargo compartment light located in the ceiling, and the unsafe condition addressed by the proposed AD would not occur.

We do not concur with the request to revise the applicability of this AD. Note 1 of this AD specifies that, if an airplane has been modified in such a manner that the service information referenced in this AD does not apply, the owner/operator must request approval of an AMOC in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. For us to approve such a request, the owner/operator must provide data that show that an acceptable level of safety is achieved through installation of the smoke and fire detection and suppression system and the procedural changes to which the commenter refers. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the FAA require repetitive inspections following the proposed modification of the light switch for the cargo compartment(s). The inspections would ensure that the guard is still installed over the light switch. The commenter suggests that these inspections could be added to the maintenance program. The commenter's request is based on maintenance reports from its fleet of airplanes, which have been modified per the service bulletin referred to in the proposed AD. The maintenance reports show that the guard over the light switch breaks frequently because of chafing between the guard and the door structure during the numerous opening and closing cycles of the cargo compartment door during daily ground handling.

We acknowledge the concerns of the commenter, but do not concur with its request. We have received information indicating that breakage of the guard over the light switch, such as that noted by the commenter, may occur if cargo handlers rely upon the guard to extinguish the light in the cargo compartment, rather than MANUALLY extinguishing the cargo compartment light and closing the switch guard before closing the cargo door. We also have received information that the cargo loading document for the airplanes subject to this AD will be revised in the near future to specifically state that the cargo compartment light must be manually extinguished before closing the door. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

There are approximately 1,068 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; and Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes; of the affected designs in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 525 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $1,147 and $2,332 per airplane depending on the airplane configuration. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $633,675 and $1,255,800, or $1,207 and $2,392 per airplane, depending on the airplane configuration.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes and C-9 (military) airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38176). That action proposed to require an inspection to detect chafing or damage at the conduit and support bracket interface in the forward electrical power center (EPC); and repair or replacement of wires with new wires, if necessary. For certain airplanes, that action also proposed to require installation of grommets on the conduits of the forward EPC.

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

The Air Transport Association (ATA) of America, on behalf of its members, recommends that the FAA withdraw the proposed AD. The ATA notes that its members generally do not agree that the proposed AD is needed. One ATA member observes (in a member comment attached to the ATA's comment) that it has accomplished the work described in the referenced service bulletin and found that the metal edge of the conduit is smooth and does not pose a potential chafing hazard on its airplanes. The member states that the only incident of chafing occurred during a maintenance check, not in the course of normal fleet operations.

The FAA does not concur with the request to withdraw the proposed rule. Though the commenter asserts that this AD is unnecessary because there have been no incidents during normal fleet operation, we find that the potential for such chafing exists, as shown by the report of a chafed electrical cable in the forward EPC which we described in the proposed AD. Such chafing may occur during maintenance or operations. This AD addresses that potential unsafe condition. No change to the final rule is necessary.

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

There are approximately 403 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes and C-9 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 380 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

For all airplanes, it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $22,800, or $60 per airplane.

For airplanes subject to the modification requirement of this AD, it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this modification is estimated to be $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -30, and -40 series airplanes and C-9 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38173). That action proposed to require an inspection to detect chafing of the wiring of the attendants' work light of the aft cabin, and repair of chafed wiring. That action also proposed to require modification and reidentification of the attendants' work light assemblies of the aft cabin.

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

One commenter requests that the applicability of the proposed AD be revised to “Model DC-9-10, -30, and -40 series airplanes and C-9 airplanes, equipped with an attendants' work light in the aft cabin; certificated in any category; as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-33A058, Revision 02, dated January 27, 2000.” The commenter states that airplanes without an attendants' work light are not susceptible to the identified unsafe condition of the proposed AD. The commenter also states that such a change would reduce requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC).

The FAA agrees with the commenter and has revised the final rule accordingly.

One commenter requests that the applicability of the proposed AD be revised to apply only to those airplanes on which the affected light assembly, part number L19020-1 or L19145-1, has been installed. The commenter notes that it no longer uses the referenced part number affected by the proposed AD, and that it uses a different lamp assembly, which is not susceptible to identified unsafe condition of the proposed AD.

The FAA does not concur. The commenter did not provide any specific data with regard to its “Interior 2000” modification. Therefore, we are unable to determine whether such a configuration is not subject to the identified unsafe condition. However, under the provisions of paragraph (b) of this AD, the FAA may consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that such a design change would provide an acceptable level of safety. No change to the final rule has been made is this regard.

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

There are approximately 176 Model DC-9-10, -30, and -40 series airplanes and C-9 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 111 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection and modification, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $6,660, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38170). That action proposed to require an inspection of the power feeder bus cables of the auxiliary power unit (APU) for overheat damage between certain fuselage stations; and corrective action(s), if necessary.

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

One commenter requests that the FAA revise paragraph (c) of the proposed AD to allow for continued operation of the airplane with damaged wiring provided that the APU electrical power is not used per the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL). The commenter states that such a change would allow for any extensive wiring repairs to be programmed for maintenance stations where the necessary tools and materials are available.

The FAA does not concur. We have determined that, due to the safety implications and consequences associated with such overheat damage, any subject power feeder bus cable that is found to be damaged must be repaired or replaced before further flight. We do not consider it appropriate to render the APU inoperative and allow continued operation on a revenue bearing flight with a known discrepancy until such a time that the required repair or replacement can be accomplished. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that issuance of the final rule be delayed until the Work Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A072, Revision 01, dated May 22, 2000 (which is referenced as the appropriate source of service information in this AD), are revised. The commenter provides several examples of information that needs to be clarified and that is missing.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to delay issuance of the final rule. We do agree to clarify the following information provided by the commenter:

1. The commenter states that “View A-A” of the referenced service bulletin should pertain to Group 2 airplanes, as well as Group 1 airplanes. However, the FAA notes that on page 1 of 16 in the referenced service bulletin, it states “Group 1—Applicable to airplanes, which have not been modified by prior issue of this service bulletin, equipped with APU feeder cables that require inspection, terminal stud stackup revision and torquing nameplate.” The key words here are “requires terminal stud stackup revision, and torquing nameplate.” These words are not found in the Group 2 definition on page 1 of 16. View A-A refers to the name plate and stacking.

