Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15443

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(e) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March

26, 1997.

S. R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–8253 Filed 3–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 91–CE–87–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland

DHC–6 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM);

Reopening of the comment period.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revise an earlier proposed airworthiness

directive (AD), which would have

superseded AD 80–13–11 R2. That AD

currently requires repetitively

inspecting the elevator, flap, aileron,

and rudder control rods for cracks on

certain de Havilland DHC–6 series

airplanes, replacing any cracked rod,

and installing rod sleeves. The previous

document would have required

replacing the elevator trim and elevator/

flap interconnect rods, the aileron

control rods, the elevator control rods,

and the rudder control rods with parts

of improved design, and repetitively

inspecting these rods thereafter at

certain intervals. These replacements

would reduce the need for the number

of repetitions of the inspections

currently required by AD 80–13–11 R2.

The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) has determined that the flap

control rods should also be replaced

with parts of improved design as

terminating action for repetitive

inspections currently required by AD

80–03–08. The proposed action would

supersede both AD 80–13–11 R2 and

AD 80–03–08 and would require the

replacements as terminating action to

the repetitive inspections currently

required. The proposed action is part of

the FAA’s policy on commuter class

aircraft, which briefly states that, when

a modification exists that could

eliminate or reduce the number of

required critical inspections, the

modification should be incorporated.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent cracking of

these control rods, which, if not

detected and corrected, could result in

loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 91–CE–87–

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 applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from de

Havilland, Inc., 123 Garratt Boulevard,

Downsview, Ontario, Canada, M3K 1Y5.

This information also may be examined

at the Rules Docket at the address above.

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:

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. 91–CE–87–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of Supplemental NPRM

Any person may obtain a copy of this

supplemental NPRM by submitting a

request to the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 91–CE–87–

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

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Discussion

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to certain de Havilland DHC–6

series airplanes was published in the

Federal Register as a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) on October 12, 1993

(58 FR 52714). The NPRM proposed to

supersede AD 80–13–11 R2 with a new

AD that would (1) require replacing

elevator trim and elevator/flap

interconnect rods, and the flap, aileron,

elevator, and rudder control rods with

parts of improved design; and (2) retain

the aileron control rod inspections

currently required by AD 80–13–11 R2,

but reduce the number of repetitions of

these inspections. Accomplishment of

the proposed replacement as specified

in the NPRM would be in accordance

with de Havilland Service Bulletin (SB)

No. 6/502, dated March 24, 1989.

Accomplishment of the proposed

inspections as specified in the NPRM

would be in accordance with de

Havilland SB No. 6/390, Revision E,

dated December 20, 1991.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this AD. No comments were

received on the NPRM or on the FAA’s

determination of the cost on the public.

The FAA’s Aging Commuter-Class

Aircraft Policy

The actions specified in the NPRM 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
15444 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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.

Events Leading to the Issuance of This

Supplemental NPRM

Since issuing the NPRM, the FAA has

determined that AD 80–03–08 is also

one that should be superseded by this

action to coincide with the FAA’s aging

commuter aircraft policy. AD 80–03–08

currently requires repetitively

inspecting the flap control rods on de

Havilland DHC–6 series airplanes. De

Havilland SB No. 6/502 also specifies

procedures for replacing the flap control

rods with parts of improved design. The

FAA has determined that when these

replacements are incorporated, the

number of repetitive inspections of

these control rods can be reduced.

After reviewing all information

related to the events leading to this

supplemental NPRM, the FAA has

determined that (1) the flap control rod

replacements should be added to the

document; and (2) AD action should be

taken to prevent cracking of the elevator

trim and elevator/flap interconnect rods,

the aileron control rods, the elevator

control rods, the rudder control rods,

and the flap control rods. If not detected

and corrected, a cracked control rod

could result in loss of control of the

airplane.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other de Havilland DHC–6

series airplanes of the same type design,

the proposed AD would supersede both

AD 80–13–11 R2 and AD 80–03–08 with

a new AD that would (1) require

replacing elevator, flap, aileron, and

rudder control rods and elevator trim

and elevator flap/interconnect control

rods with improved parts; and (2) retain

the aileron control rod inspections

currently required by AD 80–13–11 R2,

but reduce the number of repetitions of

these inspections. Accomplishment of

the proposed replacements would be in

accordance with de Havilland SB No. 6/

502, dated March 24, 1989.

