Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 40557

International Aero Engines: Docket No.

2000–NE–21–AD.

Applicability: International Aero Engines

(IAE) V2500–A5 and V2500–D5 series

turbofan engines listed by Serial Number (S/

N) as follows: V10011, V10035, V10036,

V10039, V10040, V10041, V10054, V10067,

V10079, V10080, V10084, V10111, V10121,

V10123, V10124, V10130, V10131, V10139,

V10166, V10172, V10174, V10180, V10199,

V10221, V10341, V20001, V20013, V20017,

V20019, V20023, V20033, V20037.

These engines are installed on, but not

limited to, Airbus Industries A319, A320,

A321 series, and McDonnell Douglas MD–90

series airplanes.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD)

applies to each engine 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 engines 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 (b)

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 restore the engines to type design and

to prevent possible low cycle fatigue (LCF)

failure of the HPT stage 1 disk, which could

lead to an uncontained engine failure and

damage to the airplane, accomplish the

following:

Removal and Restoration of the HPT Module

(a) For those engines identified by serial

numbers in Table 1 of this AD, with HPT

modules built to configuration X, X′, X*, Y,

or Z, remove from service in accordance with

Table 1 and restore the HPT module to type

design in accordance with IAE All Operators

Wire (AOW) 1053, Issue 2, dated 6/20/00.

TABLE 1

Engine serial No. HPT module

configuration HPT hardware Reconfigure at or prior to:

V10084, V10035, V10036, V10039,

V10130, V10011, V10040, V10079,

V10080, V10124, V10123, V10111,

V20013, V20017, V10172, V10174,

V20019, V10180, V20023.

X High Flow Blades: Post SB72–0242;

Low Flow Duct Assembly: Pre SB72–

0241; Towel Bar Seals, P/N 2A0530:

Installed.

The earlier of the next shop visit; or accumulating either 5100 cycles in service (CIS) in configuration X, or 100

CIS after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later.

V20037 ..................................................... X′ 2 High Flow Blades: Post SB72–0242;

Low Flow Duct or Assembly: Pre

SB72–0241; Towel Bar Seals, P/N

2A0530: Not Installed.

The earlier of the next shop visit; or accumulating either 7600 CIS in configuration X′, or 100 CIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later.

V20001, V20033 ....................................... X* 3 or fewer High Flow Blades: Post

SB72–0242; Low Flow Duct Assembly: Pre SB72–0241; Towel Bar Seals,

P/N 2A0530: Installed.

Next Shop Visit.

V10199, V10166, V10054, V10131,

V10139, V10041, V10121, V10067,

V10341.

Y High Flow Blades: Post SB 72–0242;

High Flow Duct Assembly: Post

SB72–0241; Towel Bar Seals, P/N

2A0530: Installed.

Next Shop Visit.

V10221 ..................................................... Z Low Flow Blades: Pre SB72–0242; High

Flow Duct Assembly: Post SB72–

0241; Towel Bar Seals, P/N 2A0530:

Installed.

Next Shop Visit.

Alternate Methods of Compliance

(b) 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, Engine

Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, ECO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the ECO.

Ferry Flights

(c) 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 aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

June 23, 2000.

Jay J. Pardee,

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–16643 Filed 6–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Parts 57, 72, and 75

RIN 1219–AA74 and 1219–AB11

Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of

Underground Miners

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health

Administration (MSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of

documents; request for comments.

SUMMARY: We (MSHA) are reopening the

rulemaking records of our proposed

rules on diesel particulate matter

exposure of underground coal miners

and underground metal and nonmetal

miners. The reopenings are limited in

scope. Their purpose is to permit public

comment on a few recent documents

that we have added to these records,

including some agency investigations to

verify assertions made by commenters.

DATES: We must receive your comments

by July 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments by

regular mail or hand deliver them to

MSHA, Office of Standards,

Regulations, and Variances, 4015

Wilson Boulevard, Room 631,

Arlington, VA 22203–1984. You also

may send them by telefax (fax) to

MSHA, Office of Standards,

Regulations, and Variances, 703–235–

5551; or by electronic mail (e-mail) to

comments@msha.gov. If you send your

40558 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

comments by fax or e-mail, you must

clearly identify them as such. We

encourage you to supplement paper

comments with computer files on disk;

contact us with any questions about

format.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carol J. Jones, Director; MSHA Office of

Standards, Regulations, and Variances;

703–235–1910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have

developed extensive records concerning

whether to issue regulations limiting the

concentration of diesel particulate

matter (dpm) in underground coal

mines and underground metal and

nonmetal mines, and what type of rule

would be appropriate for each sector.

We have been working on this initiative

for a number of years. We issued a

proposed rule for underground coal

mines on April 9, 1998, and a proposed

rule for underground metal and

nonmetal mines on October 29, 1998.

Following a period for pre-hearing

comments on each proposal, we held

four public hearings around the country

on each proposal. After an extension of

the comment period for each proposal,

both records closed on July 26, 1999.

We have now determined that it is

appropriate to add some documents to

each of these records. You are welcome

to comment on the additions to both

records.

A. Items Being Added to the Metal and

Nonmetal Record.

