24894 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

switch and wiring, and replace the double

Teflon sleeving over the wiring of the float

switch with new sleeving, in accordance

with the alert service bulletin.

(B) If the resistance is greater than or equal

to 200 megohms, prior to further flight, blow

dirt out of the conduit, replace the double

Teflon sleeving over the wiring of the float

switch with new sleeving, and reinstall the

existing float switch, in accordance with the

alert service bulletin.

(ii) Replace the float switch and wiring

with a new float switch and wiring, and

replace the double Teflon sleeving over the

wiring of the float switch with new sleeving,

in accordance with the alert service bulletin.

(2) If any worn insulation is detected, and

if no copper conductor is exposed, and if no

evidence of arcing is detected: Prior to

further flight, accomplish the requirements

specified in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(3) If any electrical arcing or exposed

copper conductor is detected, prior to further

flight, accomplish either paragraph (k)(3)(i)

or (k)(3)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Replace any section of the electrical

conduit where the arcing occurred with a

new section, in accordance with the alert

service bulletin, and accomplish the

requirements specified in paragraph (k)(1)(ii)

of this AD.

(ii) Perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect fuel leaks of the electrical conduit, in

accordance with the alert service bulletin.

(A) If no fuel leak is detected, prior to

further flight, accomplish the requirements

specified in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this AD.

Within 1,500 flight hours or 6 months after

accomplishment of the inspection specified

in paragraph (k)(3)(ii), whichever occurs first,

replace the electrical conduit with new

conduit, in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 737–28A1132, Revision 2,

dated June 17, 1999. The existing float

switch, wiring, and double Teflon sleeving

may be reinstalled after replacement of the

conduit.

(B) If any fuel leak is detected, prior to

further flight, replace any section of the

electrical conduit where the leak is with a

new section, in accordance with the alert

service bulletin. Prior to further flight after

accomplishment of the replacement,

accomplish the requirements specified in

paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(4) If any presence or scent of fuel on the

electrical wires is detected, prior to further

flight, locate the source of the leak and

replace the damaged conduit with a new

conduit, in accordance with the alert service

bulletin; and accomplish the requirements

specified in either paragraph (k)(1)(i) or

(k)(1)(ii) of this AD, unless accomplished

previously in accordance with paragraph

(k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(3) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(l)(1) An alternative method of compliance

or adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Manager, Seattle ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

99–05–12, amendment 39–11060, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Special Flight Permits

(m) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–10670 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–69–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–10 Series

Airplanes, and KC–10A and KDC–10

(Military) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10 series

airplanes, and KC–10A and KDC–10

(military) airplanes. This proposal

would require certain modifications of

the thrust reverser control and

indication system and wiring on each

engine. This proposal is prompted by a

determination that the current thrust

reverser systems do not adequately

preclude unwanted deployment of a

thrust reverser. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

prevent unwanted deployment of a

thrust reverser, which could

significantly jeopardize continued safety

of flight and landing of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

69–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group,

Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood

Boulevard, Long Beach, California

90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Dept. C1–L51 (2–60). This information

may be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip Kush, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5263; fax (562) 627–5210.

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 notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–69–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 24895

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.

2000–NM–69–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

In 1992, the FAA issued a document

identified as, ‘‘Criteria for Assessing

Transport Turbojet Fleet Reverser

System Safety.’’ Relative to the new

criteria contained in that document,

Boeing recently completed an update of

the System Safety Analysis (SSA) for

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10 series

airplanes. This SSA identified a number

of latent (hidden) failures that could

contribute to unwanted deployment of a

wing engine thrust reverser in flight.

Based on this SSA, the FAA has

determined that the thrust reverser

systems on all McDonnell Douglas

Model DC–10 series airplanes, and KC–

10A and KDC–10 (military) airplanes do

not adequately preclude unwanted

deployment of a thrust reverser. Such

unwanted deployment of a thrust

reverser could significantly jeopardize

continued safety of flight and landing of

the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

the following service information:

• McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC10–78–060, dated December

17, 1999, which describes procedures

for modification of the indication light

system for the thrust reversers. This

service bulletin specifies prior or

concurrent accomplishment of

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service

Bulletin 78–40, Revision 1, dated July

24, 1979, which describes procedures

for installation of a thrust reverser

interlock. (Service Bulletin 78–40,

Revision 1, was specified as the

appropriate source of service

information for accomplishment of the

thrust reverser interlock installation in a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking action

issued previously.) In addition, Service

Bulletin DC10–78–060 specifies prior or

concurrent accomplishment of

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service

Bulletin 78–7, Revision 1, dated April

17, 1975, which describes procedures

for modification of the overpressure

shutoff valve light circuits; and Rohr

Incorporated Service Bulletin MDC–

CNS 78–41, dated June 11, 1999, which

describes procedures for modification of

the wire harnesses for the left and right

thrust reversers.

• McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC10–78–061, dated February

9, 2000, which describes procedures for

installation of provisional wiring for an

additional thrust reverser locking

system. This service bulletin specifies

prior or concurrent accomplishment of

Service Bulletin DC10–78–060,

described previously, and concurrent

accomplishment of Middle River

Aircraft Systems provisional installation

drawing 537L68229 (for CF6–50

powered airplanes) or 537L68231 (for

CF6–6 powered airplanes). These

drawings illustrate the installation of

mounting hardware for the

electromechanical locking system for

the thrust reversers.

• McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC10–78–062, dated February

14, 2000, which describes procedures

for installation of an additional thrust

reverser locking system. This service

bulletin specifies prior or concurrent

accomplishment of Service Bulletin

DC10–78–061, described previously,

and concurrent accomplishment of

Middle River Aircraft Systems

activation installation drawing

537L68230 (for CF6–50 powered

airplanes, or 537L68232 (for CF6–6

powered airplanes). These drawings

illustrate the installation of the

electromechanical locking system for

the thrust reversers.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service information

described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 409 Model

DC–10 series airplanes and KC–10A and

KDC–10 (military) airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin DC10–

78–060, (301 U.S.-registered airplanes)

described below:

For General Electric (GE) powered

airplanes (277 U.S.-registered airplanes),

it would take approximately 56 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed modification of the indication

light system, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost between $6,419 and $11,315

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of this proposed

modification on U.S. operators is

estimated to be between $9,779 and

$14,675 per airplane.

For Pratt & Whitney-powered

airplanes (24 U.S.-registered airplanes),

it would take approximately 140 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed modification of the indication

light system, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost between $8,753 and $12,674

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of this proposed

modification on U.S. operators is

estimated to be between $17,153 and

$21,074 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 78–40

(179 U.S-registered airplanes): It would

take approximately 10 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

installation of a thrust reverser

interlock, at an average labor rate of $60

per work hour. Required parts would be

obtained from the operators stock. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of this

proposed installation on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $107,400, or $600 per

airplane.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 78–7

(56 U.S-registered airplanes): It would

take approximately 52 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

modification of the overpressure shutoff

valve, at an average labor rate of $60 per

work hour. Required parts would cost

approximately $2,100 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of this proposed modification on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $292,320, or

$5,220 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in Rohr Service

Bulletin MDC–CNS 78–41 (3 U.S.-

registered airplanes): It would take

approximately 6 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

wiring modification, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of this

proposed wiring modification on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $1,080, or

$360 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 78–061

(284 U.S.-registered airplanes), it would

take between 222 and 364 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

installation of provisional wiring, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost between

$11,216 and $17,986 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of this

proposed installation on U.S. operators

is estimated to be between $24,536 and

$39,826 per airplane.

For airplanes on which Middle River

Aircraft Systems provisional installation

drawing 537L68229 or 537L68231 is

accomplished (284 U.S.-registered

airplanes), it would take 96 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

installation of the mounting hardware

for the electromechanical locking

system for the thrust reversers, at an

24896 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $14,307 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of this proposed installation on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $5,699,028,

or $20,067 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell

Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin 78–062

(284 U.S.-registered airplanes), it would

take approximately 622 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

activation installation of an additional

thrust reverser locking system, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $236,000 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of this proposed installation on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $77,622,880,

or $273,320 per airplane.

For airplanes on which Middle River

Aircraft Systems activation installation

drawing 537L68230 or 537L68232 is

accomplished (284 U.S.-registered

airplanes), it would take 32 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

activation installation of the

electromechanical locking system for

the thrust reversers, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Required

parts would cost approximately

$252,856 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of this proposed

installation on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $72,356,384, or

$254,776 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

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:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2000–NM–69–

AD.

Applicability: All Model DC–10 series

airplanes and KC–10A and KDC–10 (military)

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent unwanted deployment of a

thrust reverser, which could significantly

jeopardize continued safety of flight and

landing of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

Thrust Reverser System Modifications

(a) For all airplanes: Within 18 months or

12,000 flight hours after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs first, modify the

position indicator light system for each thrust

reverser in accordance with Part 3 of the

Accomplishment Instructions in McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC10–78–060,

dated December 17, 1999. Prior to or

concurrent with accomplishment of the

service bulletin, install the thrust reverser

interlocks as specified in McDonnell Douglas

DC–10 Service Bulletin 78–40, Revision 1,

dated July 24, 1979, and accomplish the

requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of

this AD, as applicable. The requirements of

this paragraph must be accomplished prior to

or concurrent with the requirements of

paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD, as applicable.

(1) For General Electric (GE)-powered

airplanes: Modify the overpressure shutoff

valve light circuits in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC–10 Service Bulletin

78–7, Revision 1, dated April 17, 1975.

(2) For Pratt and Whitney-powered

airplanes: Modify the left and right thrust

reverser wire harnesses in accordance with

Rohr Incorporated Service Bulletin MDC–

CNS 78–41, dated June 11, 1999.

(b) For Model DC–10–10, –10F, –15, –30,

and –30F series airplanes; and KC–10A and

KDC–10 (military) airplanes; listed in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10–

78–061, dated February 9, 2000: Within 5

years after the effective date of this AD,

accomplish the thrust reverser wiring

modification on each engine in accordance

with Part 3 of the Accomplishment

Instructions in the service bulletin.

