1612 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

view B of Figure 4 of the service bulletin:

Before further flight, do the actions specified

by either paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this

AD.

(i) Do a temporary repair per the applicable

service bulletin. Within 3,000 flight cycles

thereafter, do a permanent repair per the

applicable service bulletin. Within 32,000

flight cycles thereafter, except as required by

paragraph (b) of this AD, repeat the

inspection specified by paragraph (a) of this

AD.

(ii) Do a permanent repair per the

applicable service bulletin. Within 32,000

flight cycles thereafter, except as required by

paragraph (b) of this AD, repeat the

inspection specified by paragraph (a) of this

AD.

(3) If any cracking is in ‘‘area B,’’ or in both

‘‘area A’’ and ‘‘area B’’; as depicted in view

B of Figure 4 of the service bulletin: Before

further flight, do a permanent repair per the

applicable service bulletin. Within 32,000

flight cycles thereafter, except as required by

paragraph (b) of this AD, repeat the

inspection specified by paragraph (a) of this

AD.

(b) If the service bulletin specifies to

contact Airbus for further instructions for a

repair or inspection: Prior to further flight,

perform a repair or inspection per a method

approved by the Manager, International

Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate. For a repair or inspection

method to be approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, as required

by this paragraph, the Manager’s approval

letter must specifically reference this AD.

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,

International Branch, ANM–116. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 2000–263–

314(B), dated June 28, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

3, 2001.

Dorenda D. Baker,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–510 Filed 1–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–86–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300 B2 and A300 B4 Series Airplanes,

and Model A300 B4–600, A300 B4–

600R, and A300 F4–600R (A300–600)

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4

series airplanes, and all A300 B4–600,

A300 B4–600R, and A300 F4–600R

(A300–600) series airplanes. For certain

airplanes, this proposal would require

modifying the frame 40 aft fittings. For

all airplanes, this proposal would

require repetitive nondestructive test

inspections to detect cracking of the

frame 40 aft fittings; a modification

would be required as corrective action

for cracking or provided as optional

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections. This proposal is prompted

by issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to detect and correct

propagation of cracks on the frame 40

aft fittings due to local stress

concentrations at the frame 40 upper

flange runout, which could result in

reduced structural integrity of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

86–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

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 shall

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 action may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue;

e.g., discuss a request to change a

compliance time and a request to

change a service bulletin reference as

two issues.

• For each issue, state the specific

change requested to the proposed AD.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

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

summarizing 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 action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number ++.’’ The postcard will

be date stamped and returned to the

commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

99–NM–86–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1613

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on all Airbus Model

A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes,

and all Model A300 B4–600, A300 B4–

600R, and A300 F4–600R (A300–600)

series airplanes. The DGAC reports that

cracks have been found on the frame 40

aft fittings at stringer 33 on the left and

right sides of the fuselage. The cracks

were caused by a local stress

concentration at the frame 40 upper

flange runout. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in reduced

structural integrity of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued the following

service bulletins:

Model Service bulletin Revision level Date

A300 ............................................................................................................................ A300–53–0296 01

02

Sep. 30, 1998.

May 12, 1999.

A300–600 .................................................................................................................... A300–53–6048 01

03

Sep. 30, 1998.

Feb. 21, 2000.

A300 ............................................................................................................................ A300–53–0268 4 Aug. 16, 1995.

A300–600 .................................................................................................................... A300–57–6052 02 April 4, 1997.

A300 ............................................................................................................................ A300–53–0297 2 Oct. 31, 1995.

A300–600 .................................................................................................................... A300–57–6053 1

02

Oct. 31, 1995.

June 2, 1999.

Service Bulletins A300–53–0296 and

A300–53–6048 describe procedures for

modification of the frame 40 aft fittings

on certain airplanes, and repetitive

nondestructive test inspections to detect

cracking of the frame 40 aft fittings on

all airplanes. Corrective actions for

cracking involve trimming the front spar

angle and vertical stiffener; drilling,

reaming, and spotfacing attachment

holes; installing a new frame 40 aft

fitting and pick-up angles; and

inspecting (by a detailed visual, high

frequency eddy current, or liquid

penetrant method) to detect cracking of

the frame 40 forward fittings.

Those service bulletins refer to

Service Bulletins A300–53–0268 and

A300–57–6052 as additional sources of

service information for corrective

actions if cracking is found in the frame

40 aft fitting. Service Bulletins A300–

53–0268 and A300–57–6052 describe

procedures for, among other things, an

inspection (detailed visual, eddy

current, or liquid penetrant) to detect

cracking of the forward fitting at frame

40.