2. The commenter states that no term codes were given in the referenced service bulletin. The FAA notes that term code 1184 is called out in the referenced service bulletin on page 10. Paragraph K. on page 8 of the referenced service bulletin references Douglas Process Standard (DPS) 1.834-40.2. The term code can be found in Table 5.2 in the DPS. The DPS also references the Standard Wiring Practices Manual (SWPM), Chapter 20. The term code also can be found in 20-00-16, page 298.6 and page 243 (details for termination) in DPS 1.834-40.2.

3. The commenter states that no crimp tool code had been noted in the referenced service bulletin. The FAA notes that the crimp tool code can be found in DPS 1.834-40.2, Table 5.1, which is referenced in the service bulletin. It can also be found in SWPM 20-20-03, page 290.

4. The commenter states that no torque value was given in the referenced service bulletin. The FAA notes that the torque value can be found on the nameplate pertaining to the affected terminal strip. It also can be found in SWPM 20-00-03.

5. The commenter states that there was no requirement for a continuity check after the repair. The FAA notes that the continuity check can be found in the referenced service bulletin on page 12, paragraph 3.C.

The airplane manufacturer has informed the FAA that, although the effectivity of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A072, Revision 01, dated May 22, 2000, specifies “MD-80,” the listing of affected manufacturer's fuselage numbers does NOT include Model MD-88 airplanes. McDonnell Douglas Model MD-88 airplanes are not subject to the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, we have removed that airplane model from the applicabilty of the final rule.

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

There are approximately 550 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; C-9 airplanes; and Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 450 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $27,000, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, and -40 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38168). That action proposed to require rework and reidentification of certain reflector assemblies of the passenger ceiling lights; and installation of a support channel above the reflector, as applicable. The proposed actions were intended to prevent overheating of the lamp reflectors, which could result in smoke and fire in the main cabin.

The FAA has been advised by the manufacturer that there may be a problem in supplying an adequate number of kits to rework reflector assemblies within the 1-year compliance time proposed in the NPRM. Consequently, we have extended the compliance time of paragraph (a) of this AD (which requires rework and reidentification of the reflector assemblies of the passenger ceiling lights and the installation of a support channel above the reflector) to within 18 months after the effective date of this AD. We have determined that such an extension of the compliance time will accommodate the time necessary for affected operators to order, obtain, and rework and identify the reflector assemblies, without adversely affecting safety.

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

Two commenters request that the applicability of the proposed AD be revised to specify that the requirements would apply only to airplanes with certain parts installed. One commenter notes that it has replaced the interior of its Model DC-9 fleet with new overhead lighting, and that the interior no longer has the same parts or even the same technology as that specified in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-33A037, Revision 02, dated July 27, 1999 (the appropriate service information specified in the proposed AD). That same commenter suggests that the applicability be revised to specify that the proposed AD would apply only to airplanes that are still using the original Douglas lamp, reflector, and resistor assemblies.

The FAA does not concur with the requests to revise the applicability of the AD. The FAA generally makes every effort to limit the applicability of ADs as close as possible to the actual affected airplanes. The applicability of this final rule is based on information stated in the manufacturer's service bulletin at the time the service bulletin was published (July 27, 1999). Furthermore, it would be virtually impossible to address every conceivable alteration of airplane structure in the applicability of an AD, or to revise an AD's applicability every time an alteration of structure is approved. Since airplanes with altered structures are the exception, not the norm, it is more practical from a workload and cost-effectiveness standpoint to make ADs applicable generally to the affected fleet and to deal with special considerations individually. In the commenter's particular case, where airplanes have been modified so that it could be demonstrated that an unsafe condition does not exist, the operator may simply request approval of an alternative method of compliance to the AD in accordance with the provisions specified in paragraph (b) of this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

There are approximately 273 Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, and -40 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 177 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take between 8 and 12 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $1,607 and $6,463 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $369,399 and $1,271,391, or between $2,087 and $7,183 per airplane.

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

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

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

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent (P) Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) which are incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5. U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation's Regulations (FAR). Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction of charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the following FDC/P NOTAMs for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective FDC/T NOTAMs have been canceled.

The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAP by FDC/P NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Commission is amending Parts 3 and 4 of its Rules, 16 CFR Parts 3 and 4, to update and make other technical clarifications, corrections, and changes to the Rules, as follows.

Matters in administrative litigation may be withdrawn from adjudication pursuant to a motion to consider a proposed consent agreement. If the proposed consent agreement is executed by complaint counsel, the Bureau Director responsible for supervising complaint counsel typically reviews and approves the terms of the proposed consent agreement. The Bureau Director then indicates his or her approval on an approval line. Rule 3.25(c) is being amended to eliminate the suggestion that the Bureau Director is one of complaint “counsel.”

Orders Requiring Witnesses to Testify or Provide Other Information and Granting Immunity

Rule 3.39 (a) is being amended to clarify the actual roles of Directors and Assistant Directors of the Bureaus and Regional Directors and Assistant Regional Directors for the Commission's Regional Offices with respect to the issuance of orders requiring a witness to testify or provide information and granting immunity under Title 18, section 6002 of the United States Code. As currently written, Rule 3.39 (a) may suggest that such Directors and Assistant Directors themselves typically present evidence in support of an administrative complaint. To remove the potentially erroneous suggestion, Rule 3.39(a) is being revised to state that such Directors and Assistant Directors have supervisory authority over complaint counsel, who, as attorneys, are typically responsible for performing this function.