Accomplishment of the proposed

inspections would be in accordance

with de Havilland SB No. 6/390,

Revision E, dated December 20, 1991,

and de Havilland SB No. 6/388,

Revision C, dated October 29, 1982.

The FAA prepared a Regulatory

Flexibility Determination and Analysis

for the original proposal. This analysis

was based on all owners/operators of de

Havilland DHC–6 airplanes replacing all

control rods specified in de Havilland

SB No. 6/502. Because the replacement

flap control rods that the FAA is adding

to the proposal are already included in

de Havilland SB No. 6/502, there is no

need to accomplish a separate

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

and Analysis. The FAA is reprinting the

synopsis of this analysis in this

document.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 169 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 20 workhours (4

workhours/ inspection and 16

workhours/replacement) per airplane to

accomplish the proposed action, and

that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost

approximately $15,600 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $2,839,200.

AD 80–13–11 R2 and AD 80–03–08,

which would both be superseded by the

proposed action, currently require

inspecting these control rod assemblies.

These inspections take approximately

32 workhours at an average cost of $60

per hour; approximately $1,920 per

airplane or $324,480 for the entire fleet.

The inspection procedures of the

proposed AD would be less costly and

less frequent than those required by AD

80–13–11 R2 and AD 80–03–08.

With the above figures in mind,

including the costs for the modification

proposed by this action, the proposed

AD would cost an additional $14,880

per airplane over that already required

by AD 80–13–11 R2 and AD 80–03–08,

or a total additional fleet cost of

$2,524,860. These figures do not

account for the recurring costs through

the repetitive inspection requirement of

AD 80–13–11 R2 and AD 80–03–08, and

the proposed AD. The proposed AD

would only require repetitive

inspections every 2,400 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the control rod

assembly is replaced, where AD 80–13–

11 R2 currently requires repetitive

inspections every 800 hours TIS and AD

80–03-08 requires repetitive inspections

every 200 hours TIS.

The incremental costs of the proposed

AD would depend on the remaining

service life of a DHC–6 airplane and its

utilization, i.e., the number of hours TIS

per year. The proposed AD would

provide a cost savings over that already

required to most owner/operators of de

Havilland DHC–6 airplanes. The

following examines the incremental

costs to owners of de Havilland DHC–

6 series airplanes with remaining

service lives of 10, 20, and 30 years if

the airplanes are utilized between 100

and 2,500 hours TIS annually.

The proposed AD would provide a

cost savings at a service life of 10 years

for operators utilizing their airplanes

less than 135 hours TIS or more than

1,000 hours TIS annually, and would

provide a cost savings at service lives of

20 and 30 years for all de Havilland

DHC–6 series airplanes, regardless of

airplane usage. The savings resulting

from the less frequent inspections more

than offset the costs of replacing the

control rods. The cost savings would be

at least $2,800 at an average 20-year

remaining service life and utilizing a 7

percent interest rate. For a 30-year

remaining service life, the operator

should realize a cost savings of at least

$6,000 (with a 7 percent interest rate).

De Havilland DHC–6 series airplanes

that are utilized between 135 and 1,000

hours TIS annually may not see a cost

savings when replacing the control rods

based upon a 10-year remaining service

life. Before issuing this supplemental

notice of proposed rulemaking, the FAA

took into account that the costs of

replacing the rods could be greater than

the savings from the inspections

required by the proposed AD for

operators utilizing their airplanes

within this range.

The Proposed AD’s Impact Utilizing the

FAA’s Aging Commuter Class Aircraft

Policy

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. Of the approximately 169

airplanes in the U.S. registry that would

be affected by the proposed AD, the

FAA has determined that approximately

50 percent are operated in scheduled

passenger service by 14 different

operators. A significant number of the

remaining 50 percent are operated in

other forms of air transportation such as

air cargo and air taxi.

