Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75887

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 you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(g) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact the Fort Worth Airplane

Certification Office, 2601 Meacham

Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0150;

telephone: (817) 222–5133; facsimile: (817)

222–5960.

(h) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

§§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to

operate your airplane to a location where you

can accomplish the requirements of this AD.

(i) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may obtain copies

of the documents referenced in this AD from

Fairchild Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 790490, San

Antonio, Texas 78279–0490. You may

examine these documents at FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

November 28, 2000.

William J. Timberlake,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30948 Filed 12–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 91–CE–87–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier

Inc. Models DHC–6–1, DHC–6–100,

DHC–6–200, and DHC–6–300 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a

supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) that would have

applied to all Bombardier Inc. Models

DHC–6–1, DHC–6–100, DHC–6–200,

and DHC–6–300 airplanes. The NPRM

would have superseded both AD 80–13–

11 R2 and AD 80–03–08, which

currently require repetitive inspections

of the flight control rods for cracks on

the above-referenced airplanes, with

replacement of any cracked flight

control rods. The NPRM would have

required replacement of these flight

control rods with improved design parts

and would have reduced the need for

the number of repetitions of the

inspections. After evaluating all the

comments received on the proposal, we

have determined that, since the need for

repetitive inspections is not eliminated

by the replacements, the requirements

of the current AD’s should stand. We

have not received any recent service

problems regarding this subject on the

affected airplanes. For these reasons, we

are withdrawing the supplemental

NPRM.

ADDRESSES: You may look at

information related to this action at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

91–CE–87–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106, between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon

Hjelm, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New

York Aircraft Certification Office, 10

Fifth Street, 3rd Floor, Valley Stream,

New York 11581; telephone (516) 256–

7523; facsimile (516) 568–2716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

What Action Has FAA Taken to Date?

We issued a proposal to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that

would apply to all Bombardier Inc.

Models DHC–6–1, DHC–6–100, DHC–6–

200, and DHC–6–300 airplanes. The

proposal was published in the Federal

Register as a supplemental NPRM on

April 1, 1997 (62 FR 15443).

The NPRM proposed to supersede

both AD 80–13–11 R2 and AD 80–03–

08, which currently require repetitive

inspections of the flight control rods for

cracks on the above-referenced

airplanes, with replacement of any

cracked flight control rods. The NPRM

would have required replacement of

these flight control rods with improved

design parts and would have reduced

the need for the number of repetitions

of the inspections.

Was the Public Invited To Comment?

The FAA invited interested persons to

participate in the making of this

amendment. The comments, in most

part, reflect the public’s desire to have

FAA withdraw the proposal and let the

current AD’s stand. The reason for this

is because the need for repetitive

inspections is not eliminated by

replacing flight control rods with

improved design parts.

The FAA’s Determination

What Is FAA’s Final Determination on

This Issue?

After re-evaluating all information

related to this subject, we have

determined that:

—The unsafe condition is currently

addressed through AD 80–13–11 R2

and AD 80–03–08;

—Because we have not received any

recent service problems regarding this

subject on the affected airplanes, there

is no need for the supplemental

NPRM, Docket No. 91–CE–87–AD;

and

—We should withdraw the

supplemental NPRM.

Withdrawal of this action does not

prevent us from taking or commit us to

any future action.

Regulatory Impact

Does This Proposed AD Withdrawal

Involve a Significant Rule or Regulatory

Action?

Since this action only withdraws a

proposed AD, it is not an AD and,

therefore, is not covered under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, FAA withdraws the

supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking, Docket No. 91–CE–87–AD,

published in the Federal Register on

April 1, 1997 (62 FR 15443).

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

November 28, 2000.

William J. Timberlake,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30947 Filed 12–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. 94P–0036]

Food Labeling: Trans Fatty Acids in

Nutrition Labeling, Nutrient Content

Claims, and Health Claims; Reopening

of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

75888 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is reopening to

January 19, 2001, the comment period

for a document published in the Federal

Register of November 17, 1999 (64 FR

62746). In that document, FDA

proposed to amend its regulations on

nutrition labeling to require that the

amount of trans fatty acids present in a

food, including dietary supplements, be

included in the amount and percent

Daily Value declared for saturated fatty

acids. FDA also proposed that, wherever

saturated fat limits are placed on

nutrient content claims, health claims,

or disclosure or disqualifying levels, the

amount of trans fatty acids be limited as

well. Finally, FDA proposed to define

the nutrient content claim ‘‘trans fat

free.’’ FDA is taking this action in

response to comments on the November

17, 1999, proposal to ensure that

interested parties have an adequate

opportunity to comment on the issue of

whether the agency should define the

nutrient content claims ‘‘reduced trans

fat’’ and ‘‘reduced saturated and trans

fats.’’