Rule 4.1 (a)(2)(ii) is being amended to correct certain typographical errors. As originally promulgated in 1983, Rule 4.1 (a)(2)(ii) read as follows: “At the request of counsel representing any party in an adjudicative proceeding, the Administrative Law Judge may permit an expert in the same discipline as an expert witness to conduct all or a portion of the cross-examination of a witness.” 48 FR 44,765 (1983). During subsequent rule changes, certain language was inadvertently deleted; those deletions are hereby restored.

Costs for Obtaining Commission Records, The Public Record, Disclosure Requests, and Privacy Act Rules

Pertinent subsections of Rules 4.8, 4.9, 4.11, and 4.13 are being amended to change the title of the official designated by the General Counsel to receive and process initial Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act requests. Currently, these rules contain numerous references to the title “the Assistant General Counsel for Legal Counsel (Management & Access).” This title no longer exists. Therefore, the references to this title in Rules 4.8, 4.9, 4.11, and 4.13 are being removed and replaced in most instances by the descriptive phrase: “the deciding official (as designated by the General Counsel).” This formulation is being adopted because titles within the Office of the General Counsel may change, and this amendment will reduce the need for future rule changes.

The Administrative Procedure Act does not require prior public notice and comment on these amendments because they relate solely to rules of agency organization, procedure or practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). For this reason, the Regulatory Flexibility Act also does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. To the extent these amendments may relate to agency information collection activities, they are exempt from review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. See 44 U.S.C. 3518(c); 5 CFR 1320.4 (collections during the conduct of civil or administrative proceedings or investigations).

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. On September 11, 2001, two commercial aircraft were hijacked from Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts and flown into the World Trade Center in New York, New York inflicting catastrophic human casualties and property damage. A similar attack was conducted on the Pentagon on the same day. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks against civilian targets may be anticipated. Due to the highly volatile nature of the high interest vessels covered by this rule and the potential catastrophic impact of an attack on a high interest vessel, this rulemaking is urgently required to prevent possible terrorist strikes against high interest vessels within and adjacent to Rhode Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, and the Providence and Taunton Rivers. The delay inherent in the NPRM process is contrary to the public interest insofar as it would render high interest vessels in Narragansett Bay and the Port of Providence vulnerable to subversive activity, sabotage or terrorist attack.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The measures contemplated by the rule are intended to prevent possible terrorist attack against high interest vessels, and to protect other vessels, waterfront facilities, the public and the Port of Providence from potential sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a similar nature. Immediate action is required to accomplish these objectives. Any delay in the effective date of this rule is impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

This zone should have minimal impact on the users of Narragansett Bay and the Providence and Taunton Rivers due to the following reasons: High interest vessel transits are infrequent. While a high interest vessel is at anchor, mariners have ample room to transit around the zones. During transits, most mariners can safely maneuver outside the main shipping channels. Mariners requiring use of the channels will only be restricted from entering the safety and security zones for a maximum of three hours during the transit of a high interest vessel. While moored at a facility, commercial traffic and small recreational traffic will have an opportunity to coordinate movement through the safety and security zones with the Captain of the Port's representative. Notifications will be made prior to the effective period via local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts.

On September 11, 2001, two commercial aircraft were hijacked from Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts and flown into the World Trade Center in New York, New York inflicting catastrophic human casualties and property damage. A similar attack was conducted on the Pentagon on the same day. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks are likely. Due to these heightened security concerns, safety and security zones are prudent for vessels which may be likely targets of terrorist acts. From October 6, 2001 to June 15, 2002, various high interest vessels will be transiting Narragansett Bay en route commercial facilities in the upper Providence River and Taunton River. For purposes of this rulemaking, high interest vessels operating in the Captain of the Port Providence zone include barges or ships carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), liquefied natural gas, chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, or any other cargo deemed to be high interest by the Captain of the Port. Title 33 CFR 165.121 currently provides for safety zones for LPG vessels while at anchor in Rhode Island Sound, while transiting Narragansett Bay and the Providence River, and while LPG vessels are either moored at the Port of Providence LPG facility or at the manifolds connected at the Port of Providence LPG facility. However, in light of the current terrorist threats to national security, this zone is insufficient to protect LPG vessels while anchored in Rhode Island Sound, or while a vessel is transiting or moored in the Port of Providence. Moreover, this rulemaking is necessary to protect other high interest vessels not currently covered by 33 CFR 165.121. This rulemaking will temporarily suspend 33 CFR 165.121 and temporarily add the safety and security zones provided for hereunder as 33 CFR 165.T01-188. These safety and security zones are needed to protect high interest vessels, their crews, and the public, from harmful or subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a similar nature. The safety and security zones have identical boundaries, as follows: (1) All waters of Rhode Island Sound within a one-half mile radius of any high interest vessel while the vessel is anchored within one-half mile of the position Latitude 41°25′ N, Longitude 71°23′ W; (2) all waters of Rhode Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, the Providence and Taunton Rivers two (2) miles ahead and one (1) mile astern and extending 1000 yards on either side of any high interest vessel transiting Narragansett Bay, or the Providence and Taunton Rivers; (3) all waters and land within a 1000-yard radius of any high interest vessel moored at a waterfront facility in the Providence Captain of the Port zone. All persons, other than those approved by the Captain of the Port or authorized representative will be prohibited from entering into the safety and security zones during times in which the zones are enforced. The public will be made aware of dates and times during which the safety and security zones will be enforced through a Broadcast Notice to Mariners made from U.S. Coast Guard Group Woods Hole. These regulations are issued under authority contained in 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1225 and 1226.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The sizes of the zones are the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for high interest vessels and their crews, other vessels operating in the vicinity of high interest vessels and their crews, adjoining areas, and the public. The entities most likely to be affected are commercial vessels transiting the main ship channel en route the upper Providence River and Taunton River and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. The safety and security zones will prohibit any commercial vessels from meeting or overtaking a high interest vessel in the main ship channel, effectively prohibiting use of the channel. However, the zones will only be effective during the vessel transits, which will last for approximately 3 hours. In addition, vessels are able to safely transit around the zones while a vessel is moored or at anchor in Rhode Island Sound. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are considered minimal compared to the national interest in protecting high interest vessels, their crews, and the public.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the main ship channel in Narragansett Bay, Providence River, and the Taunton River at the same time as high interest vessels. The safety and security zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons: Small vessel traffic can pass safely around the area and vessels engaged in recreational activities, sightseeing and commercial fishing have ample space outside of the safety and security zones to engage in these activities. When a high interest vessel is at anchor, vessel traffic will have ample room to maneuver around the safety and security zones. The outbound or inbound transit of a high interest vessel will last a maximum of three hours. Although this regulation prohibits simultaneous use of the channel, this prohibition is of short duration and marine advisories will be issued prior to transit of a high interest vessel. While a high interest vessel is moored, commercial traffic and small recreational traffic will have an opportunity to coordinate movement through the safety and security zones with the patrol commander. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the area.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If your small business or organization would be affected by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call LT David C. Barata, telephone (401) 435-2335. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. A rule with tribal implications has a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of implementing this temporary rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used we mean the EPA.

