Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 25697

operators is estimated to be $25,920, or

$960 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:

Boeing: Docket 2000–NM–98–AD.

Applicability: Model 747 airplanes,

certificated in any category; equipped with

Pratt & Whitney JT9D–7Q and JT9D–7Q3

turbofan engines.

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 (c) 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 contact between the precooler

support link and the precooler support

fitting, which could contribute to an

uncontained failure of the diffuser case and

damage to the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) For any precooler support fitting having

P/N 65B90924–1 or P/N 65B90924–600 that

has not been reworked to the dimensions

specified in Boeing Service Letter 747–SL–

36–089, dated August 10, 1998: Within 6,000

hours time-in-service after the effective date

of this AD, or within 18 months after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

first, perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect evidence of contact wear or contact

between the precooler support fitting and

link assembly, P/N 69B93162–1 or

69B93162–3, in accordance with the service

letter.

(1) If no evidence of contact wear or

contact between the precooler support fitting

and link assembly is found: At the next

engine removal, rework the precooler support

fitting to the dimensions specified in the

service letter, in accordance with the service

letter; and permanently and legibly reidentify

the support fitting as P/N 65B09024–601.

(2) If any evidence of contact wear or

contact between the precooler support fitting

and link assembly is found: Prior to further

flight, rework the precooler support fitting to

the dimensions specified in the service letter,

in accordance with the service letter; and

permanently and legibly reidentify the

support fitting as P/N 65B09024–601.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

(b) For any precooler support fitting having

P/N 65B90924–1 or P/N 65B90924–600 that

has been reworked to the dimensions

specified in Boeing Service Letter 747–SL–

36–089, dated August 10, 1998, but has not

been permanently and legibly reidentified:

Within 6,000 hours time-in-service or 18

months after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs first, permanently and

legibly reidentify the reworked fitting as P/

N 65B09024–601.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permit

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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 27,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–11064 Filed 5–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–849, MM Docket No. 00–66, RM–

9842]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Des

Moines, NM

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Sierra

Grande Broadcasting seeking the

allotment of Channel 287C to Des

Moines, NM, as the community’s first

local aural service. Petitioner is

requested to provide demographic

information showing that Des Moines

qualifies as a ‘‘community’’ for

allotment purposes. Channel 287C can

be allotted to Des Moines in compliance

with the Commission’s minimum

distance separation requirements

without the imposition of a site

restriction, at coordinates 36–45–48 NL;

103–50–12 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before June 5, 2000, and reply

comments on or before June 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Room TW-A325, Washington, DC

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the FCC, interested parties should

25698 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

serve the petitioner, or its counsel or

consultant, as follows: Willison H.

Gormly, Owner and Electrical Engineer,

Sierra Grande Broadcasting, P.O. Box

51, Des Moines, New Mexico 88418–

0051.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–66, adopted April 5, 2000, and

released April 14, 2000. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–10925 Filed 5–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 697

[Docket No. 000412106–0106–01; I.D.

032200A]

RIN 0648–AO02

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act Provisions; Atlantic

Coast Horseshoe Crab Fishery; Closed

Area to Horseshoe Crab Fishing

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANPR); consideration of a

closed area to fishing for horseshoe crab.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it is

considering, and is seeking public

comment on, a prohibition on fishing

for horseshoe crab (Limulus

polyphemus) in Federal waters (EEZ) in

an area encompassing a 30-nautical mile

(nm) (55.6 km) radius from the mouth

of the Delaware Bay (measured from the

territorial sea boundary midway

between Cape May, New Jersey and

Cape Henlopen, Delaware). NMFS

would take such action, if appropriate,

under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries

Cooperative Management Act

(ACFCMA, 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) with

the purpose of conserving the Delaware

Bay population of horseshoe crabs at a

level that can sustain fisheries and

provide a sufficient amount of

horseshoe crab eggs for migratory

shorebirds, which feed on such eggs.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 2, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Richard Schaefer, Chief,

Staff Office for Intergovernmental and

Recreational Fisheries (Fx2), National

Marine Fisheries Service, 8484 Georgia

Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Perra, 301–427–2014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Atlantic coast horseshoe crab fishery

takes place from Maine through Florida.

Approximately 60 percent of horseshoe

crabs are taken in the territorial sea (an

area which extends from the coastline

seaward to a distance of 3 nm (5.56 km))

off of the mid-Atlantic states (New York

through Virginia). The fishery in Federal

waters (3–200 nm) takes place seaward

of the 3-nm line off of the mid-Atlantic

states, where horseshoe crabs are

primarily harvested with trawls or

dredges.

In the mid-Atlantic area in recent

years, there has been a dramatic shift in

fishing effort on horseshoe crabs from

waters under state jurisdiction to waters

under Federal jurisdiction. This has

raised concern about maintaining the

Delaware Bay population of horseshoe

crabs at levels that can sustain fisheries

and provide an abundance of horseshoe

crab eggs, an important food source for

migratory shorebirds. While no

complete Atlantic coast stock

assessment is available for horseshoe

crabs, some mid-Atlantic surveys show

declining trends in horseshoe crab

abundance. Fisheries in waters under

state jurisdiction are managed through

the Interstate Fishery Management Plan

for the Horseshoe Crab (Plan) developed

by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission (Commission). Since the

majority of horseshoe crabs are

harvested from waters under state

jurisdiction, horseshoe crab fisheries are

managed most appropriately and

effectively under the authority of the

ACFCMA, which provides for the

issuance of compatible Federal

regulations in the EEZ complementary

to those of the states.

The Commission approved the Plan in

November 1999, and Addendum 1 to

the Plan in February 2000. The states,

through adoption of the Plan and its

Addendum 1, recognize the need to

conserve horseshoe crab stocks. Under

Addendum 1, a variety of new

requirements in state waters is being

implemented to better monitor and

manage the horseshoe crab fishery,

including a 25 percent reduction in each

state’s horseshoe crab bait-fishery

landings. Addendum 1 also

recommends to NMFS that it ‘‘should

establish an offshore horseshoe crab

sanctuary in federal waters within a 30

nautical mile radius of the mouth of the

Delaware Bay. The taking of horseshoe

crabs for any purpose, including

biomedical, would be prohibited in this

sanctuary. Furthermore, the NMFS

should prohibit the transfer of

horseshoe crabs in Federal waters.’’

The Commission requested that the

area in the EEZ off the mouth of the

Delaware Bay be closed to fishing to

give special protection to that Bay’s

population of horseshoe crabs. The

Commission determined that this

protection is necessary to conserve the

Delaware Bay population of horseshoe

crabs at sustainable levels and to

maintain the abundance of horseshoe

crab eggs in Delaware Bay as a food

source for migratory shorebirds.

Because of the difficulty in enforcing

a closed area in the shape of a radius

(semi-circle), NMFS is considering

establishing a closed area in Federal

waters that would be roughly equivalent

in the shape of a rectangle. The closed

area would be bounded as follows:

(1) On the north by a straight line

connecting points 39°15.0′ N. lat.,

74°32.66′ W. long. (3 nm off of Peck

Beach, New Jersey) and 39°15.0′ N lat.,

74°22.0′ W. long.

(2) On the east by a straight line

connecting points 39°15.0′ N. lat.,

74°22.0′ W. long. and 38°22.0′ N. lat.,

74°22.0′ W. long.

(3) On the south side by a straight line

connecting points 38°22.0′ N. lat.,

74°22.0′ W. long. and 38°22.0′ N. lat.,

75°35.46′ W. long. (3 nm off of Ocean

City, Maryland).