76954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

estimated to be $228,000 assuming no

cracked frames are discovered.

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

removing Amendment 39–5089 (50 FR

28561, July 15, 1985) and Amendment

39–5121 (50 FR 37173, September 12,

1985), and by adding a new

airworthiness directive (AD), to read as

follows:

Eurocopter France: Docket No. 2000-SW–17-

AD. Supersedes AD 85–14–06,

Amendment 39–5089, and 85–14–06 R1,

Amendment 39–5121, Docket No. 85-

ASW–15.

Applicability: Model AS350B, AS350B1,

AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350C,

AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F,

AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N

helicopters, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For helicopters 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 (e) 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 eliminate confusion and unnecessary

costs and to prevent a cracked fuselage frame

(frame), tailboom failure, and subsequent loss

of control of the helicopter, accomplish the

following:

(a) Inspect the fuselage-to-tailboom

attachment bolts in accordance with

paragraph (d) within 30 hours time-in-service

(TIS).

(b) Inspect the fuselage-to-tailboom

attachment bolts in accordance with

paragraph (d) within 30 hours TIS of

replacing or reinstalling a tailboom.

(c) Repeat the inspection in accordance

with paragraph (d) at intervals not to exceed

2500 hours or 6 years TIS, whichever occurs

first.

(d) Inspect the fuselage-to-tailboom

attachment bolts for proper torque range and

the frame, part number 350A21–1247–00, for

a crack at the fuselage-to-tailboom interface.

(1) Procedure for inspecting proper torque

range:

(i) Using a fine-point felt tip pen, mark the

position of the nut relative to the assembly.

(ii) One at a time, slightly loosen each nut.

Do not allow the corresponding bolt to rotate

relative to the assembly.

(iii) Tighten the nut with a properly

calibrated torque wrench until the mark on

the nut lines up with the mark on the

assembly.

(iv) Record the torque value required to

line up the two marks.

(2) Interpretation of the recorded torque

values for each nut:

(i) If the torque value is less than 0.3 mdaN

(26 in-lbs) on any nut:

(A) Remove the tailboom.

(B) Perform a dye-penetrant inspection for

a crack in the bending radius of the frame.

(C) If a crack is found, repair or replace the

frame with an airworthy frame before further

flight.

(ii) If the torque value is between 0.3 mdaN

and 1 mdaN (26 to 88 in-lbs), re-torque to

0.75 mdaN to 0.9 mdaN (67 to 79 in-lbs).

(iii) If the torque value is equal to or greater

than 1 mdaN (88 in-lbs), remove the nut and

bolt and replace them with a new nut and

bolt. Torque the nut to 0.75 mdaN to 0.9

mdaN (67–79 in-lbs).

Note 2: Aerospatiale Service Bulletins AS

355 No. 05.14 and AS 350 No. 05.16 pertain

to the subject of this AD.

(e) 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, Regulations

Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,

who may concur or comment and then send

it to the Manager, Regulations Group.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Regulations Group.

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199

to operate the helicopter to a location where

the requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November

30, 2000.

Larry M. Kelly,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–31319 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 938

[PA–122–FOR]

Pennsylvania Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

public comment period.

SUMMARY: OSM is reopening the public

comment period on Pennsylvania’s

responses to comments we made in

regard to a proposed amendment to the

Pennsylvania permanent regulatory

program under the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1997

(SMCRA). The amendment, submitted

on July 29, 1998, (Administrative

Record No. PA–841.07), proposed

changes to the Pennsylvania program

with regard to the mine subsidence

control, subsidence damage repair or

replacement, and water supply

replacement provisions of SMCRA. The

amendment submission included

changes to the Bituminous Mine

Subsidence and Land Conservation Act

(BMSLCA) made through Act 54 and

changes to regulations at 25 PA Code

Chapter 89. After reviewing the

amendment, we sent two letters to

Pennsylvania requesting clarification of

numerous issues. The letters were sent

on June 21, 1999, (Administrative

record number PA 841.32) and June 23,

2000, (Administrative record number

PA 841.40). Pennsylvania responded to

the first letter on June 1, 2000,

(Administrative record number PA

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76955

841.39) and to the second on July 14,

2000, (Administrative record number

PA 841.41). We are reopening the

comment period to allow public input

into Pennsylvania’s responses to the two

letters.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before 4:00 p.m. (local

time), on December 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail, hand-deliver or e-mail

your written comments to Mr. Robert J.

Biggi, Director, Harrisburg Field Office,

at the address listed below.

You may review copies of the

Pennsylvania program, the proposed

amendment, 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

Harrisburg Field Office.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement, Harrisburg Field

Office, Third Floor, Suite 3C,

Harrisburg Transportation Center, 415

Market Street, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania 17101, Telephone: (717)

782–4036, e-mail: bbiggi@osmre.gov

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of

Mining and Reclamation, Rachel

Carson State Office Building, P.O. Box

8461, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

17105–8461, Telephone: (717) 787–

5103

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert J. Biggi, Director, Harrisburg

Field Office, Telephone: (717) 782–

4036.

I. Background on the Pennsylvania

Program

On July 31, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Pennsylvania program. You can find

background information on the

Pennsylvania program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of the

approval in the July 31, 1982, Federal

Register (47 FR 33050). Subsequent

actions concerning the Pennsylvania

program and previous amendments are

codified at 30 CFR 938.11, 938.12,

938.15 and 938.16.

II. Description of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated July 29, 1998

(Administrative Record Number PA

841.07), the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Resources (PADEP)

submitted an amendment to its

approved permanent regulatory program

pursuant to the Federal regulations at 30

CFR 732.17(b).

The proposed rulemaking was

published in the August 25, 1998,

Federal Register (63 FR 45199). The

first public comment period closed on

September 24, 1998. In response to

requests from several people, the

comment period was reopened on

September 25, 1998, (63 FR 51324).

