Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88/Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25183

21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the DGAC,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other Eurocopter France AS

332C,L, and L1 helicopters of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

replacing main rotor blades with

modified main rotor blades. The actions

would be required to be accomplished

in accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

The FAA estimates that 3 helicopters

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 20 work hours per

helicopter to accomplished the

proposed actions, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will be provided at no

cost by the manufacturer. Based on

these figures the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $1200 per helicopter.

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 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 Rule 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

adding a new airworthiness directive to

read as follows:

Eurocopter France: Docket No. 97–SW–36–

AD.

Applicability: Model AS 332C, L, and L1

helicopters, with main rotor blades, part

number (P/N) 332A11–030–03 or 332A11–

030–04, installed, certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

identified in the preceding applicable

provision, regardless of whether it has been

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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (c) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition, or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any helicopter

from the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent loss of the de-icing capabilities

of the main rotor blades, adverse

performance during flight in icing

conditions, and subsequent loss of control of

the helicopter, accomplish the following:

(a) From available helicopter records,

within the next 10 calendar days, determine

the time-in-service (TIS) on each main rotor

blade.

(b) Replace each main rotor blade with a

main rotor blade that has been modified and

reidentified in accordance with Eurocopter

Technical Instruction Number (No.) 230b

(referenced in Telex Service No. 10002, dated

January 17, 1994) in accordance with the

following schedule:

(1) If the TIS is equal to or greater than

2,000 hours, replace within the next 50 hours

TIS.

(2) If the TIS is equal to or greater than

1,850 hours and less than 2,000 hours,

replace on or before attaining 2,050 hours

TIS.

(3) If the TIS is equal to or greater than

1,500 hours and less than 1,850 hours,

replace within the next 200 hours TIS.

(4) If the TIS is equal to or greater than

1,400 hours and less than 1,500 hours,

replace on or before attaining 1,700 hours

TIS.

(5) If the TIS is greater than 700 hours and

less than 1,400 hours, replace within the next

300 hours TIS.

(6) If the TIS is equal to or less than 700

hours, replace within the next 1,000 hours

TIS.

(c) 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, Rotorcraft

Standards Staff, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,

who may concur or comment and then send

it to the Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Staff.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Rotorcraft Standards Staff.

(d) 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 helicopter

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in DGAC (France) AD 95–029–054(B), dated

February 1, 1995.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 29,

1998.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12112 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

REVIEW COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 2700

Rules of Procedure

AGENCY: Federal Mine Safety and Health

Review Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Mine Safety and

Health Review Commission (the

‘‘Commission’’) is an independent

adjudicatory agency that provides trial

and appellate review of cases arising

under the Federal Mine Safety and

Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

(1994) (the ‘‘Mine Act’’). The

Commission’s rules of procedure govern

practice and procedure in Commission

proceedings at both trial and review

levels. The Commission is proposing to

revise several of its present rules of

procedure.

The Commission’s present rules of

procedure were adopted in June 1979
25184 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88/Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(see 44 FR 38227 (June 29, 1979)), and

last amended in May 1993 (see 58 FR

12158 (March 3, 1993)). The

Commission has determined that certain

procedural rules require further revision

to address various problems that were

unforeseen in 1993, in a further effort to

ensure ‘‘the just, speedy, and

inexpensive determination of all

proceedings’’ before the Commission (29

CFR 2700.1(c)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before August 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Norman Gleichman, General Counsel,

Office of the General Counsel, Federal

Mine Safety and Health Review

Commission, 1730 K Street, NW, 6th

Floor, Washington, DC 20006. Persons

submitting comments shall provide an

original and three copies of their

comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman M. Gleichman, General

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

1730 K Street, NW, 6th Floor,

Washington, DC 20006, telephone 202–

653–5610 (202–566–2673 for TDD

Relay). These are not toll-free numbers.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Commission initially adopted

rules of procedure to practice before it

in June 1979. See 44 FR 38227 (June 29,

1979). The rules were revised only

minimally until March 1993. In March

1993, the Commission published the

revised procedural rules, which became

effective on May 3, 1993. See 58 FR

12158 (March 3, 1993). Those rules

embodied significant changes brought

about by a reexamination of the rules in

light of more than ten years’ practical

experience with their operation and

evolving Commission case law.