The EPA is approving an adjusted standard from the Flexographic Printing Rule for Formel. Formel is required to comply with the conditions in their adjusted standard. The conditions include participation in the market-based emissions trading system, daily record keeping of inks and VOC content, conducting trials of compliant inks, and reviewing alternate control technologies.

The adjusted standard changes the VOC rule Formel must follow. Formel's facility is located in the metropolitan Chicago severe ozone non-attainment area. Formel, with a permitted VOC emissions limit of 80 tons per year (TPY), is classified as a major source because it can emit more than 25 TPY of VOC. Chicago area flexographic printers classified as major VOC sources are subject to the Flexographic Printing Rule. This rule requires printers to either use compliant inks (low or no VOC content) or use a VOC emissions control device. Limiting VOC emissions will help to reduce ozone because VOC can chemically react in the atmosphere to form ozone.

The adjusted standard given to Formel changes its requirements to complying with a market-based emissions trading system, daily record keeping requirements, and to conduct trials with compliant inks and control devices. The market-based trading system will allow Formel to buy emissions allotments from companies which can reduce their VOC emissions at a lower cost than Formel can. The net VOC emissions of all participants meets the desired reductions.

Illinois included information on compliant ink trials and control device studies at Formel. The Flexographic Printing Rule requires sources use either compliant inks or use a control device to limit VOC emissions. To evaluate what RACT is for Formel, the first consideration is what options would work? The costs of the options that will work are then estimated. The economic burden on the company is then considered. If the compliance costs of an option are determined to be too high, this option is not considered RACT.

Formel ran trials of printing with compliant inks. They also determined what control technologies would work and their costs. The Illinois Pollution Control Board concluded that the using either compliant inks or a control device would not be RACT for Formel. The EPA agrees with this assessment. Printing on plastic with compliant inks is rather difficult. Low VOC content in Formel's exhaust makes control devices have high operational costs. The adjusted standard requirements are considered RACT by the Board. Similar printers have been granted adjusted standards with comparable requirements.

Formel is located in the Chicago severe ozone non-attainment area. It is permitted to emit up to 80 TPY of VOC. The actual VOC emissions from this facility are about 45-70 TPY. VOC can chemically react to form ozone, so limiting VOC emissions in an ozone non-attainment area is desired. Formel is reducing VOC emissions through participation in a market-based emissions trading program. In this program, Formel buys emission allotments from other participants as an alternative to reducing its emissions. Formel bought 15 allotments in 2000. Each allotment is for 200 pounds of VOC emissions. All participants need to own allotments covering its VOC emissions for the ozone season (May 1 to September 30). The trading program reduces the total VOC emissions from the Chicago area. The total area wide emissions are limited by the number of allotments distributed to participants.

The EPA is approving, through direct final rulemaking, revisions to the volatile organic compound rules for Formel Industries, Incorporated of Cook County, Illinois. These revisions are the required compliance with an adjusted standard to the Flexographic Printing Rule. The Illinois Pollution Control Board determined that the adjusted standard is RACT for Formel. The requirements of the adjusted standard include complying with a market-based emissions trading system, daily record keeping, conducting compliant ink trials, and investigation of alternative control devices.

We are publishing this action without a prior proposal because we view these as non-controversial revisions and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , we are publishing a separate document that serves as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective on February 11, 2002. If the EPA receives an adverse written comment, we will publish a final rule informing the public that this rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA does not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action must do so now.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 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. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 11, 2002. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.

Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us.

All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has adopted K.A.R. 28-19-717 to control emission of VOCs from commercial bakery ovens, located within the Kansas portion of the Kansas City Metropolitan Ozone Area (KCMA), specifically Johnson and Wyandotte Counties, that have the potential-to-emit greater than 100 tons of VOCs. KDHE, in a continuing effort to maintain good air quality and to strengthen its SIP, has adopted these control regulations for existing major sources not currently limited by regulations. This rule is projected to reduce emissions of VOCs from affected existing bakery facilities in the Kansas portion of the KCMA by 90 tons per year, based on information provided by the existing source affected by this regulation. The new regulation was adopted by the Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment on November 27, 2000, and became effective December 22, 2000. Today, EPA is taking final action to approve rule K.A.R. 28-19-717, “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions (VOC) from Commercial Bakery Ovens in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties”, as an amendment to the Kansas SIP.

