Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21899

Economic Impact

There are approximately 564 engines

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 180

engines installed on airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 0.5 work hour per engine

to accomplish the proposed actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Required aft cooling plates

would cost approximately $15,282 per

engine. Based on these figures, the total

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $2,756,160.

The manufacturer has stated that it may

provide the new design aft cooling plate

at no cost to operators, and that if the

aft cooling plate is replaced at the next

engine or hot section module overhaul

shop visit, no additional labor costs will

be incurred.

Regulatory Impact

This proposed rule does not have

federalism implications, as defined in

Executive Order 13132, because it

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.

Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted

with state authorities prior to

publication of this proposed rule.

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

GE Aircraft Engines: Docket No. 2000–NE–

61–AD.

Applicability: This airworthiness directive

(AD) is applicable to GE Aircraft Engines

(GE) CT7 Models CT7–5A2, –5A3, –7A, and

–7A1 turboprop engines, installed on but not

limited to Construcciones Aeronauticas, SA

CN–235 series and SAAB Aircraft AB SF340

series airplanes.

Note 1: This AD applies to each engine

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

engines 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 (c) 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

Compliance is required at the next overall

of the engine or hot section module, or

within 8,000 cycles after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs first, unless

already done.

To prevent stage 2 turbine aft cooling plate

cracking, which could result in an

uncontained engine failure and damage to

the airplane, do the following:

(a) Replace stage 2 aft cooling plate

P/N 6064T07P02 with stage 2 aft cooling

plate P/N 6064T07P05.

(b) After the effective date of this AD, do

not install any stage 2 aft cooling plate P/N

6064T07P02.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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, Engine

Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall

submit their request through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, ECO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the ECO.

Special Flight Permits

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance §§ 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 Burlington, Massachusetts, on

April 24, 2001.

Donald E. Plouffe,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10889 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 164

[USCG–2001–8826]

RIN 2115–AG09

Electronic Chart Display and

Information Systems for Commercial

Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

amend its regulations to allow

commercial vessels to use as their

primary means of navigation in U.S.

waters an electronic charting and

navigation system that meets the

Electronic Charting Display and

Information System (ECDIS) standard of

the International Maritime Organization

(IMO). Allowing commercial vessels to

use modern electronic charting

technology may reduce the potential for

human error by providing a continuous

update of a vessel’s position for the

mariner. To obtain information needed

to amend this rule, the Coast Guard asks

for comments from the public on the

questions listed in this document.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before July 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your

comments and related material are not

entered more than once in the docket,

please submit them by only one of the

following means:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility (USCG 2001–8826), U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

(2) By delivery to room PL–401 on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is (202) 366–

9329.

(3) By fax to the Docket Management

Facility at (202) 493–2251.

21900 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the Docket Management System

at http://dms.dot.gov.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble

as being available in the docket, will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at

room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street

SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. You may also

find this docket on the Internet at

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on this proposed rule, contact

David Beach, Office of Vessel Traffic

Management, Coast Guard, telephone

202–267–6623. For questions on

viewing or submitting material to the

docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief,

Dockets, Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related material. If you

do so, please include your name and

address and identify the docket number

for this rulemaking (USCG 2001–8826).

Please indicate the specific section of

this document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. You may submit your

comments and material by mail, hand

delivery, fax, or electronic means to the

Docket Management Facility at the

address under ADDRESSES; but please

submit your comments and material by

only one means. If you submit them by

mail or hand delivery, submit them in

an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2

by 11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. If you submit them by

mail and would like to know they

reached the Facility, please enclose a

stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope. We will consider all

comments and material received during

the comment period. The Coast Guard

may change this proposed rule in view

of the comments received.

Public Meeting

As of now, the Coast Guard does not

plan to hold a public meeting. But you

may submit a request for a public

meeting to the Docket Management

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be

beneficial. If we determine that a public

meeting would aid this rulemaking, we

will hold one at a time and place

announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

Currently, self-propelled vessels 1600

gross tons and over (with some

exceptions) are required to use printed

charts and publications and manually

plot their position while navigating in

U.S. waters. The existing regulations

require a vessel to maintain current

paper charts and publications for the

area to be transited. Paper charts and

publications requiring labor-intensive

corrections cannot be updated as

expediently as an electronic charting

system. Rapid improvements in

electronic technology and

communications may offer viable

options to replace these traditional

methods and tools of navigation.

Existing computer applications can

eliminate paper documents and reduce

the time needed to obtain updated

navigation information. Today,

computer technology can instantly

assimilate data from multiple satellite

sources and allow continuous

information updates to a vessel’s

navigation and positioning. The Coast

Guard realizes that updating or

correcting printed navigation material

(i.e. charts and publications) requires a

considerable expenditure of time and

effort for the commercial shipping

industry.

The International Maritime

Organization (IMO) has adopted

Electronic Charting Display Information

Systems (ECDIS) standards for vessels

on international voyages, and electronic

charting systems are commercially

available for even the smallest vessels.

The Coast Guard is considering the

feasibility of allowing commercial

vessels the option to use ECDIS as their

primary means of navigation in the

navigable waters of the United States.

Under a separate rulemaking, the

Coast Guard is publishing a Direct Final

Rule allowing public vessels to use

electronic charting and navigation

systems as their primary means of

navigation while transiting in the

navigable waters of the United States.