Since March 1993, the Commission

has become aware of several rules that

require further revision, clarification, or

expansion. These revisions were the

subject of consideration by the

Commission’s administrative law

judges, who preside at hearings at the

trial level, and Commissioners at the

review level.

In the proposed rules, the

Commission has revised requirements

related to motion practice before the

Commission. See proposed §§ 2700.9,

2700.10, 2700.70(d), 2700.75(d) and (f).

For example, in order to increase

efficiency in the Commission’s

disposition of procedural motions, the

Commission proposes requiring a

moving party to confer or make

reasonable efforts to confer with other

parties in a proceeding and to state in

the motion whether any party does or

does not oppose the motion. See

proposed § 2700.10. In addition, the

Commission proposes changing the

deadline for filing requests for

extensions of time and allowing such

motions and oppositions to those

motions to be filed and served by

facsimile transmission. See proposed

§§ 2700.5(d), 2700.7, 2700.9, 2700.75(d).

The Commission also proposes

instituting a deadline for filing motions

requesting extensions of page limits. See

proposed §§ 2700.70(d), 2700.75(f).

Furthermore, the Commission

proposes expanding the requirements

for certain pleadings. For instance,

under the proposed rules, the

Commission would require page

numbering for all pleadings. See

proposed § 2700.5(c). The Commission

would also institute a page limit for

petitions for discretionary review. See

proposed § 2700.70(d).

In addition, the Commission proposes

to revise and clarify procedures for

filing pleadings in temporary

reinstatement proceedings. The

proposed revisions include the addition

of a captioning requirement for petitions

for review of temporary reinstatement

orders and modifications to the

requirements regarding the manner and

date of filing pleadings. See proposed

§§ 2700.5(d), 2700.7, 2700.45(a) and (f).

The Commission proposes to clarify the

pleadings on which it will base its

ruling and the standard for granting a

motion to stay the effect of a temporary

reinstatement order. See proposed

§ 2700.45(f).

Because the proposed changes do not

constitute a major revision to the

Commission’s procedural rules, the

Commission has not proposed revising

§ 2700.84, which provides in pertinent

part that the procedural rules in part

2700 are effective on May 3, 1993.

Notice of the effective date of the

amended rules will be published in the

Federal Register when the rules are

published as final rules.

Although these rules are procedural

in nature and do not require notice and

comment publication under the

Administrative Procedure Act (see 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)), the Commission is

inviting and will consider public

comment before adopting in final form

any revisions to the existing rules.

Comments may be mailed to the

Commission’s General Counsel at the

address previously stated. It is requested

that comments be filed no later than

August 5, 1998. A section-by-section

explanation of the proposed changes is

set forth below.

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

General Provisions

Section 2700.5 General requirements for

pleadings and other documents; status

or informational requests.

In order to eliminate unnecessary

confusion, paragraph (c) adds the

requirement that all documents include

page numbers. In addition, consistent

with proposed revisions to §§ 2700.9

and 2700.45(f), paragraph (d) adds the

provision that the filing of a motion for

an extension of time and a petition for

review of a temporary reinstatement

order is effective upon receipt rather

than upon mailing.

Section 2700.7 Service.

Consistent with the proposed changes

to §§ 2700.9 and 2700.45(f), paragraph

(c) has been revised to specify the

circumstances under which requests for

extensions of time and petitions for

review of temporary reinstatement

orders may be served by facsimile

transmission. In addition, paragraph (c)

has been revised to clarify that service

by mail is effective upon mailing for all

types of mail, including first class,

express, or registered or certified mail,

return receipt requested.

Section 2700.9 Extensions of time.

As currently written, § 2700.9 requires

that a request for an extension of time

be filed before the expiration of the time

allowed for filing or serving of the

document. The Commission

occasionally receives a request for an

extension of time on or shortly before

the due date for filing or serving of the

document. In such instances, the

Commission must dispose of the motion

prior to the expiration of the time for a

response to the motion. The

Commission proposes to amend the rule

to require that a motion for an extension

of time be filed no later than three days

prior to the expiration of the time

allowed for the filing or serving of the

document, and to allow the motion and

any opposition of the motion to be filed

and served by facsimile transmission. In

addition, in accordance with the

proposed revisions to § 2700.10, the

moving party must confer or make

reasonable efforts to confer with other

parties and shall state in the motion for

a time extension, whether any other

party opposes or does not oppose the

motion. Finally, in accordance with the

proposed revisions to § 2700.10, the

Commission may decide that

circumstances warrant ruling on the

motion prior to the expiration of the

time for a response.