On January 11, 2000 (65 FR 1545), EPA published a direct final rule approving a variety of revisions to the Kansas SIP. In the narrative portion of that rulemaking, we explained the need to remove K.A.R. 28-19-52 because it had been revoked by the State. The opacity-related regulations previously set forth at K.A.R. 28-19-52 are now found at K.A.R. 28-19-650. However, at the end of the notice where EPA listed the amendments to 40 CFR 52.870(c), the EPA-approved Kansas regulations, EPA inadvertently failed to list the removal of “K.A.R. 28-19-52”. Also, in that same rulemaking, EPA published an incorrect State effective date for K.A.R. 28-19-650. The correct State effective date for K.A.R. 28-19-650 is January 29, 1999. We are making these corrections in this document.

The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

We are processing this action as a final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 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. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 11, 2002. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Information regarding this action is presented in the following order:

Section 111(d) of the CAA requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, but emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources.

Standards and guidelines for new and existing HMIWIs were promulgated under the authority of sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act on September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48374). These standards are 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec for new sources, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce for existing sources.

The subpart Ce EG is not a direct Federal regulation but is a “guideline” for states to use in regulating existing HMIWIs. The EG requires states to submit for EPA approval a section 111(d) state plan containing air emission regulations and compliance schedules for existing HMIWIs.

This action will ensure consistency between the state plan and the approved Federal plan, and ensure Federal enforceability of the current state plan.

We originally approved the state's HMIWI 111(d) plan on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32425), and it became effective on August 16, 1999.

The state's 111(d) plan requirements for HMIWIs are contained in state rule 23.1(5)“b”. The state rule, which incorporates the requirements of the EG, makes reference in several places to dates which are tied to EPA's approval of the state's 111(d) plan. Since EPA has subsequently approved the state's 111(d) plan, there is now a fixed date for these rule requirements. Consequently, the state has revised its rules to cite a fixed date for these requirements.

In a rule making action which was effective on March 14, 2001, the state revised rule 23.1(5)“b,” subparagraphs (4), (5), (6), (12), and (13) by deleting the reference to EPA's approval date and inserting the appropriate fixed date. The fixed dates refer to requirements for operator training and qualification requirements, waste management requirements, inspection requirements, and compliance times for facilities planning to retrofit or shut down.

In a second state rule making action for HMIWIs which was effective on July 21, 1999, the state corrected a typographical error in rule 23.1(5)“b”, subparagraph (1), in the definition of the term “Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator.”

These revisions to the state's HMIWIs 111(d) plan were adopted by the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission and became effective on July 21, 1999 and March 14, 2001, respectively.

We are approving these revisions to the state's HMIWI 111(d) plan. We are processing this action as a final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This merely approves a state action as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 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. ). Because this rule approves a state action and does not impose any additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state action relating to a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing state plan submissions, our role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), we have no authority to disapprove state submissions for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews state submissions, to use VCS in place of state submissions that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, we have taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. We will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 11, 2002. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Information regarding this action is presented in the following order:

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established EGs for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, but emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources.

Standards and guidelines for new and existing MSW landfills were promulgated under the authority of sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act on March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905). These standards are 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW for new sources, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc for existing sources.

The subpart Cc EG is not a direct Federal regulation but is a “guideline” for states to use in regulating existing MSW landfills. The EG requires states to submit for EPA approval a section 111(d) state plan containing air emission regulations and compliance schedules for existing MSW landfills.

We originally approved the state's MSW landfill 111(d) plan on April 23, 1998 (63 FR 20102). We subsequently revised the Federal EG on June 16, 1998 (63 FR 32743). Consequently, the state revised its 111(d) plan to be consistent with the Federal EG.

The state's 111(d) plan requirements for MSW landfills are contained in state rule 23.1(5). The state revised this rule to reference 40 CFR part 60 as amended through November 24, 1998. Therefore, the state has adopted by reference the Federal revisions to the EG that were published on June 16, 1998.

A revision was made to rule 23.1(5)“a” (2) by adding subparagraph “3”, which specifies when a landfill source is subject to the Title V permitting requirements.

Additional clarifying revisions were made in rules 23.1(5) “a” (3), paragraphs “1” and “2” and in rule 23.1(5)“a”(6), paragraph “1”. These revisions clarify when design capacity reports must be submitted, require all calculations used to determine the maximum design capacity to be submitted with the design capacity report, and clarify compliance dates.

These revisions to the state's MSW landfill 111(d) plan were adopted by the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission on May 17, 1999, and became effective on July 21, 1999.

We are approving these revisions to the state's MSW landfill 111(d) plan. We are processing this action as a final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This merely approves a state action as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 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. ). Because this rule approves a state action and does not impose any additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state action relating to a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing state plan submissions, our role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), we have no authority to disapprove state submissions for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews state submissions, to use VCS in place of state submissions that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, we have taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. We will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 11, 2002. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems , specifies performance and equipment requirements for trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions.

On January 6, 1997, the Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) submitted a petition for rulemaking to NHTSA requesting that Standard No. 121 be amended. The TMA petition stated that the organization, through a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) task force, had reviewed Standard No. 121 in detail. As a result of that evaluation, SAE developed a recommended practice, J1626, Braking, Stability, and Control Performance Test Procedures for Air-Brake Equipped Trucks (REV APR96) , to provide a process for verifying vehicle compliance while minimizing test variability. TMA commended NHTSA for its efforts to update and reorganize Standard No. 121, but stated that Standard No. 121 and SAE J1626 should be aligned to improve test efficiency and decrease testing costs to the industry. Contending that aligning Standard No. 121 with SAE J1626 would have no detrimental impact on motor vehicle safety, TMA suggested 10 changes to the standard:

a. Test sequence —The first change suggested by TMA involved amending Standard No. 121 to change the braking test sequence. TMA noted that Standard No. 121 currently allows truck tractor braking-in-a-curve tests to be performed in the loaded and unloaded (bobtail) condition on the same surface by permitting the test vehicle to be unloaded between tests. This eliminates the step of moving vehicles from one test site to another and limits the need to water the test track to only a single time. TMA requested that Standard No. 121 be modified to allow unloaded straight line stops and loaded straight line stops immediately following the braking-in-a-curve test. Allowing this, in TMA’s view, would simplify testing and have little impact on the test results as long as the burnish procedure is performed first and final inspection follows all other required tests.

