Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 54595

(2) A requester seeking expedited

processing should so indicate in the

initial request, and should state all facts

supporting the need to obtain the

requested records rapidly. The requester

must also state that these facts are true

and correct to the best of the requester’s

knowledge and belief.

(3) When a request for expedited

processing is received, the Board will

respond within ten calendar days from

the date of receipt of the request, stating

whether or not the request has been

granted. If the request for expedited

processing is denied, any appeal of that

decision will be acted upon

expeditiously.

§ 1703.107 [Removed and Reserved]

4. Section 1703.107(b)(2)(iv) is

proposed to be removed and reserved.

5. Section 1703.108 is proposed to be

revised to read as follows:

§ 1703.108 Processing of FOIA requests

* * * * *

(b) Action pursuant to this section to

provide access to requested records

shall be taken within twenty working

days. This time period may be extended

up to ten additional working days, in

unusual circumstances, by written

notice to the requester. If the Board will

be unable to satisfy the request in this

additional period of time, the requester

will be so notified and given the

opportunity to—

(1) Limit the scope of the request so

that it can be processed within the time

limit, or

(2) Arrange with the Designated FOIA

Officer an alternative time frame for

processing the original request or a

modified request.

* * * * *

Dated: October 14, 1997.

John T. Conway,

Chairman.

[FR Doc. 97–27704 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3670–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–CE–69–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation), Models PA–31,

PA–31–300, PA–31–325, PA–31–350,

PA–31P, PA–31T, and PA–31T1

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)

80–26–05, which currently requires the

following on certain The New Piper

Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Models PA–31,

PA–31–300, PA–31–325, PA–31–350,

PA–31P, PA–31T, and PA–31T1

airplanes: repetitively inspecting the

main landing gear (MLG) inboard door

hinges and attachment angles for cracks,

and replacing any cracked MLG inboard

door hinge or attachment angle. The

proposed AD results from the Federal

Aviation Administration’s policy on

aging commuter-class aircraft and the

determination that an improved design

MLG inboard door hinge and

attachment assembly (or approved

hinges and angles made of steel), when

incorporated, will eliminate the need for

the currently required repetitive shortinterval inspections. The proposed AD

would retain the current repetitive

inspections contained in AD 80–26–05,

and would require installing these

improved design or approved steel parts

as terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement. The actions

specified in the proposed AD are

intended to prevent separation of the

MLG inboard door from the airplane

caused by a cracked inboard door hinge

or attachment angle, which could result

in the MLG becoming jammed with

consequent loss of control of the

airplane during landing operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–CE–69–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that relates to the

proposed AD may be obtained from The

New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer

Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,

Florida 32960. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia

30349; telephone (770) 703–6079;

facsimile (770) 703–6097.

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

should 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 that

summarizes 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 No. 96–CE–69–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, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 96–CE–69–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

On December 1, 1995, the FAA issued

a proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to Piper Models PA–31, PA–31–

325, PA–31–350, PA–31P, PA–31T, and

PA–31T1 airplanes. This proposal was

published in the Federal Register as a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62774), and

proposed to supersede AD 80–26–05,

Amendment 39–3994. The NPRM

proposed to (1) retain the requirement of

repetitively inspecting the main landing

gear (MLG) inboard door hinges and

attachment angles for cracks, and

replacing any cracked MLG inboard

door hinge or attachment angle; and (2)

require incorporating a MLG inboard
54596 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

door hinge and attachment angle

assembly of improved design (part

number 47529–32) or FAA-approved

hinges and angles made of steel, as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement.

Accomplishment of the proposed

inspections would have been in

accordance with Piper Service Bulletin

(SB) No. 682, dated July 24, 1980.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration was given to the one

comment received.

Explanation of the Comment Received

on the NPRM

The comment received on the NPRM

contained information that the

improved design hinge assemblies, part

number (P/N) 47529–32, are also

susceptible to fatigue cracking, and that

installing this assembly should not

eliminate the need for the repetitive

inspections currently required by AD

80–26–05. The commenter states that its

airplane fleet has experienced three

failures and three incidents related to

fatigue cracking of the P/N 47529–32

hinge assemblies.

