Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2004 / Proposed Rules 67869

No. CEB–A–1253, Revision 4, dated May 21, 

2004, to do the modification and installation. 

(h) Install a turbine energy absorbing ring 

in the plane of the 1st stage turbine wheel. 

Use paragraphs 2.A. and 2.B. of RRC Alert 

Commercial Engine Bulletin No. CEB–A–

1255, Revision 4, dated September 29, 2004, 

to do the installation. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(i) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft 

Certification Office, has the authority to 

approve alternative methods of compliance 

for this AD if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(j) None.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

November 16, 2004. 

Jay J. Pardee, 

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–25794 Filed 11–19–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2003–NM–256–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330, A340–200, and A340–300 Series 

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document revises an 

earlier proposed airworthiness directive 

(AD), applicable to certain Airbus 

Model A330, A340–200, and A340–300 

series airplanes, that would have 

required initial and repetitive 

inspections of certain frame stiffeners to 

detect cracking. If any cracking was 

found, that proposal would have 

required replacement of the stiffener 

with a new, reinforced stiffener. 

Replacement of the stiffener would 

constitute terminating action for certain 

inspections. That proposal would also 

have required a one-time inspection of 

any new, reinforced stiffener; and repair 

or replacement of the new, reinforced 

stiffener if any cracking was found 

during the one-time inspection. That 

proposal also provided for an optional 

terminating action for certain 

requirements of that AD. This new 

action revises the proposed rule by 

reducing the compliance time for the 

initial inspection of the affected frame 

stiffeners. The actions specified by this 

new proposed AD are intended to 

prevent fatigue failure of certain frame 

stiffener fittings, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane. This action is intended to 

address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

December 17, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

triplicate to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, 

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003–NM–

256–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 

Comments may be inspected at this 

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Comments may be submitted 

via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments 

may also be sent via the Internet using 

the following address: 9-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent 

via fax or the Internet must contain 

‘‘Docket No. 2003–NM–256–AD’’ in the 

subject line and need not be submitted 

in triplicate. Comments sent via the 

Internet as attached electronic files must 

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 

2000 or ASCII text. 

The service information referenced in 

the proposed rule may be obtained from 

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. 

This information may be examined at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2797; 

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in the making of the 

proposed rule by submitting such 

written data, views, or arguments as 

they may desire. Communications shall 

identify the Rules Docket number and 

be submitted in triplicate to the address 

specified above. All communications 

received on or before the closing date 

for comments, specified above, will be 

considered before taking action on the 

proposed rule. The proposals contained 

in this action may be changed in light 

of the comments received. 

Submit comments using the following 

format: 

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. 

For example, discuss a request to 

change the compliance time and a 

request to change the service bulletin 

reference as two separate issues. 

• For each issue, state what specific 

change to the proposed AD is being 

requested. 

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or 

data) for each request. 

Comments are specifically invited on 

the overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed rule. All comments 

submitted will be available, both before 

and after the closing date for comments, 

in the Rules Docket for examination by 

interested persons. A report 

summarizing each FAA-public contact 

concerned with the substance of this 

proposal will be filed in the Rules 

Docket. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

submitted in response to this action 

must submit a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket Number 2003–NM–256–AD.’’

The postcard will be date stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

Any person may obtain a copy of this 

NPRM by submitting a request to the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 

2003–NM–256–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 

Discussion 

A proposal to amend part 39 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 39) to add an airworthiness 

directive (AD), applicable to certain 

Airbus Model A330, A340–200, and 

A340–300 series airplanes, was 

published as a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register on April 1, 2004 (69 FR 17084). 

That NPRM would have required initial 

and repetitive inspections of certain 

frame stiffeners to detect cracking. If any 

cracking was found, that proposal 

would have required replacement of the 

stiffener with a new, reinforced 

stiffener. Replacement of the stiffener 

would constitute terminating action for 

certain inspections. That NPRM would 

also have required a one-time inspection 

of any new, reinforced stiffeners; and 

repair or replacement of the new, 

reinforced stiffener if any cracking was 

found during the one-time inspection. 