The Coast Guard is also planning to

conduct an operational evaluation of

certain electronic charting and

navigation systems that are

commercially available. This evaluation

will assist the Coast Guard in

determining if there are other charting

and navigation systems incorporating

electronic technology that are

functionally equivalent to those

required by IMO. If there are

functionally equivalent systems that do

not meet all of the IMO ECDIS

requirements, the Coast Guard may

attempt to readdress IMO acceptance of

these systems at a later date.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

The Coast Guard is considering

amending existing regulations to allow

commercial vessels to use an IMO

compliant ECDIS as their primary

means of navigation in the navigable

waters of the United States. Commercial

vessels using an ECDIS that meets the

IMO standard will have the option to be

exempt from the paper chart

requirement listed in 33 CFR 164.30 and

the requirement for printed navigational

publications found in 33 CFR 164.33.

Vessels that choose to operate without

an IMO compliant ECDIS would

continue to navigate using corrected and

up to date printed charts and

publications in accordance with

applicable regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office

of Management and Budget under this

Order has not reviewed the rule. It is not

‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory

policies and procedures of the

Department of Transportation (DOT)(44

FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The Coast

Guard expects the economic impact of

this rule to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph

10e of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Coast Guard

must considered whether this proposed

rule would have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’

comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are

independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

Presently, the impact of the proposed

rulemaking would have on small

entities has not been determined. Any

impact on small entities will be assessed

in a preliminary Regulatory Flexibility

Assessment. If you think that your

business, organization, or governmental

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity

and that this rule would have a

significant economic impact on it,

please submit a comment to the Docket

Management Facility at the address

under ADDRESSES. In your comment

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21901

explain how you think it qualifies and

how and to what degree this rule would

economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),

the Coast Guard would assist small

entities in understanding this proposed

rule so that they can better evaluate its

effects on them and participate in the

rulemaking. The proposed rulemaking

would provide small businesses or

organizations an opportunity to

comment and will provide a point of

contact for any questions on the

proposed rulemaking’s provisions and

its options for compliance. The Coast

Guard will provide State’s Small

Business Development Centers (SBDC)

with copies of the proposed rulemaking

for further distribution. Small

businesses may send comments on the

actions of Federal employees who

enforce, or otherwise determine

compliance with, Federal Regulations to

the Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions

annually and rates each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).

Collection of Information

This proposed rule does not provide

for a collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. et seq.).

Questions

The Coast Guard requests your

comments and any data or information

that would answer the following

questions, as well as comments on any

other part of the current regulations that

should be revised. In responding to a

question, please explain your reasons

for each answer so that we can carefully

weigh the consequences and impact of

any future requirements we may

propose. In addition, please provide

relevant data (data on operational

incidents resulting in personal injury,

property damage, or pollution would be

particularly useful), if possible that

would support the need for excluding

commercial vessels from certain

requirements regarding the carriage of

paper navigational charts, and

publications.

Usage

1. Should ECDIS systems be allowed

as an alternative to paper charts for

commercial vessels?

2. Which categories of self-propelled

vessels (1600 or more gross tons) will

install the optional ECDIS system as

defined by IMO, as an alternative for the

paper charts required by 33 CFR part

164?

3. How many self-propelled vessels of

less than 1600 gross tons may install an

ECDIS system?

4. If you are planning to install ECDIS,

what factors led you to this decision?

5. If you are not planning to install

ECDIS, what factors led you to this

decision?

6. Are you considering ECDIS as a

stand-alone unit, or as part of an

Integrated Bridge System?

Costs

1. What is the cost for an ECDIS

system (software/hardware)?

2. How much would you estimate it

would cost to have an ECDIS system

installed on your vessel?

3. Once the ECDIS system is installed,

what kind of maintenance would the

system need?

4. How much does the maintenance of

the system cost and how often (annual,

quarterly, monthly) would it need to be

conducted?

5. What is the average operational life

of the ECDIS system? Is there a

projected time when the system should

be replaced?

6. What does it cost to update

electronic charts? How is the update

information provided? How often is the

update information provided?

7. How does the electronic chart

service compare to your current service

for paper charts?

8. What are the economic benefits to

a company that would use ECDIS

instead of existing paper charts? What

other potential benefits can be provided

by the use of ECDIS?

9. Are there other electronic charting

and navigational systems that should be

considered?

10. How many paper charts are

purchased on average per year? How

much do the charts cost? How much

does it cost to have the paper charts

updated and how often are they updated

(annually, quarterly, monthly)?

Operations

1. What kind of training would be

required to use an ECDIS system?

2. What would be the estimated time

period for the training and what are the

involved costs?

3. Who would be responsible for

conducting the training?

4. What are the potential benefits of

using an ECDIS system in lieu of paper

charts on board a vessel?

5. IMO requires an acceptable backup

for ECDIS systems. What is an

acceptable backup system (A second,

independent ECDIS system, an

electronic charting system, manually

updated and corrected paper charts)? If

paper, how many charts and what scale

do you recommend?

6. Which electronic navigation system

components need to be backed up (i.e.

power, positioning, communications)?

7. What means does an ECDIS use to

provide voyage reconstruction for the

purpose of marine casualty investigation

and how long does the system retain

this data?

8. Are there mediums to share and

display this data?

9. Can ECDIS display charts and the

navigation publications simultaneously?

Miscellaneous

1. Should we allow electronic

versions of publications as well as

charts?

2. How would any proposed

regulation affect small entities?

Comments are not limited to the

preceding questions and are invited on

any aspect of this proposal or of

implementing the electronic charting

and navigation requirements for

commercial vessels.

Dated: March 23, 2001.

R.C. North,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 01–10835 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 153–0195b; FRL–6958–2]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, Butte County Air

Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve

revisions to the Butte County Air

Quality Management District

(BCAQMD) State Implementation Plan

(SIP) which concern the permitting of

stationary sources of air emissions. We

are proposing to approve local rules to

regulate these emission sources under

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act).