Subsequent Actions

The FAA conducted a review of the

manufacturer’s service history and

service difficulty reports in the FAA

database associated with the P/N

47529–32 MLG inboard door hinge

assembly. Based on a review of this

information, including the information

received from the commenter, the FAA

determined that more information and

analysis were needed before MLG

inboard door hinge assembly

replacements were mandated through

an AD, as terminating action for the

repetitive inspections currently required

by AD 80–26–05.

With the above information in mind,

the FAA issued, on February 11, 1997,

an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM) to provide an

opportunity for the general public to

participate in the decision as to what

course of rulemaking the FAA should

take. The ANPRM was published in the

Federal Register on February 19, 1997

(62 FR 7375). At this time, the FAA also

withdrew the NPRM.

Interested persons were encouraged to

provide information that describes what

they consider the best action (if any) to

be taken regarding the P/N 47529–32

MLG hinge assembly. No information or

comments were received on the

ANPRM.

The FAA’s Analysis and Determination

The FAA service difficulty database

contains 10 reports of failure or cracks

found in the MLG inboard door hinge

assembly on the affected airplanes. Six

of these reports were submitted by the

commenter to the NPRM, with three of

these incidents attributed to the original

MLG inboard door hinge assemblies.

The other four reports are not clear as

to whether the original MLG inboard

door hinge assemblies were installed or

the improved design assemblies were

installed. However, the incidents

occurred on high service time airplanes

and, since there is no AD action

mandating the installation of the

improved design MLG inboard door

hinge assemblies, the FAA presumes

that the original hinge assemblies were

installed.

The FAA has reviewed the three

incident reports on the improved design

MLG inboard door hinge assemblies and

performed extensive testing and

analysis of the improved design MLG

inboard door hinge assemblies. The

FAA has determined that the incidents

were isolated and that mandating

repetitive inspections is not needed

when the P/N 47529–32 MLG inboard

door hinge assemblies are installed. The

FAA has determined that Piper Model

PA–31–300 airplanes incorporate the

same type design as the other PA–31

series airplanes and could incorporate

the same part number MLG inboard

door hinge assemblies.

After reviewing all available

information related to this subject,

including the referenced service

information, the FAA has determined

that AD action should be taken to (1)

eliminate the repetitive short-interval

inspections required by AD 80–26–05;

and (2) prevent separation of a MLG

door from the airplane caused by a

cracked inboard door hinge or

attachment angle, which could result in

the MLG becoming jammed with

consequent loss of control of the

airplane during landing operations.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Piper Models PA–31,

PA–31–300, PA–31–325, PA–31–350,

PA–31P, PA–31T, and PA–31T1

airplanes of the same type design, the

FAA is proposing an AD. The proposed

AD would supersede AD 80–26–05 with

a new AD that would (1) retain the

requirement of repetitively inspecting

the MLG inboard door hinges and

attachment angles for cracks, and

replacing any cracked MLG inboard

door hinge or attachment angle; and (2)

require incorporating a MLG inboard

door hinge and attachment angle

assembly of improved design (part

number 47529-32) or FAA-approved

hinges and angles made of steel, as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement.

Accomplishment of the proposed

inspections would be in accordance

with Piper SB No. 682, dated July 24,

1980.

The FAA’s Aging Commuter-Class

Aircraft Policy

The actions proposed in this AD are

part of the FAA’s aging commuter-class

aircraft policy, which briefly states that,

when a modification exists that could

eliminate or reduce the number of

required critical inspections, the

modification should be incorporated.

This policy is based on the FAA’s

determination that reliance on critical

repetitive inspections on aging

commuter-class airplanes carries an

unnecessary safety risk when a design

change exists that could eliminate or, in

certain instances, reduce the number of

those critical inspections. In

determining what inspections are

critical, the FAA considers (1) the safety

consequences of the airplane if the

known problem is not detected by the

inspection; (2) the reliability of the

inspection such as the probability of not

detecting the known problem; (3)

whether the inspection area is difficult

to access; and (4) the possibility of

damage to an adjacent structure as a

result of the problem.

The alternative to installing the

improved design hinge assemblies on

the affected airplanes would be to rely

on the repetitive inspections required by

AD 80–26–05 to detect cracks in these

areas.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 1,769

airplanes in the U.S. registry would be

affected by the proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 2 workhours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

replacement, and that the average labor

rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts

cost approximately $2,000 per airplane

($500 per assembly × 4 assemblies per

airplane). Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the proposed AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$3,750,280 or $2,120 per airplane. This

figure is based on the presumption that

no affected airplane owner/operator has

accomplished the proposed

replacement.