That NPRM also provided for an 

optional terminating action for certain 

requirements of that AD. That NPRM 

was prompted by issuance of mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information by 

a civil airworthiness authority. Cracking 

and consequent fatigue failure of certain 

frame stiffeners, if not corrected, could 

67870 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

result in reduced structural integrity of 

the airplane. 

Comments 

Due consideration has been given to 

the comments received in response to 

the original NPRM. 

No Objection to Proposed AD 

One commenter states that it does not 

own or operate airplanes affected by the 

original NPRM. The commenter does 

not have any further comments. 

Requests To Change Compliance Time 

One commenter, the manufacturer, 

states that the French airworthiness 

directives mandate accomplishment of 

the initial inspection of the FR12A 

stiffener before the accumulation of 

13,000 total flight cycles. The original 

NPRM has a compliance time of within 

6 months or 13,000 flight cycles after 

the effective date of the AD, whichever 

is later, for the initial inspection.

We infer that the commenter is 

requesting that the compliance time of 

the original NPRM be revised to match 

what is in the parallel French 

airworthiness directives. We partially 

agree. The compliance time in 

paragraph (a) of this supplemental 

NPRM has been changed to ‘‘Prior to the 

accumulation of 13,000 total flight 

cycles or within 6 months after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later.’’ Although the French 

airworthiness directives do not include 

a grace period, we find it necessary to 

include a 6-month grace period to avoid 

grounding airplanes that have 

accumulated 13,000 total flight cycles or 

more as of the effective date of the AD. 

Another commenter, an operator, 

requests that the 6-month grace period 

in paragraph (a) of the original NPRM be 

extended to 18 months. The commenter 

states that it anticipates incorporation of 

the subject modification during 

upcoming maintenance checks, and that 

an 18-month compliance time will align 

with those maintenance checks. The 

commenter adds that if an operator has 

already accumulated more than 11,400 

total flight cycles or 33,100 total flight 

hours on the airplane, the operator may 

be forced to do the subject modification 

outside of a heavy maintenance 

environment, which would extend the 

out-of-service time. The commenter 

notes that extending the grace period to 

18 months would allow for 

accomplishment of the modification 

without specially scheduled downtime 

outside of scheduled maintenance. 

We do not agree. In developing an 

appropriate grace period for this action, 

we considered the safety implications, 

operators’ normal maintenance 

schedules, and the compliance time 

recommended by the airplane 

manufacturer for the timely 

accomplishment of the required actions. 

In consideration of these items, we have 

determined that a grace period of 6 

months will ensure an acceptable level 

of safety, and is an appropriate interval 

of time wherein the required actions can 

be accomplished during scheduled 

maintenance intervals for the majority 

of affected operators. However, 

according to the provisions of paragraph 

(g) of this supplemental NPRM, we may 

approve a request to adjust the 

compliance time if the request includes 

data that justify that a different 

compliance time would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. This 

supplemental NPRM has not been 

changed regarding this issue. 

Request To Change Cost Impact Section 

The same commenter requests that the 

estimated work hours for access and 

close-up of the inspection area be 

included in the Cost Impact section of 

the original NPRM. The commenter 

states that approximately 140 work 

hours will be needed for access and 

close-up. The commenter agrees with 

the estimate in the original NPRM that 

approximately 4 work hours will be 

needed to accomplish the inspection. 

We do not agree that the estimated 

work hours for access and close-up of 

the inspection area should be included 

in this supplemental NPRM. As stated 

in the original NPRM, ‘‘the cost impact 

figures * * * represent only the time 

necessary to perform the specific actions 

actually required by the AD.’’ The 

specific actions required by the AD are 

repetitive high-frequency eddy current 

inspections of the FR12A stiffener 

fitting. We expect that most operators 

will be able to do the actions specified 

in this supplemental NPRM during 

scheduled maintenance. We attempt to 

set compliance times that generally 

coincide with operators’ maintenance 

schedules. However, because operators’

schedules vary substantially, we cannot 

accommodate every operator’s optimal 

scheduling in each AD. The time 

necessary for gaining access to and 

closing the inspection area is incidental. 

This supplemental NPRM has not been 

changed regarding this issue. 

Request To Allow Temporary Flight 

With Cracking 

One commenter, the manufacturer, 

notes that paragraph (b) of the original 

NPRM specifies replacement of cracked 

FR12A stiffeners before further flight. 