Service Bulletins A300–53–0296 and

A300–53–6048 also refer to Service

Bulletins A300–53–0297 and A300–57–

6053 as additional sources of service

information to modify the aft angle

fittings at frame 40. The modification

involves replacing the angle fittings

with new larger fittings. The service

bulletins recommend the modification

to repair cracked fittings and eliminate

the need for the repetitive inspections.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletins

described above is intended to

adequately address the identified unsafe

condition. The DGAC classified Airbus

Service Bulletins A300–53–0296 and

A300–53–6048 as mandatory, and

issued French airworthiness directive

1998–481–270(B) R1, dated July 12,

2000, to ensure the continued

airworthiness of these airplanes in

France.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France and are type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of section

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.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletins described

previously, except as discussed below.

For airplanes on which no cracking is

found, this proposed AD would also

provide for optional terminating action

for the repetitive inspections. Operators

should note that, to be consistent with

the findings of the DGAC, the FAA has

determined that the repetitive

inspections proposed by this AD can be

allowed to continue in lieu of

accomplishment of a terminating action.

In making this determination, the FAA

considers that, in this case, long-term

continued operational safety will be

adequately ensured by accomplishing

the repetitive inspections to detect

cracking before it represents a hazard to

the airplane.

Differences Between Proposed AD and

Relevant Service Information

Operators should note that the service

bulletins provide a method of

adjustment of the inspection thresholds

and intervals, relative to average flight

times, of various groups of airplanes.

The service bulletins provide a

complicated method of determining the

thresholds and intervals for various

groups of airplanes. The FAA has

determined that it would be difficult to

enforce the implementation of that

method for determining the compliance

times. Therefore, this proposed AD does

not provide for adjustments to the

compliance times to accommodate

average flight times that vary among

operators. The FAA has established a

single threshold and interval for each

identified group of airplanes. In

developing appropriate compliance

times for this AD, the FAA considered

not only the manufacturer’s method for

determining the compliance times, but

the degree of urgency associated with

addressing the subject unsafe condition

and the average utilization of the

affected fleet. The compliance times in

this proposed AD are derived from the

average flight times for affected

airplanes as follows:

Model

Average flight

time

(in minutes)

A300 B2 series ................... 65

A300 B4–100 series ........... 80

A300 B4–200 series ........... 125

A300–600 series ................. 125

In light of these factors, the FAA finds

the proposed thresholds and intervals to

be warranted, in that they represent

appropriate intervals of time for affected

1614 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

airplanes to continue to operate without

compromising safety. However, the

provisions of paragraph (e) of this

proposed AD would enable the FAA to

approve requests for adjustments to the

compliance time if data are submitted

that substantiate an acceptable level of

safety provided by such an adjustment.

Operators should further note that,

unlike the procedures described in

Airbus Service Bulletins A300–57–6052

and A300–53–0268, this proposed AD

would not permit further flight if

cracking is detected in the frame 40

forward fitting. The FAA has

determined that, because of the safety

implications and consequences

associated with such cracking, any

cracked subject fitting must be repaired

or modified before further flight.

In addition, although the service

bulletins specify that the manufacturer

may be contacted for disposition of

certain repair conditions, this proposal

would require that those conditions be

repaired in accordance with a method

approved by either the FAA or the

DGAC (or its delegated agent). In light

of the type of repair that would be

required to address the identified unsafe

condition, and, in consonance with

existing bilateral airworthiness

agreements, the FAA has determined

that, for this proposed AD, a repair

approved by either the FAA or the

DGAC would be acceptable for

compliance with this proposed AD.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 70 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

For affected airplanes, it would take

approximately 92 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

modification, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost as much as $874 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the proposed modification is

estimated to be as much as $6,394 per

airplane.

It would take approximately 10 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

proposed inspection, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed inspection on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $42,000, or $600 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted. The cost

impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as planning time,

time required to gain access and close

up, or time necessitated by other

administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 99–NM–86–AD.