DATES: Submit written comments on

nutrient content claims for ‘‘reduced

trans fat’’ and ‘‘reduced saturated and

trans fats’’ by January 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to the Dockets Management Branch

(HFA–305), Food and Drug

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.

1061, Rockville, MD 20852. You may

also send comments to the Dockets

Management Branch at the following email address: FDADockets@oc.fda.gov

or via the Internet at http://

www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/

dockets/comments/commentdocket.cfm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Thompson, Center for Food

Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–

832), Food and Drug Administration,

200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204,

202–205–5587.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Reopening of Comment Period

In the Federal Register of November

17, 1999 (64 FR 62746), FDA (we)

proposed to amend our regulations on

nutrition labeling to require that the

amount of trans fatty acids present in a

food, including dietary supplements, be

included in the amount and percent

Daily Value declared for saturated fatty

acids. We also proposed that, wherever

saturated fat limits are placed on

nutrient content claims, health claims,

or disclosure or disqualifying levels, the

amount of trans fatty acids be limited as

well. Finally, we proposed to define the

nutrient content claim ‘‘trans fat free.’’

In that document, we requested

comments on the proposal by February

15, 2000. In the Federal Register of

February 16, 2000 (65 FR 7806), we

extended the comment period to April

17, 2000.

Ten comments responding to the

proposal (see Docket 94P–0036,

Comment numbers 1776, 2113, 2117,

2125, 2128, 2133, 2135, 2138, 2139, and

EMC 475) requested that the final rule

define the nutrient content claim

‘‘reduced trans fat.’’ We had not

proposed a definition for this claim, and

had suggested that persons who believe

that such a claim is useful could

petition the agency under § 101.69 (21

CFR 101.69) (64 FR 62746 at 62760).

Other comments (see Docket 94P–0036,

Comment numbers 2136 and 2139)

suggested a criterion (i.e., 25 percent

less saturated fat and trans fat

combined) for the claim ‘‘reduced

saturated fat’’ that we believe may be

more appropriate as a criterion for the

claim ‘‘reduced saturated and trans

fats.’’

We have considered these comments

and believe that some members of the

public may not have anticipated these

issues and thus did not address them in

comments. To ensure that all interested

parties have had an opportunity to

comment on whether the final rule

should define the claims ‘‘reduced trans

fat’’ and ‘‘reduced saturated and trans

fats,’’ we are reopening the comment

period for the November 17, 1999,

proposed rule for a period of 45 days.

Comments submitted during this period

are to be limited to those that directly

address the two claims identified above.

We are not requesting comments on any

other issue, and we do not intend to

consider such comments if submitted.

II. How to Submit Comments

Interested persons may submit to the

Dockets Management Branch (address

above) written comments by January 19,

2001. You may also send comments to

the Dockets Management Branch at the

following e-mail address:

FDADockets@oc.fda.gov, or via the

Internet at http://

www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/

dockets/comments/commentdocket.cfm.

You must submit two copies of

comments, identified with the docket

number found in brackets in the

heading of this document, except that

you may submit one copy if you are an

individual. You may review received

comments in the Dockets Management

Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday.

Dated: November 29, 2000.

Margaret M. Dotzel,

Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 00–30827 Filed 12–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING

COMMISSION

25 CFR Part 580

[RIN 3141–AA04]

Environment, Public Health and Safety

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: Notice of

extension of time.

SUMMARY: On July 24, 2000, the National

Indian Gaming Commission

(Commission) issued a Proposed Rule

(65 FR 45558, July 24, 2000)

promulgating draft regulations to

provide for adequate protection of the

environment, public health and safety

under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

(Act). The date for filing comments is

being extended.

DATES: Comments shall be filed on or

before January 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Environment, Public Health and

Safety Comments, National Indian

Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street,

N.W., Suite 9100, Washington, D.C.

20005, delivered to that address

between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, or faxed to

202/632–7066 (this is not a toll-free

number). Comments received may be

inspected between 9:00 a.m. and noon,

and between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Nagle at 202/632–7003; fax

202/632–7066 (these are not toll-free

numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA, or

the Act), enacted on October 17, 1988,

established the National Indian Gaming

Commission (Commission). Under the

Act, the Commission is charged with

ensuring that tribal gaming facilities are

constructed, maintained and operated in

a manner, which adequately protects the

environment and the public health and

safety. The proposed regulations

establish a process for carrying out this

Commission responsibility. The

Commissioners have been requested to

allow additional time for preparation of

comments on the proposed regulations.

The Commission has determined that

these regulations are of such