Since the service bulletins and the 

parallel French airworthiness directives 

allow temporary flight with cracks of 

certain lengths, and corrective actions at 

various flight-cycle thresholds, we infer 

that the commenter is requesting that 

the original NPRM allow flight with 

cracking. We do not agree. The 

manufacturer did not provide data that 

showed the ultimate strength capability 

of a stiffener with cracking. Also, the 

manufacturer did not provide fatigue 

analysis that showed, under a load 

condition, that the cracking did not 

grow, or that the cracking grew at an 

acceptably slow rate, during the period 

time of time between the identification 

of the cracking and the corrective 

actions. We have determined that, due 

to the safety implications and 

consequences associated with such 

cracking, all fittings with cracking must 

be replaced before further flight. This 

supplemental NPRM has not been 

changed regarding this issue. 

Explanation of Change to Relevant 

Service Information Referenced in This 

Supplemental NPRM 

Since the issuance of the original 

NPRM, Airbus has issued Service 

Bulletin A340–53–4141, Revision 02, 

dated August 13, 2004 (for Model A340–

200 and A340–300 series airplanes). 

(The original NPRM refers to A340–53–

4141, Revision 01, dated July 7, 2003, as 

the appropriate source of service 

information for the proposed actions for 

these airplanes.) Revision 02 of the 

service bulletin adds details to Figure 2 

and changes the identification number 

of the modification kits. Revision 02 

also includes a new figure, Figure 13, 

that contains instructions for reworking 

a stiffener fitting. Figure 13 only 

pertains to operators that have certain 

modification kits. We have changed 

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (f) of this 

supplemental NPRM to reference 

Revision 02 of the service bulletin.

Explanation of Change to Paragraph (e) 

of This Supplemental NPRM 

Paragraph (e) of the original NPRM 

inadvertently referenced Airbus Service 

Bulletin A340–53–4137, dated May 26, 

2003, twice. We have changed 

paragraph (e) of this supplemental 

NPRM to delete one of the references to 

Service Bulletin A340–53–4137, and to 

give credit for actions done before the 

effective date of the AD in accordance 

with Airbus Service Bulletin A340–53–

4141, dated May 26, 2003; and A340–

53–4141, Revision 01, dated July 7, 

2003. 

Additional Change to This 

Supplemental NPRM 

The number of affected Airbus Model 

A330 airplanes has been updated from 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2004 / Proposed Rules 67871

9 to 20 in the Cost Impact section of this 

supplemental NPRM. 

Conclusion 

Since a certain change expands the 

scope of the original NPRM, the FAA 

has determined that it is necessary to 

reopen the comment period to provide 

additional opportunity for public 

comment. 

Cost Impact 

The FAA estimates that 20 Model 

A330 airplanes of U.S. registry would be 

affected by this proposed AD, that it 

would take approximately 4 work hours 

per airplane to accomplish the proposed 

inspection, and that the average labor 

rate is $65 per work hour. Based on 

these figures, the cost impact of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators is 

estimated to be $5,200, or $260 per 

airplane, per inspection cycle. 

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 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. 

If an operator chooses to do the 

optional terminating action rather than 

continue the repetitive inspections, it 

would take about 74 work hours per 

airplane to accomplish the installations, 

at an average labor rate of $65 per work 

hour. Required parts would cost about 

$7,860 per airplane. Based on these 

figures, we estimate the cost of this 

optional terminating action to be 

$12,670 per airplane. 

Currently, there are no affected Model 

A340–200 or A340–300 series airplanes 

on the U.S. Register. However, if an 

affected airplane is imported and placed 

on the U.S. Register in the future, it 

would take approximately 4 work hours 

to accomplish the proposed inspection, 

at an average labor rate of $65 per work 

hour. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of this AD to be $260 

per airplane, per inspection cycle. 

Regulatory Impact 

The regulations proposed herein 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Therefore, 

it is determined that this proposal 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this proposed regulation (1) 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft 

regulatory evaluation prepared for this 

action is contained in the Rules Docket. 

A copy of it may be obtained by 

contacting the Rules Docket at the 

location provided under the caption 

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the Federal Aviation 

Administration proposes to amend part 

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. Section 39.13 is amended by 

adding the following new airworthiness 

directive:

Airbus: Docket 2003–NM–256–AD.