b. Brake adjustments —TMA requested that Standard No. 121 be modified to allow brakes to be adjusted using the procedure specified by the vehicle manufacturer at any time during testing other than the burnish procedure. TMA stated that some automatic brake adjusters overadjust during Standard No. 121 testing, but not in normal service. According to TMA, SAE J1626 recognizes this and allows brakes to be adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer’s procedure at any time to reduce brake performance variability.

c. Driveline engagement —TMA requested that the entire brake test procedure, including the burnish procedure, be conducted with the transmission in neutral or with the clutch disengaged. Standard No. 121 currently provides that tests, but not the burnish procedure, are conducted with the vehicle’s transmission in neutral or with the clutch disengaged. This minimizes the effect of engine and driveline drag on stopping distance test results and also relieves the manufacturer of the burden of having to test every engine and driveline package offered on a given chassis. The organization contended that conducting the entire test sequence as well as the burnish procedure with the transmission in neutral or the clutch disengaged would eliminate variability in the burnish and the need to test with numerous combinations of engines and drivelines that are offered with each chassis.

d. Parking brake test —TMA requested that Standard No. 121 be modified to allow a service brake application prior to applying and testing the parking brake application and that S5.6.3.1 be amended to provide explicitly that this section’s requirements apply to the case in which a single leakage failure occurs in the service brake system after the parking brakes are applied.

e. Emergency brake effective date —TMA asked NHTSA to clarify the effective date of emergency brake requirements for trucks and buses. Section S5.7, in TMA’s view, does not contain such a schedule for emergency brake requirements. TMA considers that an oversight on the agency’s part that should be clarified.

f. Loaded tractor emergency brake —TMA requested that the loaded tractor emergency brake test, which contained a requirement that such tests be performed with loaded tractors with unbraked control trailers, be deleted.

g. Roll bar —TMA requested that the agency modify Standard No. 121 to permit the use of a roll bar for any vehicle conducting the brake test sequence, including the 60-mile-per-hour (mph) straight-line stops and the 30-mph stops in a curve. TMA asserted that the safety of drivers and technicians is a primary concern during vehicle testing, and that use of a roll bar would protect them in the event of a vehicle rollover.

h. Axle loading —TMA requested that S5.3.1.1. of Standard No. 121 be modified to establish the specifications for the loading of the axles of single unit trucks. TMA submitted that the lack of a load limit in the requirements for single trucks could result in testing of these vehicles at a greater weight that the vehicle, or individual axles of the vehicle, were designed to carry.

i. Wheel lock —TMA sought clarification of the wheel lock provisions found in S5.1.6.1(b) of Standard No. 121. TMA pointed out that the section provides that “the wheels of at least one rear axle” of a truck tractor must be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) that directly controls the wheels on that axle. On the other hand, TMA stated that subparagraph S5.3.1(a) places wheel lock restrictions on 2 rear axles, and that S5.3.1(b) allows one of those 2 axles to lock up both of its wheels, but only if it is a tandem axle. TMA contended that these requirements conflicted with each other and gave the example of a 3-axle truck, bus or tractor. If the vehicle had 2 driven rear axles in tandem, known as a 6x4 configuration, the wheels on both sides of one rear axle might lock up during an entire stopping distance test. Conversely, if one of the 2 rear axles were a nonliftable tag or pusher axle, known as a 6x2 arrangement, then neither of the rear axles could lock up on both its wheels. Thus, TMA argued that the 6x4 vehicle needs ABS control on only one of its rear axles, while the 6x2 must have ABS control on both rear axles. TMA therefore requested that the wheel lockup provisions of S5.3.1(a) through (d) be rescinded, and that S5.3.1 be redrafted.

j. Typographical errors —Finally, TMA requested that several typographical errors be corrected.

On February 3, 1999, the agency published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register . The NPRM announced that the agency was partially denying and partially granting the TMA petition. The petition was denied as to items a through e above. It was granted as to the remaining five items, referenced as f through j. For those items that it granted, the agency proposed several changes to Standard No. 121.

The request to change the braking test sequence to conduct the unloaded straight line stops before the loaded straight lines stops was denied because the current GVWR/LLVW (lightly-loaded vehicle weight) is consistent with the other tests in the overall test sequence. In addition, flat-spotting of tires is minimized when GVWR tests are conducted first. Since not all wheels are required to be ABS-controlled and are therefore permitted to lock up, conducting the LLVW tests first, particularly for the 60-mph stopping distance tests, could result in severe flat-spotting of the tires on the non-ABS-controlled axles. Subsequent vehicle test runs would be difficult with the tires in that condition. We also observed that the TMA proposal would eliminate one loading/unloading sequence for truck tractors, but it would necessitate an additional unloading sequence for single unit trucks and buses.

TMA’s request that the agency initiate rulemaking to allow brake adjustments at any time during testing was also denied. As we explained in the NPRM, the potential of automatic brake adjusters to over-adjust brakes during the test sequence does not overcome the agency’s other concerns. Manual adjustment of the brakes after each test sequence is inappropriate because it would be less representative of real-world braking conditions. Further, Standard No. 121 already allows some brake adjustment during testing. For example, two manual brake adjustments are allowed, one at the end of the braking-in-a-curve test and the other at the end of the GVWR parking brake test. For single unit trucks and buses, one manual brake adjustment is allowed at the end of the GVWR parking brake test. Accordingly, the agency concluded that the existing provisions for manual brake adjustments during the test sequence sufficiently addressed the potential for brake over-adjustment while preserving a well-defined test procedure.