Piper has informed the FAA that

hinge assemblies have been distributed

to equip approximately 400 (1,600
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 54597

separate assemblies) of the affected

airplanes. Presuming that 400 of the

affected airplanes have four of these

hinge assemblies incorporated, the cost

impact of the proposed AD upon U.S.

owners operators of the affected

airplanes would be reduced by $848,000

from $3,750,280 to $2,902,280.

The intent of the FAA’s aging

commuter airplane program is to ensure

safe operation of commuter-class

airplanes that are in commercial service

without adversely impacting private

operators. The FAA believes that a large

number of the remaining 1,369 affected

airplanes (1,769 affected airplanes—400

airplanes) that would be affected by the

proposed AD are operated in various

types of air transportation. This

includes scheduled passenger service,

air cargo, and air taxi.

The proposed AD would allow 800

hours time-in-service (TIS) after the

effective date of the proposed AD before

mandatory accomplishment of the

design modification. The average

utilization of the fleet for those

airplanes in air transportation is

between 25 to 40 hours TIS per week.

Based on these figures, operators of

commuter-class airplanes involved in

commercial operation would have to

accomplish the proposed modification

within 5 to 8 months after the proposed

AD would become effective. For private

owners, who typically operate between

100 to 200 hours TIS per year, this

would allow 4 to 8 years before the

proposed modification would be

mandatory.

Compliance Time of the Proposed AD

The FAA established the 800 hours

TIS replacement compliance time based

on its engineering evaluation of the

problem. Among the issues examined in

this engineering evaluation were

analysis of service difficulty reports, the

difficulty level of the inspection, and

how critical the situation would be if

cracks occurred in the subject area

despite accomplishment of the

repetitive inspections.

Usually, the FAA establishes the

mandatory design modification

compliance time on AD’s affecting aging

commuter-class airplanes upon the

accumulation of a certain number of

hours TIS on the airplane. For this

action, the FAA is proposing to mandate

the modification for all operators

‘‘within the next 800 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD.’’ The total TIS

levels of the airplane fleet vary from

under 1,000 hours TIS to over 5,000

hours TIS, and annual accumulation

rates vary from 50 hours TIS to over

1,000 hours TIS. Establishing a longterm set compliance time of hours TIS

accumulated on Piper Models PA–31,

PA–31–300, PA–31–325, PA–31–350,

PA–31P, PA–31T, and PA–31T1

airplanes (such as 5,000 hours TIS)

would impose an undue burden on the

manufacturer of having to maintain a

supply of replacement parts for the

entire fleet when many airplanes in the

fleet may never reach this compliance

time.

Instead, the FAA believes that Piper

should maintain parts for several years;

in this case about 8 years to allow lowusage airplanes time to accumulate the

800 hours after the effective date of the

AD. The FAA has determined that the

compliance time of the proposed rule

provides the level of safety required for

commuter air service and general

aviation, while still minimizing the

impact on the private airplane owners of

Piper Models PA–31, PA–31–300, PA–

31–325, PA–31–350, PA–31P, PA–31T,

and PA–31T1 airplanes.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

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 has been placed 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), 40101, 40113,

44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)

80–26–05, Amendment 39–3994, and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation): Docket No. 96–

CE–69–AD. Supersedes AD 80–26–05,

Amendment 39–3994.

Applicability: The following model and

serial number airplanes, certificated in any

category, that are not equipped with Piper

part number (P/N) 47529–32 main landing

gear (MLG) inboard door hinge assemblies or

FAA-approved MLG inboard door hinges and

attachment angles made of steel at all four

hinge assembly locations:

Models Serial numbers

PA–31, PA–31–

300, and PA–

31–325.

31–2 through 31–8012077.

PA–31–350 ....... 31–5001 through 31–

8052168.

PA–31P ............ 31P–3 through 31P–

7730012.

PA–31T ............ 31T–7400002 through

31T–8020076.

PA–31T1 .......... 31T–7804001 through

31T–8004040.

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 (g) 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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent separation of a MLG door from

the airplane caused by a cracked MLG

inboard door hinge or attachment angle,

which could result in the MLG becoming

jammed with consequent loss of control of

the airplane during landing operations,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of

this AD, unless already accomplished

(compliance with AD 80–26–05), and

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100

hours TIS until the modification

required by paragraph (c) or (d) of this
54598 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

AD is incorporated, inspect (using dye

penetrant methods) the MLG inboard

door hinges and attachment angles for

cracks. Accomplish the inspections in

accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS

section of Piper Service Bulletin No.