Applicability: Model A330 series airplanes; 

and Model A340–200 and A340–300 series 

airplanes; except those on which Airbus 

Modification 49694 has been installed; 

certificated in any category. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

To prevent fatigue failure of certain frame 

stiffener fittings, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the airplane, 

accomplish the following: 

Initial and Repetitive Inspections 

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 13,000 total 

flight cycles or within 6 months after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later: Conduct a high-frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspection for cracking of the FR12A 

stiffener fitting in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A330–53–3135, Revision 01, 

dated July 7, 2003 (for Model A330 series 

airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A340–

53–4141, Revision 02, dated August 13, 2004 

(for Model A340–200 and A340–300 series 

airplanes); as applicable. Repeat the 

inspection at intervals not to exceed 10,000 

flight cycles until the replacement required 

by paragraph (b) of this AD is accomplished; 

or until the optional terminating action in 

paragraph (d) of this AD is accomplished. 

The actions in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this 

AD constitute terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections only for the side on 

which the actions are taken. 

Replacement 

(b) If any cracking is detected during any 

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this 

AD: Before further flight, replace the affected 

FR12A stiffener with a new reinforced 

FR12A stiffener in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A330–53–3135, Revision 01, 

dated July 7, 2003; or Airbus Service Bulletin 

A340–53–4141, Revision 02, dated August 

13, 2004; as applicable. Replacement of the 

stiffener constitutes terminating action for 

the repetitive inspections required by 

paragraph (a) of this AD, only for the side on 

which the replacement is made. 

Follow-On Inspection 

(c) For airplanes on which a new, 

reinforced stiffener is installed in accordance 

with paragraph (b) of this AD: Within 14,600 

flight cycles following the installation, 

perform an HFEC inspection of the FR12A 

stiffener fitting for cracking in accordance 

with Airbus Service Bulletin A330–53–3135, 

Revision 01, dated July 7, 2003; or Airbus 

Service Bulletin A340–53–4141, Revision 02, 

dated August 13, 2004; as applicable. If any 

cracking is detected, before further flight, 

repair or replace the new reinforced stiffener 

with a new stiffener in a manner approved 

by either the Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, FAA; or the DGAC (or its 

delegated agent).

Optional Terminating Action 

(d) Replacement of the FR12A stiffeners 

with new, reinforced stiffeners; installation 

of new reinforced junction fittings between 

FR12A/FR13 and FR13/FR13A at the stringer 

26 level; and installation of a new shear web 

that joins the fitting to the cabin floor track; 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–

53–3130, Revision 01, dated October 10, 

2003; or A340–53–4137, Revision 01, dated 

October 10, 2003; as applicable; constitutes 

terminating action for the inspection 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c) of this 

AD, only for the side on which the 

replacement and installations are made. 

Actions Accomplished per Previous Issues of 

Service Bulletins 

(e) Actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance with 

Airbus Service Bulletins A330–53–3130, 

dated May 26, 2003; A330–53–3135, dated 

May 26, 2003; A340–53–4137, dated May 26, 

2003; A340–53–4141, dated May 26, 2003; or 

A340–53–4141, Revision 01, dated July 7, 

2003; are considered acceptable for 

compliance only with the following 

requirements of this AD: The HFEC 

inspections required by paragraph (a) of this 

AD, the replacement required by paragraph 

67872 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

(b) of this AD, and the actions in paragraph 

(d) of this AD. 

No Reporting Requirements 

(f) Although the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–

53–3135, Revision 01, dated July 7, 2003; and 

Airbus Service Bulletin A340–53–4141, 

Revision 02, dated August 13, 2004; describe 

procedures for submitting certain 

information to the manufacturer, this AD 

does not require those actions. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(g) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is 

authorized to approve alternative methods of 

compliance for this AD.