Paragraph (b) adds a provision

allowing the Commission to grant a
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88/Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25185

motion for an extension of time in

exigent circumstances, even though the

request was filed late. In such

circumstances, the moving party must

show, in writing, the reasons for the

party’s failure to timely file the request.

Section 2700.10 Motions.

Currently, § 2700.10 does not require

that a moving party confer with parties

to ascertain whether there is opposition

to the motion, or to inform the

Commission of any opposition or lack of

opposition. As a result, before the

Commission disposes of a procedural

motion, it must wait for the expiration

of the time period for filing a statement

in opposition. For some motions

requiring prompt or immediate

disposition, the Commission must

contact other parties or, if such parties

are unavailable, dispose of the motion

without a response. In order to more

efficiently and fairly dispose of such

motions, the Commission proposes to

amend the rule to require a moving

party, prior to filing a procedural

motion, to confer or make reasonable

efforts to confer with the other parties

and to state in the motion if any other

party opposes or does not oppose the

motion. In addition, the Commission

would add the provision that, where

circumstances warrant, a motion may be

ruled upon prior to the expiration of the

time for response, and that a party

adversely affected by the ruling may

seek reconsideration.

Complaints of Discharge,

Discrimination or Interference

Section 2700.45 Temporary

reinstatement proceedings.

As currently written, § 2700.45(f) does

not differentiate between petitions for

review filed pursuant to § 2700.70 and

petitions for review of judges’ temporary

reinstatement decisions. The two types

of appeals are, however, procedurally

distinct. To highlight this distinction,

the Commission proposes to amend the

rule to require that petitions filed under

§ 2700.45(f) be captioned ‘‘Petition for

Review of Temporary Reinstatement

Order.’’

Under section 105(c)(2) of the Mine

Act, the Commission is directed to

expedite temporary reinstatement

proceedings. 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(2). In

furtherance of this directive, the

Commission proposes to amend

§ 2700.45(f) as follows: (1) To allow any

pleadings in a temporary reinstatement

proceeding to be filed and served by

facsimile transmission; (2) to provide

that the filing of a petition for review of

a temporary reinstatement order is

effective upon receipt; (3) to require that

any response to a petition must be filed

within 5 days following service of the

petition, rather than 5 days following

receipt of the petition, as the rule

currently provides; and (4) to clarify

that the Commission’s ruling on a

petition shall be based on the petition

and any response, and that any further

briefing will be entertained only at the

express direction of the Commission.

Proposed § 2700.45(f) also clarifies that

the petition shall include proof of

service on all parties by a means of

delivery no less expeditious than that

used for filing the petition. The

proposed revision allowing pleadings

filed under § 2700.45(f) to be served by

facsimile transmission is also reflected

in proposed § 2700.45(a).

Current § 2700.8, which the

Commission does not propose to revise,

applies to proposed § 2700.45(f), as well

as other sections. Accordingly, if a

petition for review of a temporary

reinstatement order is served by mail,

under current § 2700.8, 5 days would be

added to the time allowed by proposed

§ 2700.45(f) for the filing of any

response to the petition. Presently, a petition for review under

§ 2700.45(f) does not stay the effect of a

judge’s temporary reinstatement order.

Although operators have moved to stay

the effect of the order when filing a

petition, in Secretary of Labor on behalf

of Bowling v. Perry Transport, Inc., 15

FMSHRC 196 (February 1993), the

Commission, in denying such a motion,

stated that ‘‘[a]bsent some extraordinary

circumstance, yet to be advanced, the

granting of such a motion would

eviscerate the temporary reinstatement

provision of the Mine Act.’’ Id. at 198.

The Commission proposes to codify this

holding of Perry Transport by explicitly

providing in § 2700.45(f) that the

Commission will grant a motion to stay

the effect of a temporary reinstatement

order only under extraordinary

circumstances.

Review by the Commission

Section 2700.70 Petitions for

discretionary review.

Paragraph (a) has been revised to

clarify that procedures governing

petitions for review of temporary

reinstatement orders may be found in

proposed § 2700.45(f). In addition,

paragraph (d) adds a 35-page limit for

petitions for discretionary review.