The proposed AD allows 500 hours

time-in-service (TIS) before

accomplishment of the design

modification would become mandatory.

The average utilization of the fleet for

those airplanes in commercial

commuter service is approximately 25

to 50 hours TIS per week. Based on
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15445

these figures, operators of commuterclass airplanes involved in commercial

operation would have to accomplish the

proposed modification within two to

five calendar months after the proposed

AD would become effective. Based on

these scheduled operation figures,

repetitive inspections for the proposed

AD for operators who had accomplished

the modification would be required

approximately every one to two years.

For private owners, who typically

operate between 100 to 200 hours TIS

per year, this would allow two to five

years before the proposed modification

would be mandatory. Based on these

nonscheduled operation figures,

repetitive inspections for the proposed

AD for operators who had accomplished

the modification would be required

approximately every 12 to 24 years.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

and Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to

ensure that small entities are not

unnecessarily or disproportionally

burdened by government regulations.

The RFA requires government agencies

to determine whether rules would have

a ‘‘significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,’’

and, in cases where they would,

conduct a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis in which alternatives to the

rule are considered. FAA Order

2100.14A, Regulatory Flexibility Criteria

and Guidance, outlines FAA procedures

and criteria for complying with the

RFA. Small entities are defined as small

businesses and small not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated or airports

operated by small governmental

jurisdictions. A ‘‘substantial number’’ is

defined as a number that is not less than

11 and that is more than one-third of the

small entities subject to the proposed

rule, or any number of small entities

subject to the rule which is substantial

in the judgment of the rulemaking

official. A ‘‘significant economic

impact’’ is defined as an annualized net

compliance cost, adjusted for inflation,

which is greater than a threshold cost

level for defined entity types. FAA

Order 2100.14A sets the size threshold

for small entities operating aircraft for

hire at nine aircraft owned and the

annualized cost threshold at $65,300 for

scheduled operators and $5,000 for

unscheduled operators.

The 169 U.S.-registered airplanes

affected by the proposed AD are owned

according to the following breakdown:

13 by individuals, 8 by U.S. government

agencies, and 148 by businesses or notfor-profit enterprises. Of the 148

entities, one owns 26 airplanes, one

owns 11 airplanes, nineteen own

between 2 and 9 airplanes, and fifty

own 1 airplane each.

The FAA cannot determine the sizes

of all the 148 owner entities nor the

relative significance of the costs or cost

savings estimated above. However, more

than one-third of these entities operate

de Havilland DHC–6 series airplanes in

scheduled service. According to

statistics obtained by the FAA, these

airplane operators in scheduled service

utilize the affected airplanes an average

of 1,383 hours TIS annually, and general

aviation operators utilize their airplanes

an average of 706 hours TIS annually.

These figures may have a standard of

error of 14.4 percent and the general

aviation average may include some

airplanes in commuter service. The FAA

cannot reasonably estimate the

distribution of these hours among the de

Havilland DHC–6 fleet.

Because of these uncertainties, no cost

thresholds for significant economic

impact can be reasonably determined.

The FAA solicits comments concerning

the impact of this proposed AD on small

entity owners of the affected airplanes.

Based on the possibility that this

proposed AD could have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities, the FAA conducted a

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

and Analysis. A copy of this analysis

may be obtained by contacting the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

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 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing both AD 80–13–11 R2,

Amendment 39–4703, and AD 80–03–

08, Amendment 39–3682, and by adding

the following new AD:

De Havilland: Docket No. 91–CE–87–AD.

Supersedes AD 80–13–11 R2,

Amendment 39–4703, and AD 80–03–08,

Amendment 39–3682.

Applicability: Models DHC–6–1, DHC–6–

100, DHC–6–200, and DHC–6–300 airplanes

(all serial numbers), certificated in any

category.

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 (d) 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

already accomplished.

To prevent loss of control of the airplane

caused by cracked elevator, flap, aileron,

elevator trim, elevator/flap interconnect, and

rudder control rods, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within the next 500 hours time-inservice

(TIS) after the effective date of this AD,

replace the following 2024–T3 or 2024–T81

control rods with 6061–T6 control rods in

accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of de Havilland

Service Bulletin (SB) No. 6/502, dated March

24, 1989:

(1) Flap Control Rods: Modification No. 6/

1781;
15446 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(2) Elevator Trim and Elevator/Flap

Interconnect Control Rods: Modification No.

