Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-03-28 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed special conditions

23,398 words·~106 min read·/register/2006/03/28/06-2952

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM343; Notice No. 25-06-04-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus Model A380-800 Airplane, Airplane Jacking Loads AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes.
Many of these novel or unusual design features are associated with the complex systems and the configuration of the airplane, including its full-length double deck. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards regarding airplane jacking loads. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM343, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address.
All comments must be marked: Docket No. NM343. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Thorson, FAA, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-1357; facsimile
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed special conditions. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this notice between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late, if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change the proposed special conditions in light of the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background Airbus applied for FAA certification/validation of the provisionally-designated Model A3XX-100 in its letter AI/L 810.0223/98, dated August 12, 1998, to the FAA. Application for certification by the Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)of Europe had been made on January 16, 1998, reference AI/L 810.0019/98. In its letter to the FAA, Airbus requested an extension to the 5-year period for type certification in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(c). The request was for an extension to a 7-year period, using the date of the initial application letter to the JAA as the reference date. The reason given by Airbus for the request for extension is related to the technical challenges, complexity, and the number of new and novel features on the airplane. On November 12, 1998, the Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, granted Airbus' request for the 7-year period, based on the date of application to the JAA. In its letter AI/LE-A 828.0040/99 Issue 3, dated July 20, 2001, Airbus stated that its target date for type certification of the Model A380-800 had been moved from May 2005, to January 2006, to match the delivery date of the first production airplane. In a subsequent letter (AI/L 810.0223/98 issue 3, dated January 27, 2006), Airbus stated that its target date for type certification is October 2, 2006. In accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(d)(2), Airbus chose a new application date of December 20, 1999, and requested that the 7-year certification period which had already been approved be continued. The FAA has reviewed the part 25 certification basis for the Model A380-800 airplane, and no changes are required based on the new application date. The Model A380-800 airplane will be an all-new, four-engine jet transport airplane with a full double-deck, two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 1.235 million pounds with a typical three-class layout of 555 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model A380-800 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-98. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus A380-800 airplane because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 93-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101. Discussion of Novel or Unusual Design Features The A380 has a multi-leg landing gear arrangement consisting of a nose gear, two wing mounted gear, and two body mounted gear. This arrangement is different from the simpler, conventional landing gear arrangement envisioned by the jacking load requirements of 14 CFR 25.519. Those regulations assume a landing gear arrangement comprising a three point suspension system (two main gear and a nose or tail gear) in which load sharing between the landing gear can be determined without considering the flexibility of the airframe. For a five point suspension system, like that of the A380, calculations that consider airplane flexibilities are necessary to determine load sharing between landing gear units accurately. (The flexibility of the individual landing gear oleos and of the airplane itself affect how the weight of the airplane is distributed among the individual landing gear units.) Special conditions are necessary to allow a rational analysis of the jacking condition for the main and body landing gear. (This analysis will include the case of bogie gears where one leg of a bogie is jacked and the other leg is supported on a tripod—which is not addressed by § 25.519.) The applicant has proposed a rational jacking analysis, which makes reasonable or conservative assumptions about the runway configuration and ground wind speeds. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Airbus A380-800 airplane. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the Airbus A380-800 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. Part I In lieu of compliance with 14 CFR 25.519(b)(1), for jacking by the landing gear at the maximum ramp weight of the airplane, the airplane structure maybe designed to withstand the maximum limit loads arising from conditions a. and b. below. a. The loads arising from jacking by the landing gear may be derived from a rational analysis under both of the following conditions: 1. A ramp crown defined by a 1.5% gradient, the crest of the gradient to be in the most adverse position for the loading of the undercarriage unit in question; and the maximum allowable steady wind for jacking operations from any horizontal direction; and the most adverse combination of oleo leg pressures within service tolerances; and jack(s) at the maximum possible overshoot. 2. A ramp crown defined by a 1.5% gradient, the crest of the gradient to be in the most adverse position for the loading of the undercarriage unit in question; and twice the maximum allowable steady wind for jacking operations from any horizontal direction; and a nominal distribution of oleo leg pressures; and jacking performed in accordance with recommended procedures. b. The limit horizontal load at the jacking point undercarriage unit may not be less than the higher of that derived from the above rational analysis or 0.33 times the limit static vertical reaction found with the undercarriage unit in question supported at the jacking points with the aircraft in the unjacked position. This load must be applied in combination with the vertical loads arising from the analysis of