Applicability: All Model A300 B2 and

A300 B4 series airplanes, and Model A300

B4–600, A300 B4–600R, and A300 F4–600R

(A300–600) series airplanes; 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 (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 detect and correct propagation of cracks

on the frame 40 aft fittings due to local stress

concentrations at the upper flange runout of

frame 40, which could result in reduced

structural integrity of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

Modification

(a) For airplanes on which Airbus

Modification 10430 has not been done before

the effective date of this AD: When you do

the inspection required by paragraph (b) of

this AD, modify the profile of frame 40 aft

fittings per the service information specified

in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1 is as follows:

TABLE 1.—SERVICE INFORMATION FOR MODIFICATION AND INSPECTION

Model Service Bulletin Revision level Date

A300 ........................................................................ A300–53–0296 Revision 01 .............................................................

Or Revision 02 ........................................................

Sept. 30, 1998.

May 12, 1999.

A300–600 ................................................................ A300–53–6048 Revision 01 .............................................................

Or Revision 03 ........................................................

Sept. 30, 1998.

Feb. 21, 2000

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1615

Note 2: Modification per Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6048, Revision 02, dated May 12, 1999, is acceptable for compliance

with paragraph (a) of this AD for Model A300–600 series airplanes.

Inspection

(b) For all airplanes, inspect the airplane per Table 2 of this AD, as follows:

TABLE 2.—INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

Requirements Description

(1) Area to inspect .................................................................................... The frame 40 aft fitting.

(2) Type of inspection ............................................................................... Nondestructive test (NDT).

(3) Compliance time ................................................................................. As specified by paragraph (c) of this AD.

(4) Discrepancies to detect ...................................................................... Cracking.

(5) Required service information .............................................................. As specified by Table 1 of this AD.

(6) Follow-on actions if you find no cracking ........................................... Repeat the inspection thereafter at the intervals specified by Table 3 of

this AD.

(7) Corrective actions if you find cracking ................................................ Do the actions specified by paragraph (d) of this AD.

(8) Terminating action .............................................................................. Paragraph (d) terminates paragraph (b) of this AD.

Note 3: A nondestructive test (NDT) per Part 6 53–15–30 procedure C of the NDT manual, is also acceptable for compliance

with paragraph (b) of this AD.

Note 4: Accomplishment of an inspection per Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6048, Revision 02, dated May 12, 1999, is acceptable

for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD for Model A300–600 series airplanes.

(c) Perform the inspection of paragraph (b) of this AD per the schedule in Table 3, as follows:

TABLE 3.—COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS FOR INSPECTION

For model . . . If the total flight cycles accumulated

on the airplane is . . . Then inspect . . . And repeat the inspection at least every . . .

A300–600 series airplanes, pre-Modification 10430S20428.Fewer than 6,200 ............................... Before the airplane accumulates

7,700 total flight cycles.

7,500 flight cycles.

At least 6,200 and fewer than 9,700 .. Within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

At least 9,700 ..................................... Within 750 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

A300–600 series airplanes, post-Modification 10430S20428.Fewer than 19,600 ............................. Before the airplane accumulates

21,100 total flight cycles.

7,500 flight cycles.

At least 19,600 and fewer than

23,100.

Within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

At least 23,100 ................................... Within 750 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

A300 B2 series airplanes .................... Fewer than 12,000 ............................. Before the airplane accumulates

14,000 total flight cycles.

5,500 flight cycles.

At least 12,000 and fewer than

17,000.

Within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

At least 17,000 ................................... Within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

A300 B4–100 series airplanes ............ Fewer than 9,500 ............................... Before the airplane accumulates

11,500 total flight cycles.

4,500 flight cycles.

At least 9,500 and fewer than 14,500 Within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

At least 14,500 ................................... Within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

A300 B4–200 series airplanes ............ Fewer than 8,500 ............................... Before the airplane accumulates

10,500 total flight cycles.

4,000 flight cycles.

At least 8,500 and fewer than 13,500 Within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

At least 13,500 ................................... Within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

Note 5: An NDT inspection is also required

by AD 98–25–07, amendment 39–10933, to

be repetitively performed on Model A300–

600 series airplanes on which Airbus

Modification 10453 has not been installed.

For those airplanes, if the inspection is done

within the applicable compliance time

specified by paragraph (c) of this AD, the

threshold for the initial inspection of

paragraph (b) of this AD may be extended by

1,500 flight cycles.

Corrective Actions

(d) If any crack is found during any

inspection of a frame 40 aft fitting required

by this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish

the actions specified by paragraph (d)(1) or

(d)(2), as applicable, and paragraph (d)(3) of

this AD. Accomplishment of the actions of

this paragraph terminates the repetitive

inspection requirements of paragraph (b) of

this AD.