As indicated in the NPRM, NHTSA also declined to start rulemaking proceedings to change the brake test and burnishing procedure to specify that all burnishing and testing be conducted with the transmission in neutral or the clutch disengaged. As we explained in the NPRM, TMA’s request to allow the vehicle’s brakes to be burnished with the clutch disengaged or the transmission in neutral would result in a higher temperature burnish similar to a previously revised burnish procedure. In contrast, the current burnish procedure allows the brakes to reach whatever temperatures they are designed to reach when driven in typical stop-and-go driving. Therefore, any braking system design will be conditioned fairly under this approach. We also noted that while TMA was concerned about the burden of testing every engine and driveline package offered on a given chassis, vehicle manufacturers are not required to and currently do not test every combination of engine and drivetrain that is offered on each vehicle. At the time the NPRM was published, as well as today, the legal requirement is that a manufacturer exercise due care in assuring itself that its vehicle is capable of meeting the performance requirements of applicable standards when tested as prescribed in the standards.

We also denied TMA’s request to modify the parking brake requirements to allow full application of the service brake prior to application of the parking brake. TMA did not submit any data comparing the grade holding ability of heavy truck air brakes using a full service application before engaging the parking brake, making it difficult to evaluate their proposal. NHTSA noted that full service brake applications prior to engaging the parking brake could damage brake components. The agency decided to conduct vehicle research to evaluate this issue, but could not clarify the test procedure or revise Standard No. 121 until testing had been completed and data had become available.

Finally, TMA’s request that NHTSA clarify the emergency brake requirements for trucks and buses do not become effective until March 1, 1998 was denied on the basis that the request had become moot by the time the NPRM had been issued.

The February 3, 1999 NPRM also outlined those portions of the TMA petition that NHTSA considered to be appropriate for further rulemaking action.

The agency proposed to amend Standard No. 121 to eliminate the fully loaded truck-tractor emergency brake testing requirements of S5.7.3(b), to permit the use of roll bars in brake testing. As noted in the NPRM, permitting the use of roll bars in testing would protect drivers in the event of a rollover during a test. To prevent the overloading of single-unit axles in fully loaded brake tests, the agency proposed to amend S5.3.1.1. To clarify the wheel lock requirements, the agency proposed altering Standard No. 121's definition of “tandem axle” that would not include a requirement that all axles in a tandem would be driven. In the agency's view, this definition would resolve potential confusion over the application of ABS requirements for heavy vehicles with three or more axles.

Finally, the agency proposed to correct typographical errors in S6.1.8 and S6.2.5 of Standard No. 121.

NHTSA received four comments in response to the NPRM. Comments were submitted by three trade groups, the American Truck Dealers Division of the National Automobile Dealers Association (ATD), the Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers Council of the Motor Equipment Manufacturer's Association (HDBMC), the Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA), and by one manufacturer, AlliedSignal Truck Brake Systems Company (AlliedSignal). All of the commenters supported, in whole or in part, the series of amendments proposed in the NPRM. HDBMC and AlliedSignal took issue with the agency's decision to deny portions of the original TMA petition for rulemaking.

HDBMC supported the agency's proposed amendments regarding roll bars, wheel lock requirements, and corrections. The organization disagreed with the agency's denial of the remainder of the portions of the TMA petition that would have aligned Standard No. 121 with SAE J-1626. HDBMC stated that the SAE J-1626 is in the final ballot process with completion expected in the second quarter of 1999. They strongly urged the agency to refrain from denying any portion of the TMA petition until the Recommended Practice is finalized by the Society of Automotive Engineers.

AlliedSignal stated that it joined in the comments provided by HDBMC and provided additional comments to supplement that response. AlliedSignal supported the agency's proposed amendments that grant portions of the TMA petition. The company disagreed with the agency's denial of the remaining TMA requests. AlliedSignal urged NHTSA to optimize testing efficiency by giving manufacturers the option of sequencing the unloaded braking-in-a-curve test with the other unloaded tests and, since there are a number of possible test sequences, NHTSA should consider rulemaking to provide manufacturers the opportunity to arrange the testing sequence as they see fit. NHTSA would, however, test in the sequence outlined in the agency's test procedure for FMVSS 121. This, in AlliedSignal's view, “would allow alternate test sequences to be considered in the test procedure when further data is available, without impacting the safety standard.”

AlliedSignal supported a common industry standard procedure for brake testing and urges NHTSA and SAE to agree upon a common approach to brake adjustment during compliance testing. AlliedSignal stated that the current limited periods of adjustment seem to be generally adequate; however, in the future, as additional information on automatic adjustment and air disc brakes become available, some modifications may be needed. AlliedSignal said that NHTSA must recognize that automatic adjustment devices are designed to operate under normal use conditions on the road, unlike the testing conditions during the compliance testing process. AlliedSignal also stated that the burnish should be conducted either with the transmission in neutral or with the clutch engaged. The company argued that this procedure is more repeatable and yields more consistent data. AlliedSignal contended that during a parking brake 20 percent gradient hold test, the service brake would be used to initially hold the vehicle on the grade, before the parking brake control is applied. The use of anti-compounding devices, as applicable, in the system to protect the brakes from over-stressing, should not be a concern for compliance, but should be at the manufacturer's discretion based upon good design practice. AlliedSignal suggested that since NHTSA is researching the grade holding procedure, it should also evaluate the equivalence of grade holding as an option to the static draw bar pull procedure. AlliedSignal also stated that although it understood that only issues addressed in this NPRM are to be subjects for rulemaking at this time, the company also recommended that NHTSA consider deleting the Trailer Test Rig Figure 1(a) and section S6.1.13(b) from the standard as these pertained to the old test rig.