(a)above. Part II Jacking equipment used for the airplane jacking operation must be controlled by a specification that assures that jacking operations are conducted in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of this special condition. Jacking instructions must be developed and incorporated in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to assure that the proper jacking equipment is used and that the jacking operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the provisions of this special condition. The jacking instructions may be by means of placards conspicuously located near the jacking points or by other suitable means acceptable to the Administrator. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4494 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24256; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-010-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the lightning critical clamp bases of the fuel tank vent system with improved clamp bases; and checking the electrical bond of the modified self-bonding mounting clamps. This proposed AD results from an investigation that revealed the aluminum foil strip on the nylon base of the ground clamps can fracture or separate from the base. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the fuel pipes are properly bonded to the airplane structure. Improper bonding could prevent electrical energy from a lightning strike from dissipating to the airplane structure, which could result in a fuel tank explosion. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: 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. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5254; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24256; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-010-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( *i.e.* , type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. We have received a report indicating that the electrical bonds of in-tank fuel system components were degrading on McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and MD-80 airplanes. Investigation revealed that the aluminum foil strip on the nylon base of the ground clamps can fracture or separate from the base. These grounded clamp bases are used to bond the fuel pipe to the airplane structure in the wing leading edge, main fuel tanks, center fuel tank, and aft fuselage on Model 717-200 airplanes. Bonding of the fuel pipes to the airplane structure is critical to ensure that electrical energy from a lightning strike dissipates to the airplane structure. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a fuel tank explosion. The grounded clamp bases on certain Model 717-200 airplanes are identical to those on the affected Model DC-9 and MD-80 airplanes. Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition. Other Related Rulemaking Boeing has issued Service Bulletin DC9-28-211, dated February 23, 2005, to address replacing the clamp bases for the fuel vent pipe with improved clamp bases on all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; we are planning to address the unsafe condition of that service bulletin with a separate rulemaking action. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0004, Revision 2, dated March 11, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the grounded clamp bases for the fuel pipes located in the wing leading edge, main fuel tanks, center fuel tank, and aft fuselage with improved clamp bases; and checking the electrical bond of the modified self-bonding mounting clamps. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The service bulletin refers to Chapter 28-00-00 of Boeing 717 Aircraft Maintenance Manual and Chapter 20-50-01, Class “L,” of the Boeing 717 Standard Wiring Practices Manual as additional sources of service information for checking the electrical bond of the modified self-bonding clamps. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the NPRM and Service Bulletin.” Differences Between the NPRM and Service Bulletin The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing 43 grounded clamp bases with improved clamp bases, as identified in Tables 1 and 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions. This NPRM, however, proposes to require replacing only the lightning critical clamp bases identified in Table 1. We have determined that replacement of the lightning critical clamp bases adequately addresses the unsafe condition identified in this NPRM. The service bulletin specifies checking the electrical bond of the modified self-bonding mounting clamps, but does not specify what corrective action to take if an electrical bond fails that check. This NPRM proposes to require, before further flight, repairing any electrical bond of the mounting clamp according to a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. Chapter 28-00-00 of Boeing 717 Aircraft Maintenance Manual and Chapter 20-50-01 of the Boeing 717 Standard Wiring Practices Manual are one approved method for repairing an electrical bond. Although the service bulletin recommends accomplishing the replacements “at a scheduled maintenance period when manpower, materials, and facilities are available,” we have determined that this imprecise compliance time would not address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the modifications. In light of all of these factors, we find a compliance time of 78 months for completing the required actions to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. This difference has been coordinated with the airplane manufacturer. Costs of Compliance There are about 120 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 92 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 16 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $239 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $139,748, or $1,519 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the 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. 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. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas** : Docket No. FAA-2006-24256; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-010-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 12, 1006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0004, Revision 2, dated March 11, 2005. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from an investigation that revealed the aluminum foil strip on the nylon base of the ground clamps can fracture or separate from the base. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the fuel pipes are properly bonded to the airplane structure. Improper bonding could prevent electrical energy from a lightning strike from dissipating to the airplane structure, which could result in a fuel tank explosion. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Replace the Grounded Clamp Bases