This second comment period closed

on October 19, 1998. A public hearing

was held on October 13, 1998, at

Washington, Pennsylvania

(Administrative record numbers PA

841.21, 841.22, and 841.31). After

reviewing the public comments and the

information received at the public

hearing and conducting our own review

of the amendment, we sent

Pennsylvania the two letters described

above to request clarification of

numerous issues. The sections of the

BMSLCA that we asked Pennsylvania

for additional information on are:

5.1(a)(1)—(3), 5.1(b), 5.2(a)(1) and (2),

5.2(a)(2), 5.2(b)(2), 5.2(d), 5.2(e)(1)—(3),

5.2(g), 5.2(g)(1), 5.2(h), 5.2(i), 5.2(k),

5.3(a), 5.3(c), 5.4(a)(1), 5.4(a)(2),

5.4(a)(3), 5.4(c), 5.5(a), 5.5(b), 5.5(c),

5.5(e), 5.5(g), 5.6(a), 5.6(c), and 9.1(b).

The sections of Pennsylvania’s

regulations at 25 PA Code Chapter 89

that we asked Pennsylvania for

additional information on are: § 89.5,

definitions of the terms, ‘‘de minimis

cost increase,’’ ‘‘permanently affixed

appurtenant structures,’’ and ‘‘public

buildings and facilities,’’ § 89.35,

§ 89.67(b), § 89.141(d), § 89.141(d)(2),

§ 89.141(d)(3), § 89.141(d)(6),

§ 89.141(d)(9), § 89.142a(a)(3),

§ 89.142a(b)(1), § 89.142a(b)(2),

§ 89.142a(c)(2), § 89.142a(c)(3),

§ 89.142a(e), § 89.142a(f)(1),

§ 89.142a(f)(2), § 89.142a(g)(2)—(4),

§ 89.143a(b), § 89.145a(a)(1),

§ 89.145a(a)(3), § 89.145a(b),

§ 89.145a(d), § 89.145a(e),

§ 89.145a(e)(2), § 89.145a(f)(1),

§ 89.145a(f)(3), § 89.146a(a),

§ 89.146a(b)(4), § 89.152(b), § 89.154(a),

§ 89.154(a)(5) and (6).

The full text of our letters and

Pennsylvania’s responses can be

obtained at the Harrisburg Field Office

at the address listed above.

III. Public Comment Procedures

In accordance with the provisions of

30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is seeking

comments only on Pennsylvania’s

responses to our two letters.

Written Comments

If you submit written or electronic

comments on the proposed rule during

the 15-day comment period, they should

be specific, should be confined to issues

pertinent to the notice, and should

explain the reason for your

recommendation(s). We may not be able

to consider or include in the

Administrative Record comments

delivered to an address other than the

one listed above (see ADDRESSES).

Electronic Comments

Please submit Internet comments as

an ASCII, WordPerfect, or Word file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. Please also

include ‘‘Attn: SPATS NO. PA–122–

FOR’’ and your name and return address

in your Internet message. If you do not

receive a confirmation that we have

received your Internet message, contact

the Harrisburg Field Office at (717) 782–

4036.

Availability of Comments

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours at the

OSM Administrative Record Room (see

ADDRESSES). Individual respondents

may request that we withhold their

home address from the rulemaking

record, which we will honor to the

extent allowable by law. There also may

be circumstances in which we would

withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this prominently at the beginning of

your comment. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings

implications. This determination is

based on the analysis performed for the

counterpart federal regulation.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This rule does not have federalism

implications. SMCRA delineates the

roles of the federal and state

governments with regard to the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. One of the

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a

nationwide program to protect society

and the environment from the adverse

effects of surface coal mining

76956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of

SMCRA requires that state laws

regulating surface coal mining and

reclamation operations be ‘‘in

accordance with’’ the requirements of

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires

that state programs contain rules and

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary

pursuant to SMCRA.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice

Reform

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of state regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific state, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and

732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed

state regulatory programs and program

amendments submitted by the states

must be based solely on a determination

of whether the submittal is consistent

with SMCRA and its implementing

federal regulations and whether the

other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730,

731, and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed state regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has

been made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The state submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the state. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart federal regulation.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, federal, state, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the

fact that the state submittal which is the

subject of this rule is based upon

counterpart federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

George J. Rieger,

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 00–31324 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07–00–006]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Longboat Pass and New Pass,

Longboat Key, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Commander, Seventh

Coast Guard District issued a notice of

proposed rulemaking on 25 August

2000, to change the regulations

governing the operation of the State

Road 789 drawbridge across Longboat

Pass, Manatee County, and the New

Pass bridge, Sarasota County, in

Longboat Key, Florida. The comment

period expired on October 24, 2000. The

Coast Guard has received several

requests for additional time to submit

comments on the proposed rule. As a

result, the Coast Guard is reopening the

comment period for an additional 60

days.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments

and related material to Commander

(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909

SE 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131–

3050, or deliver them to room 406 at the

above address between 7:30 a.m. and 4

p.m. Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The Commander,

Seventh Coast Guard District maintains

the public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments and material received from

the public, as well as documents

indicated in this preamble as being

available in the docket, will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at Commander

(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District 909,

SE 1st Avenue, room 406, Miami, FL

33131, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Barry Dragon, Project Officer, Seventh

Coast Guard District, at (305) 415–6743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

25, 2000, the Coast Guard published a

notice of proposed rulemaking (65 FR

51787). The NPRM proposed to change

the regulations governing the operation

of the State Road 789 drawbridge across

Longboat Pass, Manatee County, and the

New Pass bridge, Sarasota County, in

Longboat Key, Florida. The comment