682, dated July 24, 1980.

(b) The initial dye penetrant inspection

type must be utilized for all future repetitive

inspections. Dye penetrant inspection types

consist of Type I: fluorescent; Type II: nonfluorescent or visible dye; and Type III: dual

sensitivity.

(c) If cracks are found during any of the

inspections required in paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, install a Piper P/

N 47529–32 MLG inboard door hinge and

attachment angle assembly or install FAAapproved MLG inboard door hinges and

angles made of steel.

(d) Within the next 800 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD, unless already

accomplished as required by paragraph (c) of

this AD, install a Piper P/N 47529–32 MLG

inboard door hinge and attachment angle

assembly in all four hinge assembly locations

or install FAA-approved MLG inboard door

hinges and angles made of steel in all four

hinge assembly locations.

(e) Installing a Piper P/N 47529–32 MLG

inboard door hinge and attachment angle

assembly in all four assembly locations or

installing FAA-approved MLG inboard door

hinges and angles made of steel in all four

assembly locations as required by paragraphs

(c) and (d) of this AD is considered

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement of this AD.

(f) 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.

(g) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), One Crown

Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450,

Atlanta, Georgia 30349.

(1) The request shall be forwarded through

an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 80–26–05

(superseded by this action) are not

considered approved as alternative methods

of compliance with this AD.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(h) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to The New Piper

Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive,Vero Beach,

Florida 32960; or may examine this

document at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.

12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

(i) This amendment supersedes AD 80–26–

05, mendment 39–3994.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

October 14, 1997.

Mary Ellen Schutt,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–27794 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. 96–47, FHWA 97–2295,

Notice No. 1]

RIN 2125–AE11

National Standards for Traffic Control

Devices; Revision of the Manual on

Uniform Traffic Control Devices;

Markings, Signals, and Traffic Control

Systems for Railroad-Highway Grade

Crossings

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendment

to the Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices (MUTCD), reopening

and extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is reopening and

extending the comment period for a

notice of proposed amendment to the

MUTCD which was published January

6, 1997, at 62 FR 691. The original

comment period was set to close on

August 30, 1997. This extension

responds to concern expressed by the

National Committee on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices (NCUTCD) that the

August 30 closing date does not provide

sufficient time for appropriate response

to the proposed MUTCD change. The

FHWA recognizes that other

commenters may be subject to similar

time constraints and agrees that the

comment period should be reopened

and extended. Therefore, the closing

date for comments is extended to

December 22, 1997, in order to provide

the NCUTCD and other interested

commenters additional time to evaluate

the proposed changes and to submit

responses.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

December 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Signed, written comments

should refer to the docket number that

appears at the top of this document and

must be submitted to the Docket Clerk,

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC

20590–0001. All comments received

will be available for examination at the

above address between 10 a.m. and 5

p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. Those desiring

notification of receipt of comments must

include a self-addressed, stamped

envelope or postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information regarding the notice of

proposed amendment contact Ms. Linda

Brown, Office of Highway Safety, Room

3408, (202) 366–2192, or Mr. Raymond

Cuprill, Office of Chief Counsel, Room

4217, (202) 366–0834, Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,

e.t., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As noted,

the original comment period for the

January 6, 1997, notice of proposed

amendment to the MUTCD closed on

August 30, 1997. The NCUTCD has

expressed concern that this closing date

does not provide sufficient time to

review the proposed change,

consolidate comments, and submit these

comments to its member organizations

for approval. The NCUTCD only meets

in January and June of each year to vote

as a full body on proposals and issues

relating to the MUTCD. Judging from the

number of comments received so far to

this docket and considering the large

amount of materials contained in this

docket, we believe there may be other

interested persons who need additional

time to respond.

The MUTCD is available for

inspection and copying as prescribed in

49 CFR part 7, appendix D. It may be

purchased for $44.00 from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box

371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954,

Stock No. 650–001–00001–0.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315, 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued: October 8, 1997.

Gloria J. Jeff,

Acting Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–27741 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX 57–1–7183: FRL–5911–6]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans (SIP) for Texas:

Houston Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Offset Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.