A key feature of the proposed rule for

this sector was the establishment of a

concentration limit for dpm.

Accordingly, in reviewing the record,

the agency paid particular attention to

assertions by the mining community

that the sampling and analytical method

which MSHA proposed to use for

measuring compliance with that limit

would not provide accurate results in

many cases. Specifically, we proposed:

Section 57.5061 Compliance

determinations.

(a) * * *

(b) The Secretary will collect and analyze

samples of diesel particulate matter using the

method described in NIOSH Analytical

Method 5040 and determining the amount of

total carbon * * *

In the preamble to the proposed rule

(63 FR 58104 et seq.), in particular a

discussion entitled ‘‘(3) Methods

Available to Measure DPM’’ (63 FR

58127–58130); in Question and Answer

#12 (63 FR 58116–58117); and in the

discussion of proposed § 57.5061 (63 FR

58184), we reviewed the various

approaches used to determine the

concentration of dpm, and explained

our rationale for the approach proposed.

Moreover, we asserted that the method

we proposed to use could accurately

determine whether dpm emissions in

any underground metal or nonmetal

mine exceeded the proposed

concentration limit (with an appropriate

allowance for a margin of error).

There was extensive comment on this

assertion during the four rulemaking

hearings and in written pre-hearing and

post-hearing comments. While some

commenters reaffirmed the validity of

various aspects of the method, a number

of commenters asserted that we could

not rely on this approach for

compliance purposes in certain types of

mines and under various circumstances.

Specifically, these commenters

asserted that some of the material being

measured as dpm might well be

something other than dpm, an

‘‘interferrent.’’ Some asserted that

certain types of mineral dust, in

particular graphite and carbonaceous

minerals, were interferrents. Other

commenters asserted that oil mists from

drilling operations and cigarette

smoking by miners, which can be

present in many underground metal and

nonmetal mines, were interferrents.

Some commenters supported their

claims with study results.

During the hearings, MSHA

representatives expressed concerns

about the manner in which these studies

had been performed and the

methodology used. When we examined

the information provided for the record

about these studies, our concerns were

heightened, thus leaving us without

enough evidence to verify the existence

and scope of the alleged interferences.

We decided that we would attempt to

verify the existence and scope of the

alleged interferrents while we were

reviewing other aspects of the

rulemaking record. Other agencies have

followed this approach. The situation

discussed in Community Nutrition

Institute v. Block, 749 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir.

1984), Circuit Judges Wilkey, Bork, and

Scalia, is an example. The case involved

studies that Department of Agriculture

staff conducted in response to

comments alleging deficiencies in a

methodology, and completed after the

close of the comment period.

Accordingly, MSHA’s Pittsburgh

Safety and Health Technology Center

conducted five investigations to verify

these assertions of methodological

problems. We have decided to reopen

the record to provide the mining

community an opportunity to review

and comment on this information.

Members of the mining community also

requested that we reopen the record for

this purpose.

B. Items Being Added to the Coal

Record

The rule proposed for this sector

would have required certain types of

underground coal mining equipment to

be filtered. We also requested comment

on an alternative which would have

required certain types of underground

equipment to observe an emissions

standard. An emissions standard could

be achieved using a lower emission

engine or filters or both. In either case,

the efficiency of available filters is one

important consideration in determining

the economic and technological

feasibility of the rule for coal mines.

Thus, during the hearings and in the

written comments, there was a great

deal of discussion on this topic, and we

compiled an extensive record.

Some commenters asserted that paper

filters could not achieve a 95%

reduction in emissions from current

permissible equipment, as we had

asserted. Such filters can be directly

installed on permissible equipment,

without the need for additional

equipment to cool the exhaust (so it will

not ignite the filter element). While the

record does contain considerable

evidence on the efficiency of two

versions of a system known as the DST

that first cools the exhaust from an

engine and then routes it through a

paper filter (and in one case a catalytic

convertor), it contained no definitive

information supporting the assertion of

commenters that a paper filter alone

could not achieve such efficiencies.

Accordingly, in order to verify the

assertions of commenters, we contracted

with Southwest Research Institute to

conduct an investigation toward this

end. We are placing the Institute’s

report of test results in the record and

welcome your comments on it.

The record does contain considerable

information on the efficiency of hot gas

filters (e.g., ceramic monolithic cell,

metal sintered, fiber wound, etc.), which

will play an important role in reducing

emissions from non-permissible

equipment under either regulatory

scenario described above. This

information includes filter efficiency

tests conducted by VERT

(Verminderung der Emissionen von

Realmaschinen in Tunnelbau), a

consortium of several European

agencies conducting such research in

connection with major planned

tunneling projects in Austria,

Switzerland, and Germany. Since the

close of the record, these VERT tests

have continued. We believe it is

appropriate to consider the full range of

their results and are adding their more

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 40559

recent test data to the record. We

welcome your comments on it.

C. Items Being Added to Both Records

Since the record closed, several

documents have been published

concerning the risk of dpm. This risk

information is applicable to both coal’s

and metal and nonmetal’s rulemakings.