ATD supported the agency's proposed amendments relating to wheel lock and the definition of tandem axles. TMA indicated that as NHTSA had proposed to delete S5.7.3(b) to properly reflect the earlier deletion of the loaded truck-tractor emergency brake testing requirements, all references to S5.7.3(b) elsewhere in the standard need to be modified or removed. TMA also indicated that as the agency had proposed to allow the use of roll bars in brake testing, the specifications for vehicle weights contained in Table 1, S5.6.2(b) and S5.7.1 should be modified to allow for the additional weight of the roll bars.

NHTSA is adopting the changes proposed in the NPRM, with two minor modifications. The agency notes that these modifications to Standard No. 121 were either supported by the commenters or were not addressed by any of the commenters. As noted in the NPRM, the agency believes that these modifications will eliminate certain inconsistencies in Standard No. 121, simplify the test burdens of manufacturers, and allow for increased safety during brake testing.

Two of the four commenters, AlliedSignal and HDBMC, indicated their opposition to the agency's decision to deny portions of the TMA petition for rulemaking. NHTSA notes that its rationale for denying portions of the TMA petition are contained in the February 3, 1999 NPRM. Neither AlliedSignal or HDBMC submitted any data or test results with their comments that would support any change from the agency's earlier decision to deny portions of the TMA petition. The agency also notes that HDBMC urged NHTSA not to deny any portion of the TMA petition until the SAE finally approved and adopted the most recent revisions to the SAE J-1626 standard. The most recent revisions of the J-1626 standard were approved and adopted by the SAE in June 1999. The final revisions to J-1626 did not, in NHTSA's view, change that voluntary standard to address the concerns voiced by the agency in the NPRM.

One commenter, TMA, suggested several changes to Standard No. 121 that were not part of the agency's proposal. As TMA indicated, these amendments are, however, related to the agency's proposal. Both are conforming amendments.

The first of these is TMA's suggestion that S6.1.14, which specifies requirements for venting brake lines to the atmosphere for the emergency braking test, be amended to delete a reference to S5.7.3(b). As the agency's proposal and the final rule call for the deletion of S5.7.3(b), TMA's suggestion appears to be well founded. The deletion of this reference does not alter the substance of Standard No. 121, the agency's proposal or this final rule but merely reflects the deletion S5.7.3(b). Therefore, NHTSA is adopting TMA's suggested change.

The second modification suggested by TMA is to modify the specifications for allowable vehicle weights contained in steps 2b, 7 and 8 of Table I and Sections 5.6.2(b) and S5.7.1. We note that these sections all set forth the allowable vehicle weights for the different tests to be performed in the test sequence. If these specifications were to remain unmodified, they would conflict with the final rule's adoption of provisions allowing the use of roll bars during testing as no allowance would be available for the added weight of the roll bar. As the final rule states that up to 1000 pounds may be added to allowable vehicle weights to facilitate the use of roll bars, NHTSA considers TMA's comments on this issue to be appropriate. The agency is therefore revising its earlier proposal and amending Table I, S5.6.2 and S5.7.1. to allow an additional 1,000 pounds of weight.

This document has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this rulemaking action and has determined that it is not “significant” within the meaning of DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. This action clarifies and amends certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems , to permit the addition of a rollbar on test vehicles when undergoing brake testing, clarify when wheel lockup is permitted when brake testing, provide that single-unit truck axles should not be overloaded when brake testing, and delete an obsolete requirement. The amendments do not impose any additional costs on manufacturers of medium and heavy trucks. Although the installation of roll bars on test vehicles would involve additional costs, that provision is optional to manufacturers who may voluntarily want to install them. Further, even if manufacturers chose to install the bars on their test vehicles, the number of affected vehicles would be very small. Thus, the agency estimates that implementation of this final rule will not result in any increased costs to manufacturers, distributors, or consumers. The agency also notes that the amendments contained in this final rule will, to a limited degree, eliminate and simplify certain requirements of Standard No. 121. These amendments may result in very small cost savings for manufacturers. Accordingly, a full regulatory evaluation was not prepared.

NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The following is the agency's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This final rule will primarily affect manufacturers of medium and heavy trucks. The Small Business Administration (SBA) regulation at 13 CFR part 121 defines a small business as a business entity which operates primarily within the United States (13 CFR 121.105(a)).

SBA's size standards are organized according to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. SIC code No. 3711, Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies , prescribes a small business size standard of 1,000 or fewer employees. SIC code No. 3714, Motor Vehicle Part and Accessories , prescribes a small business size standard of 750 or fewer employees.

This final rule amends Standard No 121 to permit the addition of a rollbar on test vehicles when undergoing brake testing, clarify when wheel lockup is permitted when brake testing, provide that single-unit truck axles should not be overloaded when brake testing, and delete an obsolete requirement. These amendments were requested by the trade organization that represents the major manufacturers of medium and heavy trucks in the U.S. The amendments do not mandate any increased costs or other burdens on truck manufacturers, most, if not all, of which would not qualify as small businesses under SBA guidelines. Neither does this final rule result in any increased costs for small businesses or consumers. Accordingly, there is no significant impact on small businesses, small organizations, or small governmental units by these amendments. As noted above, the agency also notes that the amendments contained in this final rule will, to a limited degree, eliminate and simplify certain requirements of Standard No. 121. These amendments may result in very small cost savings for manufacturers. For these reasons, the agency has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511). There are no requirements for information collection associated with this rule.

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132, and has determined that this rule will not establish policies with federalism implications.

This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

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

This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and does not have a disproportionate effect on children, who are unlikely to be conducting brake tests on heavy trucks.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This final rule does not meet the definition of Federal mandate because this rule simply adds a compliance alternative for one year. In no case will annual expenditures exceed the $100 million threshold.

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and has determined that implementation of this rulemaking action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.