6/1785;

(3) Aileron Control Rods: Modification No.

6/1791;

(4) Elevator Control Rods: Modification No.

6/1792; and

(5) Rudder Control Rods; Modification No.

6/1802.

Note 2: The specific part numbers of the

2024–T3 or 2024–T81 control and

interconnect control rods and their 6061–T6

replacement part numbers are contained in

de Havilland SB No. 6/502, dated March 24,

1989.

(b) Within 2,400 hours TIS after the

replacement required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed

2,400 hours TIS, inspect all the affected

control rods for cracks in accordance with

the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS

section of de Havilland SB No. 6/390,

Revision E, dated December 20, 1991; or de

Havilland SB No. 6/388, Revision C, dated

October 29, 1982, as applicable. Prior to

further flight, replace any cracked rod with

a new 6061–T6 rod as specified in and in

accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of de Havilland SB

No. 6/502, dated March 24, 1989.

(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 airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), 10 Fifth Street,

3rd Floor, Valley Stream, New York 11581.

The request shall be forwarded through an

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

New York ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

(e) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the documents referred

to herein upon request to de Havilland, Inc.,

123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario,

Canada, M3K 1Y5; or may examine these

documents at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

(f) This amendment supersedes AD 80–13–

11 R2, Amendment 39–4703, and AD 80–03–

08, Amendment 39–3682.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March

26, 1997.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–8252 Filed 3–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 41

RIN 1076–AD08

Grants to Tribally Controlled

Community Colleges and Navajo

Community College

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA) is proposing to revise part 41 to

improve the clarity of the regulations

and understanding of the public as

mandated by Executive Order 12866.

The regulations have been reorganized

and rewritten in plain English.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Joann S.

Morris, Director, Office of Indian

Education Programs, Bureau of Indian

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849

C St. NW, Mail Stop 3512–MIB,

Washington, D.C. 20240; or, hand

deliver them to Room 3512 at the above

address. Comments will be available for

inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday

beginning approximately April 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garry R. Martin, Office of Indian

Education Programs, Bureau of Indian

Affairs at telephone (202) 208–4871.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

authority to issue rules and regulations

is vested in the Secretary of the Interior

by 5 U.S.C. 301 and sections 463 and

465 of the Revised Statutes, 25 U.S.C. 2

and 9.

Publication of the proposed rule by

the Department of the Interior

(Department) provides the public an

opportunity to participate in the

rulemaking process. Interested persons

may submit written comments regarding

the proposed rule to the location

identified in the ‘‘addresses’’ section of

this document.

Executive Order 12988

The Department has certified to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) that the proposed rule meets the

applicable standards provided in

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988.

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is not a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order

12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed 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.).

Executive Order 12630

The Department has determined that

this proposed rule does not have

‘‘significant’’ takings implications. The

proposed rule does not pertain to

‘‘taking’’ of private property interests,

nor does it impact private property.

Executive Order 12612

The Department has determined that

this proposed rule does not have

significant Federalism effects because it

pertains solely to Federal-tribal relations

and will not interfere with the roles,

rights and responsibilities of States.

NEPA Statement

The Department has determined that

this proposed rule does not constitute a

major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human

environment and that no detailed

statement is required under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

This proposed rule imposes no

unfunded mandates on any

governmental or private entity and is in

compliance with the provisions of the

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

As required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

3507(d), the Department of the Interior

has submitted a copy of these sections

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for its review.

All information is to be collected

annually from each applicant. The

annual reporting and recordkeeping

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 3 hours for each

response for 24 respondents, including

the time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. The total

annual reporting and recordkeeping

burden for this collection is estimated to

be 72 hours.

Organizations and individuals

desiring to submit comments on the

information collection requirement

should direct them to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

OMB, Room 10202, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, D.C.

20503; Attention: Desk Officer for the

U.S. Department of the Interior.