Concurrent with accomplishment of this

service bulletin, accomplish Middle River

Aircraft Systems provisional installation

drawing 537L68229 (for CF6–50-powered

airplanes) or 537L68231 (for CF6–6-powered

airplanes), as applicable.

(c) For Model DC–10–10, –10F, –15, –30,

and –30F series airplanes; and KC–10A and

KDC–10 (military) airplanes; listed in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10–

78–062, dated February 14, 2000: Within 5

years after the effective date of this AD,

install an additional locking system on each

thrust reverser in accordance with Part 3 of

the Accomplishment Instructions in the

service bulletin. Concurrent with

accomplishment of this service bulletin,

accomplish Middle River Aircraft Systems

provisional installation drawing 537L68230

(for CF6–50-powered airplanes) or

537L68232 (for CF6–6-powered airplanes), as

applicable.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permit

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 24897

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–10669 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–111119–99]

RIN 1545–AX32

Partnership Mergers and Divisions;

Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public

hearing on proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document cancels the

public hearing on proposed regulations

on the tax consequences of partnership

mergers and divisions.

DATES: The public hearing originally

scheduled for Thursday, May 4, 2000, at

10 a.m., is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LaNita Van Dyke of the Regulations

Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel

(Corporate), (202) 622–7190 (not a tollfree number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice

of proposed rulemaking and notice of

public hearing that appeared in the

Federal Register on Tuesday, January

11, 2000 (65 FR 1572), announced that

a public hearing was scheduled for

Thursday, May 4, 2000, at 10 a.m., in

room 2615, Internal Revenue Building,

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC. The subject of the

public hearing is proposed regulations

under section 708 of the Internal

Revenue Code. The public comment

period for these proposed regulations

expired on Monday, April 10, 2000. The

outlines of topics to be addressed at the

hearing were due on Thursday, April

13, 2000.

The notice of proposed rulemaking

and notice of public hearing, instructed

those interested in testifying at the

public hearing to submit a request to

speak and an outline of the topics to be

addressed. As of Friday, April 21, 2000,

no one has requested to speak.

Therefore, the public hearing scheduled

for Thursday, May 4, 2000, is cancelled.

Cynthia Grigsby,

Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief

Counsel (Corporate).

[FR Doc. 00–10524 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 920

[MD–046–FOR]

Maryland Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment

period and opportunity for public

hearing.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of

a proposed amendment to the Maryland

regulatory program (Maryland program)

under the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

proposed amendment consists of

revisions to the Maryland regulations

regarding a definition of previously

mined area, termination of jurisdiction,

permitting requirements, bond release

requirements and performance

standards for inspections. The

amendment is intended to revise the

Maryland program to be no less effective

than the corresponding Federal

regulations.

DATES: If you submit written comments,

they must be received by 4:00 p.m.,

E.D.T., May 30, 2000. If requested, a

public hearing on the proposed

amendment will be held on May 24,

2000. Requests to speak at the hearing

must be received by 4:00 p.m., E.D.T.,

on May 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-deliver your

written comments and requests to speak

at the hearing to Mr. George Rieger,

Manager, Oversight and Inspection

Office, at the address listed below. You

may review copies of the Maryland

program, the proposed amendment, a

listing of any scheduled public hearings,

and all written comments received in

response to this document at the

addresses listed below during normal

business hours, Monday through Friday,

excluding holidays. You may receive

one free copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting OSM’s

Appalachian Regional Coordinating

Center.

George Rieger, Manager, Oversight and

Inspection Office, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center, Office

of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, 3 Parkway Center,

Pittsburgh, PA 15220, Telephone:

(412) 937–2153, E-mail:

grieger@osmre.gov

Maryland Bureau of Mines, 160 South

Water Street, Frostburg, Maryland

21532, Telephone: (301) 689–4136

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Rieger, Manager, Oversight and

Inspection Office, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center, Telephone: (412)

937–2153.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Maryland

Program

On February 18, 1982, the Secretary of

the Interior approved the Maryland

program. You can find background

information on the Maryland program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval in the February

18, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 7214).

You can find subsequent actions

concerning the conditions of approval

and program amendments at 30 CFR

920.15 and 920.16.

II. Description of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated September 14, 1999

(Administrative Record No. 577–04),

Maryland provided an informal

amendment to OSM regarding a

definition of previously mined area,

termination of jurisdiction, permitting

requirements, bond release

requirements and performance

standards for inspections. Maryland

submitted the informal amendment in

response to requests made by OSM as

required under 30 CFR 732.17(d) in

letters dated July 8, 1997, and August

11, 1999 (Administrative Record Nos.

577–01 and 577–03, respectively). OSM

completed its review of the informal

amendment and submitted comments to

Maryland in a letter dated March 20,

2000 (Administrative Record No. 577–

05). By letter dated April 11, 2000

(Administrative Record No. MD–577–

06), Maryland submitted its response to

OSM’s comments in the form of a

proposed amendment to the Code of

Maryland Regulations (COMAR) as

follows:

1. COMAR 26.20.01.02B Definitions

Maryland proposes to add item (72–

1) to the definitions as follows:

‘‘Previously Mined Area’’ means land

affected by surface coal mining

operations prior to August 3, 1977 that