The first item is a report by another

Federal authority updating information

discussed in the record. During the

hearings and post-hearing comments,

there was considerable discussion of an

October 1998 report of the Clean Air

Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

reviewing an EPA Diesel Health

Assessment Document. This committee

has issued a new report (‘‘Review of

EPA’s Health Assessment Document for

Diesel Emissions’’ February 2000) on a

revised EPA Diesel Health Assessment

Document (EPA, Health Assessment

Document for Diesel Emissions, Office

of Research and Development, SAB

Review Draft, EPA–600/8–90/057D,

November 1999). Members of the

mining community participated actively

in the discussions leading to CASAC’s

newer report. Accordingly, we believe it

would be appropriate to update our

record to reflect any new information

covered by the revised EPA assessment

and the CASAC’s review of it. Members

of the mining community have

requested that we reopen the record for

this purpose.

The second item is a study by

Saverin, R. et al., ‘‘Diesel Exhaust and

Lung Cancer Mortality in Potash

Mining,’’ American Journal of Industrial

Medicine, 36:415–422 (1999). The

unpublished version of the study was

discussed at one of the hearings, and we

already have the unpublished version of

this study in the record. The published

version which differs slightly from the

earlier translation is now available and

it is normal practice to refer to the

published version of a study when that

version is available. Accordingly, we are

adding the published version to the

record and welcome your comments on

it.

The third item is an epidemiological

study investigating the association of

lung cancer with occupational

exposures to diesel emissions in

Germany. Bruske-Hohlfeld, I. et al.,

‘‘Lung Cancer Risk in Male Workers

Occupationally Exposed to Diesel Motor

Emissions in Germany,’’ American

Journal of Industrial Medicine, 36:405–

414 (1999). The record of this

rulemaking includes a lengthy and

comprehensive list of relevant

epidemiological studies. These were

discussed in great detail by the mining

community during the hearings and

comment period. As a result, we believe

it would be inappropriate to leave this

recent epidemiological study out of the

record. Accordingly, we are adding this

study to the record and welcome your

comments on it.

The fourth item is a study concerning

human response to acute dpm

exposures. Salvi, Sundeep, et al.,

‘‘Acute Inflammatory Responses in the

Airways and Peripheral Blood After

Short-Term Exposure to Diesel Exhaust

in Health Human Volunteers,’’ Am. J.

Respir. Care Med. 159:702–709 (1999).

Again, the record of this rulemaking

includes a comprehensive list of

relevant studies in this regard, and they

were discussed by the mining

community during the hearings and

comment period. Since the Agency is

opening the record, the addition of this

recent study is appropriate.

Accordingly, this study is being added

to the record at this time.

Finally, in its review of the record, the

agency noted certain comments

suggesting that these commenters might

not have been aware of certain studies

that were part of the general scientific

literature covered by reviews which are

included and discussed in the record.

Accordingly, the agency is placing

copies of two such studies directly into

the record under their own docket

numbers, and will accept any comments

on these studies. [Hou, S.M. et al.,

‘‘Relationship between hprt mutant

frequency, aromatic DNA adducts and

genotypes for GSTM1 and NAT2 in bus

maintenance workers,’’ Carcinogenesis,

16:1913–1917 (1995); and Ichinose, et

al., ‘‘Lung Carcinogenesis and

Formation of 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine in Mice by Diesel

Exhaust Particles,’’ Carcinogenesis,

18:185–192 (1997).]

The agency wants to reassure the

mining community that since the

agency’s risk assessment covers

information relevant to both

underground coal mines and

underground metal and nonmetal

mines, any comments on the risk

assessment filed in one record have also

been placed in the other. In some cases,

commenters placed the comments in

both records just to be sure MSHA

would consider them, but not all did so.

The agency will follow this same policy

with respect to any comments on the

risk studies which are the subject of this

notice.

D. Time for Response

The Agency is opening the

rulemaking record for additional

comment on only the specific items

described above. The agency has

determined that in light of the limited

scope of this reopening, and the

extensive familiarity of the mining

community with the existing record on

the topics involved, the record will

remain open for comments on these

items for 30 days. The agency does not

foresee any extensions will be needed.

Accordingly, to facilitate comment by

the mining community, the agency will

be pleased to telefax or express mail

copies of any of the items involved

upon request.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Robert A. Elam,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety

and Health.

[FR Doc. 00–16561 Filed 6–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 140, 141, 142, 143, 144,

145, 146, and 147

[USCG–1998–3868]

RIN 2115–AF39

Outer Continental Shelf Activities

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is further

extending the period for public

comment on its notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) on Outer

Continental Shelf Activities. We are

changing the deadline for receipt of

comments from July 5, 2000, to

November 30, 2000. Also, we are

changing the deadline for receipt of

comments by the Office of Management

and Budget on the proposed collectionof-information requirements from July 5,

2000, to November 30, 2000.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before November 30,

2000. Comments sent to OMB on

collection of information must reach

OMB on or before November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your

comments and related material are not

entered more than once in the docket,

please submit them by only one of the

following methods:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility, (USCG–1998–3868), U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

(2) By hand to room PL–401 on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,