Under the present rule, there is no page

number limitation for petitions for

discretionary review. In order to

promote brevity and concision in

pleading, the Commission would set a

page limit for petitions for discretionary

review identical to the page limit for a

petitioner’s opening brief. Consistent

with proposed changes to § 2700.75, the

Commission also proposes revising

§ 2700.70(d) to institute a deadline for

filing a motion requesting an extension

of the 35-page limit, and to provide that

an extension in page limit will be

permitted by the Commission for good

cause shown.

Section 2700.75 Briefs.

Under the present rule, a motion for

an extension of time to file a brief must

be filed within the time limit prescribed

for filing the brief. The Commission

would revise § 2700.75 to require that

such motions comply with the proposed

revisions to § 2700.9. See proposed

§ 2700.75(d).

In addition, the Commission would

revise § 2700.75 to institute a deadline

for filing a motion requesting an

extension of page limit for a brief. See

proposed § 2700.75(f). The Commission

often receives a motion requesting an

extension of page limit and an attached

brief that exceeds the page limit on, or

shortly before, the date that the brief is

due to be filed. In such instances, the

Commission must contact other parties

to determine whether the motion is

opposed or, if such parties are

unavailable, dispose of the motion

without a response. If the Commission

were to deny the motion, the filing party

would have little time, if any, to file

another brief that conforms to the page

limit. In order to avoid this harsh result,

the Commission on occasion has been

effectively denied an opportunity to

give full consideration to whether a

page extension is necessary and, if so,

the amount that the limit should be

exceeded. Therefore, the Commission

proposes to amend the rule by requiring

that a motion requesting an extension of

page limit: (1) Be filed not less than 10

days prior to the date that the brief is

due to be filed; (2) state the approximate

length of the extension required; and (3)

comply with the requirements of

proposed section 2700.10, including the

requirement that a motion state whether

any other party opposes or does not

oppose the motion. Finally, the

Commission would revise § 2700.75(c)

to specify that an extension in page

limit will be permitted by the

Commission for good cause shown.

Section 2700.76 Interlocutory review.

Paragraph (a) has been revised to

clarify that procedures governing

petitions for review of temporary

reinstatement orders may be found in

proposed § 2700.45(f).

Matters of Regulatory Procedure

The Commission has determined that

these rules are not subject to Office of
25186 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88/Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Management and Budget Review under

Executive Order 12866.

The Commission has determined

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601–612) that these rules, if

adopted, would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Therefore, a

Regulatory Flexibility Statement and

Analysis has not been prepared.

The Commission has determined that

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) does not apply because

these rules do not contain any

information collection requirements that

require the approval of the Office of

Management and Budget.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2700

Administrative practice and

procedure, Ex parte communications,

Lawyers, Penalties.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, it is proposed to amend 29

CFR part 2700 as follows:

PART 2700—PROCEDURAL RULES

1. The authority citation for part 2700

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 815 and 823.

2. Section 2700.5 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read

as follows:

§ 2700.5 General requirements for

pleadings and other documents; status or

informational requests.

* * * * *

(c) Necessary information. All

documents shall be legible and shall

clearly identify on the cover page the

filing party by name. All documents

shall be dated and shall include the

assigned docket number, page numbers,

and the filing person’s address and

telephone number. Written notice of any

change in address or telephone number

shall be given promptly to the

Commission or the Judge and all other

parties.

(d) Manner and date of filing. A

notice of contest of a citation or order,

a petition for assessment of penalty, a

complaint for compensation, a

complaint of discharge, discrimination

or interference, an application for

temporary reinstatement, and an

application for temporary relief shall be

filed by personal delivery, including

courier service, or by registered or

certified mail, return receipt requested.

All subsequent documents that are filed

with a Judge or the Commission may be

filed by first class mail, including

express mail, or by personal delivery.

When filing is by personal delivery,

filing is effective upon receipt. When

filing is by mail, filing is effective upon

mailing, except that the filing of a

petition for discretionary review, a

petition for review of a temporary

reinstatement order, and a motion for

extension of time is effective upon

receipt. See §§ 2700.9, 2700.45(f), and

2700.70. Filing by facsimile

transmission is permissible only when

specifically permitted by these rules

(see §§ 2700.9, 2700.45(f), 2700.52 and

2700.70), or when otherwise allowed by

a Judge or the Commission. Filing by

facsimile transmission is effective upon

receipt.