(1) For Model A300–600 series airplanes:

Replace the angle fittings with new, larger

1616 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

fittings, in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–57–6053, Revision 1, dated

October 31, 1995, or Revision 02, dated June

2, 1999.

(2) For Model A300 series airplanes listed

in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–0297,

Revision 2, dated October 31, 1995: Replace

the angle fittings with new, larger fittings, in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(3) For all airplanes: Perform a detailed

visual, high frequency eddy current (HFEC),

or liquid penetrant inspection, as applicable,

to detect cracking in the frame 40 forward

fitting in accordance with Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–57–6052, Revision 02, dated

April 4, 1997 (for Model A300–600 series

airplanes), or Airbus Service Bulletin A300–

53–0268, Revision 4, dated August 16, 1995

(for Model A300 series airplanes); as

applicable.

(i) If no crack is found: No further action

is required by this AD.

(ii) Except as provided by paragraph

(d)(3)(iii) of this AD: If any crack is found,

during an inspection required by paragraph

(d)(3) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair

per the applicable service bulletin.

(iii) If any crack is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (d)(3) of

this AD, and the applicable service bulletin

specifies to contact the manufacturer for an

appropriate action. Prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–

116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or

the Direction Gonorale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC) (or its delegated agent). For a repair

method to be approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, as required

by this paragraph, the Manager’s approval

letter must specifically reference this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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,

International Branch, ANM–116. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 6: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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.

Note 7: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 1998–481–

270(B) R1, dated July 12, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

3, 2001.

Dorenda D. Baker,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–511 Filed 1–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 944

[SPATS No. UT–038–FOR]

Utah Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and

extension of public comment period on

proposed amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

reopening the public comment period

for revisions to a proposed amendment

to the Utah regulatory program

(hereinafter, the ‘‘Utah program’’) under

the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Utah

proposes to revise its amendment to

change design requirements for

temporary impoundments that function

as sedimentation ponds. The State also

proposes one minor editorial change.

Utah intends to revise its program to

make it consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations. We

are reopening the comment period to

allow for public review of Utah’s

revisions to its amendment.

DATES: We will accept written

comments on this amendment until 4:00

p.m., mountain standard time January

24, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You should mail, hand

deliver or e-mail your written comments

to James F. Fulton, Denver Field

Division Chief, at the address listed

below.

You may review copies of the Utah

program, this 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 amendment by contacting OSM’s

Denver Field Division.

James F. Fulton, Denver Field

Division Chief, Office of Surface

Mining, Western Regional Coordinating

Center, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320,

Denver, Colorado, 80202–5733,

telephone (303)844–1400, extension

1424.

Lowell P. Braxton, Director, Division

of Oil, Gas and Mining, 1594 West

North Temple, Suite 1210, P.O. Box

14581, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114–5801,

telephone (801)538–5370.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James F. Fulton, Denver Field Division

Chief, telephone (303)844–1400,

extension 1424; e-mail address

jfulton@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Utah Program.

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment.

III. Public Comment Procedures.

IV. Procedural Determinations.

I. Background on the Utah Program

On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Utah program. You can find background

information on the Utah program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and the

conditions of approval of the Utah

program in the January 21, 1981,

Federal Register (46 FR 5899). You can

also find later actions concerning Utah’s

program and program amendments at 30

CFR 944.15 and 944.30.

II. Description of Proposed Amendment

By letter dated December 23, 1999

(administrative record No. 1133), Utah

sent to us a proposed amendment (UT–

038–FOR) to its program under SMCRA

(30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). It sent the

proposed Utah Administrative (Utah

Admin. R.) amendment in response to a

June 18, 1997, letter (administrative

record No. UT–1093) that we sent to the

State under 30 CFR 732.17(c). Utah

originally proposed to change its rules

pertaining to: Definitions of ‘‘abandoned

site,’’ ‘‘other treatment facilities,’’

‘‘previously mined area,’’ ‘‘qualified

laboratory,’’ and ‘‘significant

recreational, timber, economic, or other

values incompatible with coal mining

and reclamation operations,’’

engineering requirements for

impoundments and for backfilling and

grading; hydrologic requirements for

impoundments; requirements for bond

release applications; prime farmland

acreage; inspection frequency for

abandoned sites; and the period in

which to pay a penalty when requesting

a formal hearing.

We announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the January 14,

2000, Federal Register (65 FR 2364;

administrative record No. UT–1136),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting, and invited public

comment on its adequacy. We did not

hold a public hearing or meeting

because nobody requested either one.

The public comment period ended on

February 14, 2000.