Note 1: The subject of this AD is addressed 

in French airworthiness directives 2003–

205(B), dated May 28, 2003; and 2003–

206(B), dated May 28, 2003.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 10, 2004. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–25793 Filed 11–19–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Part 700 

[Docket No. 041026293–4293–01] 

RIN 0694–AD35 

Defense Priorities and Allocations 

System: Electronic Transmission of 

Reasons for Rejecting Rated Orders

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend the Defense Priorities and 

Allocations System (DPAS) regulations 

to allow a person who has rejected a 

rated order to give his or her reasons for 

the rejection through electronic means 

rather than requiring the person to 

submit the rationale in writing.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 22, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov or to 

William J. Denk, Director of the Defense 

Programs Division, Office of Strategic 

Industries and Economic Security, 

Room 3876, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

Fax: (202) 482–5650, or e-mail: 

wdenk@bis.doc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Stephen Baker, Office of Strategic 

Industries and Economic Security, 

telephone: (202) 482–2017 or e-mail: 

sbaker@bis.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

Title I of the Defense Production Act of 

1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 

et seq.), the President is authorized to 

require preferential acceptance and 

performance of contracts or orders 

supporting certain approved national 

defense and energy programs, and to 

allocate materials, services, and 

facilities in such a manner as to promote 

these approved programs. Additional 

priorities authority is found in section 

18 of the Selective Service Act of 1948 

(50 U.S.C. App. 468), 10 U.S.C. 2538, 

and 50 U.S.C. 82. DPAS authority has 

also been extended to support 

emergency preparedness activities 

under Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 

5915 et seq.). 

Originally published in 1984, the 

DPAS regulations were revised on June 

11, 1998 (63 FR 31918), to update, 

streamline, and clarify a number of 

provisions. The purpose of the DPAS is 

to assure the timely availability of 

industrial resources to meet current 

national defense and emergency 

preparedness program requirements, 

including critical infrastructure 

protection and restoration, as well as 

provide an operating system to support 

rapid industrial response in a national 

emergency. In pursuit of the DPAS 

mission, the Department of Commerce 

endeavors to minimize disruptions to 

the normal commercial activities of 

industry. 

The Bureau of Industry and Security 

(BIS) is proposing to amend the 

regulations that require persons to 

transmit rejections of DPAS rated orders 

in writing to allow these transmissions 

to be made electronically. Industry has 

asserted that the current procedure 

hampers efficiency. As a result, BIS 

proposes to amend 15 CFR 700.13(d)(1) 

to allow a person the option of 

transmitting his or her rationale for 

rejecting a rated order electronically to 

the appropriate contracting officer or 

agency. If this rule is adopted, a person 

would be able to transmit his or her 

rationale for rejection either 

electronically or in writing. This 

amendment to the DPAS regulations 

should allow this information to be 

transmitted more quickly. 

Rulemaking Requirements 

1. Executive Order 12866: This rule 

has been determined to be not 

significant under EO 12866. 

2. Executive Order 13132: This rule 

does not contain policies with 

Federalism implications as this term is 

defined in EO 13132.

3. Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule 

contains collection of information 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.) (PRA). 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall any person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information, subject to the 

requirements of the PRA unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. 

Comments may be sent to Mr. Stephen 

Baker, Office of Strategic Industries and 

Economic Security; fax: (202) 482–5650; 

e-mail: sbaker@bis.doc.gov. These 

collections have been approved by the 

OMB under control number 0694–0092, 

‘‘Procedures for Acceptance or Rejection 

of a Rated Order,’’ which carries a 

burden hour estimate of 1 to 15 minutes 

per response. Send comments regarding 

these burden estimates or any other 

aspect of these collections of 

information, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to David Rostker, 

OMB Desk Officer, by e-mail at 

david_rostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax to 

(202) 395–7285; and to the Regulatory 

Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. 

Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. 

4. Regulatory Flexibility Act: The 

Chief Counsel for Regulation of the 

Department of Commerce has certified 

to the Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (i.e., companies 

or other organizations involved in 

production for the U.S. defense 

industrial base). 

This rule would amend DPAS 

regulations to allow a person who has 

rejected a rated order to give his or her 

reasons for the rejection through 

electronic means rather than requiring 

the person to submit the rationale in 

writing. Previously, BIS required the 

rationale for rejection be transmitted in 

writing, not electronically. This change 

will reduce the burden on industry for 

staff time and postage and improve the 

efficiency of small business record 

keeping. Those small businesses 

without electronic capability will