* * * * *

3. Section 2700.7 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 2700.7 Service.

* * * * *

(c) Methods of service. A notice of

contest of a citation or order, a proposed

penalty assessment, a petition for

assessment of penalty, a complaint for

compensation, a complaint of discharge,

discrimination or interference, an

application for temporary reinstatement,

and an application for temporary relief

shall be served by personal delivery,

including courier service, or by

registered or certified mail, return

receipt requested. All subsequent papers

may be served by personal delivery or

by first class mail, including express

mail service, except as specified in

§§ 2700.9 and 2700.45 (extensions of

time and temporary reinstatement

proceedings). Service by mail, including

first class, express, or registered or

certified mail, return receipt requested,

is effective upon mailing. Service by

personal delivery is effective upon

receipt. When filing by facsimile

transmission (see § 2700.5(d)), the filing

party must also serve by facsimile

transmission or by a means as

expeditious as facsimile. Service by

facsimile transmission is effective upon

receipt.

* * * * *

4. Section 2700.9 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 2700.9 Extensions of time.

(a) The time for filing or serving any

document may be extended for good

cause shown. Filing of a motion

requesting an extension of time,

including a facsimile transmission, is

effective upon receipt. A motion

requesting an extension of time shall be

received no later than 3 days prior to the

expiration of the time allowed for the

filing or serving of the document, and

shall comply with § 2700.10. The

motion shall include proof of service on

all parties by a means of delivery no less

expeditious than that used for filing the

motion. A motion requesting an

extension of time and a statement in

opposition to such a motion may be

filed and served by facsimile.

(b) In exigent circumstances, an

extension of time may be granted even

though the request was filed after the

designated time for filing has expired. In

such circumstances, the party

requesting the extension must show, in

writing, the reasons for the party’s

failure to make the request before the

time prescribed for the filing had

expired.

5. Section 2700.10 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (c) as (d),

revising newly redesignated paragraph

(d) and by adding a new paragraph (c)

to read as follows:

§ 2700.10 Motions.

* * * * *

(c) Prior to filing a procedural motion,

the moving party shall confer or make

reasonable efforts to confer with the

other parties and shall state in the

motion if any other party opposes or

does not oppose the motion.

(d) A statement in opposition to a

written motion may be filed by any

party within 10 days after service upon

the party. Unless otherwise ordered,

oral argument on motions will not be

heard. Where circumstances warrant, a

motion may be ruled upon prior to the

expiration of the time for response; a

party adversely affected by the ruling

may seek reconsideration.

6. Section 2700.45 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (f) to read as

follows:

§ 2700.45 Temporary reinstatement

proceedings.

(a) Service of pleadings. A copy of

each document filed with the

Commission in a temporary

reinstatement proceeding shall be

served on all parties by personal

delivery, including courier service, by

certified or registered mail, return

receipt requested or, as specified in

paragraph (f) of this section, by

facsimile transmission.

* * * * *

(f) Review of order. Review by the

Commission of a Judge’s written order

granting or denying an application for

temporary reinstatement may be sought

by filing with the Commission a

petition, which shall be captioned

‘‘Petition for Review of Temporary

Reinstatement Order,’’ with supporting

arguments, within 5 days following

receipt of the Judge’s written order. The

filing of any such petition is effective

upon receipt. The petition shall include

proof of service on all parties by a

means of delivery no less expeditious

than that used for filing the petition.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88/Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25187

The filing and service of any pleadings

under this rule may be made by

facsimile transmission. The filing of a

petition shall not stay the effect of the

Judge’s order unless the Commission so

directs; a motion for such a stay will be

granted only under extraordinary

circumstances. Any response shall be

filed within 5 days following service of

a petition. The Commission’s ruling on

a petition shall be made on the basis of

the petition and any response (any

further briefs will be entertained only at

the express direction of the

Commission), and shall be rendered

within 10 days following receipt of any

response or the expiration of the period

for filing such response. In

extraordinary circumstances, the

Commission’s time for decision may be

extended.

* * * * *

7. Section 2700.70 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read

as follows:

§ 2700.70 Petitions for discretionary

review.

(a) Procedure. Any person adversely

affected or aggrieved by a Judge’s

decision or order may file with the

Commission a petition for discretionary

review within 30 days after issuance of

the decision or order. Filing of a petition

for discretionary review, including a

facsimile transmission, is effective upon

receipt. Two or more parties may join in

the same petition; the Commission may

consolidate related petitions.

Procedures governing petitions for

review of temporary reinstatement

orders are found at § 2700.45(f).

* * * * *

(d) Requirements. Each issue shall be

separately numbered and plainly and

concisely stated, and shall be supported

by detailed citations to the record, when

assignments of error are based on the

record, and by statutes, regulations, or

other principal authorities relied upon.

Except by permission of the

Commission and for good cause shown,

petitions for discretionary review shall

not exceed 35 pages. A motion

requesting an extension of the page limit

shall be filed not less than 10 days prior

to the date the petition for discretionary

review is due to be filed, shall state the

approximate length of the extension

required, and shall comply with

§ 2700.10. Except for good cause shown,

no assignment of error by any party

shall rely on any question of fact or law

upon which the Judge had not been

afforded an opportunity to pass.

* * * * *

8. Section 2700.75 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c) and (d), by

redesignating paragraph (f) as (g), and by

adding a new paragraph (f) to read as

follows:

§ 2700.75 Briefs.

* * * * *

(c) Length of brief. Except by

permission of the Commission and for

good cause shown, opening briefs shall

not exceed 35 pages, response briefs

shall not exceed 25 pages, and reply

briefs shall not exceed 15 pages. A brief

of an amicus curiae shall not exceed 25

pages. A brief of an intervenor shall not

exceed the page limitation applicable to

the party whose position it supports in

affirming or reversing the Judge, or if a

different position is taken, such brief

shall not exceed 25 pages. Tables of

contents or authorities shall not be

counted against the length of a brief.

(d) Motion for extension of time. A

motion for an extension of time to file

a brief shall comply with § 2700.9. The

Commission may decline to accept a

brief that is not timely filed.

* * * * *

(f) Motion for extension of page limit.

A motion requesting an extension of the

page limit for a brief shall be filed not

less than 10 days prior to the date the

brief is due to be filed, shall state the

approximate length of the extension

required, and shall comply with

§ 2700.10.

* * * * *

9. Section 2700.76 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 2700.76 Interlocutory review.

(a) Procedure. Interlocutory review by

the Commission shall not be a matter of

right but of the sound discretion of the

Commission. Procedures governing

petitions for review of temporary

reinstatement orders are found at

§ 2700.45(f).

* * * * *

Mary Lu Jordan,

Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and Health

Review Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–12157 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6735–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Parts 218, 250, and 256

RIN 1010–AC32

Postlease Operations Safety

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Extension of comment period

for proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This notice extends to July 17,

1998, the deadline for submitting

comments on the proposed rule on

Postlease Operations Safety.

DATES: We will consider all comments

received by July 17, 1998, and we may

not fully consider comments received

after July 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry written

comments (three copies) to the

Department of the Interior; Minerals

Management Service; 381 Elden Street;

Mail Stop 4024; Herndon, Virginia

20170–4817; Attention: Rules

Processing Team.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kumkum Ray, Engineering and

Operations Division, at (703) 787–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MMS was

asked to extend the deadline for

submitting comments on the proposed

Postlease Operations Safety rule

published on February 13, 1998 (63 FR

7335) and the correction to the proposed

rule published on March 9, 1998 (63 FR

11385). The request explains that the

proposed rule has a number of

important changes that require careful

consideration for comprehensive

comments. Because the proposed rule

was rewritten in ‘‘plain English’’ and

sections, paragraphs, and sentences do

not have the same order and numbering

sequence as the current regulations in

30 CFR part 250, subpart A, additional

time was requested to sort out the

proposed rule for comparison.

Dated: May 1, 1998.

E. P. Danenberger,

Chief, Engineering and Operations Division.

[FR Doc. 98–12057 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD07–98–024]

RIN 2115–AE46

Special Local Regulations; Deerfield

Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing

to establish permanent special local

regulations for the Annual Deerfield

Beach Super Boat Grand Prix powerboat

race. This event will be held annually

offshore Deerfield Beach on the third

Sunday of July, between 12:30 p.m. and

4 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

These regulations are necessary to