(f)Within 78 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the lightning critical clamp bases of the fuel tank vent system with improved clamp bases, in accordance with Table 1 of Figure 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0004, Revision 2, dated March 11, 2005. Before further flight after the replacement, check the electrical bond of the modified self-bonding mounting clamps in accordance with the service bulletin. If any electrical bond fails the check, before further flight, repair the electrical bond of the mounting clamp according to a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Chapter 28-00-00 of the Boeing 717 Aircraft Maintenance Manual and Chapter 20-50-01 of the Boeing 717 Standard Wiring Practices Manual are one approved method. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4443 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24246; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-115-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 Series Airplanes; and Model A340-541 and A340-642 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection for anti-fretting material contamination of the Halon filters and plumbing parts of the flow metering system
(FMS)and flow metering compact unit
(FMCU)in the lower deck cargo compartment
(LDCC)and bulk crew rest compartment (BCRC), as applicable; other specified actions; and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from a report that the FMS and FMCU of the fire extinguishing system may be blocked by anti-fretting material contamination. We are proposing this AD to prevent such anti-fretting material contamination, which could reduce the effectiveness of the fire extinguisher system to discharge fire extinguishing agents and to lower the concentration of Halon gas in the LDCC or BCRC in a timely manner. An ineffective fire extinguisher system in the event of a fire could result in an uncontrollable fire in the LDCC or BCRC. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: 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. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-2797; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24246; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-115-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The DGAC advises that the flow metering system
(FMS)and the flow metering compact unit
(FMCU)(only on Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes) of the fire extinguishing system may be blocked by anti-fretting material contamination. The origin of this anti-fretting material contamination inside the piping, filters, and pressure reducers may come from manufacturing of the parts, as well as installation on airplanes during production or maintenance. After the first activation of the fire extinguishing system, the DGAC advises to assume that the FMS or FMCU is contaminated, and that the fire extinguishing system may not be fully operable for its next use. Anti-fretting material contamination, if not corrected, could reduce the effectiveness of the fire extinguisher system to discharge fire extinguishing agents and to lower the concentration of Halon gas in the lower deck cargo compartment
(LDCC)or bulk crew rest compartment
(BCRC)in a timely manner. An ineffective fire extinguisher system in the event of a fire could result in an uncontrollable fire in the LDCC or BCRC. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued the following service bulletins: Service Bulletins For model— Airbus service bulletin— A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes A330-26-3031, Revision 02, dated February 1, 2005. A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes A340-26-4031, Revision 02, dated February 1, 2005. A340-541 airplanes A340-26-5007, dated January 31, 2005. The service bulletins describe procedures for doing a one-time general visual inspection for anti-fretting material contamination of the Halon filters and plumbing parts of the FMS in the LDCC; doing applicable corrective actions if necessary; and doing related investigative and other specified actions. The applicable corrective actions include cleaning any contaminated pressure reducer, pressure switch, plumbing part, and Halon filter; and replacing any of those parts with a new part if contamination cannot be removed. The related investigative and other specified actions include inspecting the fire extinguishing bottle to determine if it has been activated, cleaning Halon filters and plumbing parts, and applying anti-fretting material. Airbus also has issued Service Bulletin A340-26-5008, dated January 31, 2005 (for Model A340-642 airplanes). The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a one-time general visual inspection for anti-fretting material contamination of the plumbing parts of the FMCU in the LDCC; doing applicable corrective actions if necessary; and doing other specified actions. The applicable corrective actions include replacing any plumbing part with a new part if contamination cannot be removed. The other specified actions include replacing the FMCU with new FMCUs, cleaning plumbing parts, and applying anti-fretting material. In addition, Airbus has issued the following service bulletins: Service Bulletins For model— Airbus service bulletin— A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes A340-26-4035, dated February 22, 2005. A340-541 and -642 airplanes A340-26-5009, dated January 31, 2005. The service bulletins describe procedures for doing a one-time general visual inspection for anti-fretting material contamination of the Halon filters and plumbing parts of the FMS in the BCRC; doing applicable corrective actions if necessary; and doing related investigative and other specified actions. The applicable corrective actions include cleaning any contaminated pressure reducer, pressure switch, plumbing part, and Halon filter; and replacing any of those parts with a new part if contamination cannot be removed. The related investigative and other specified actions include inspecting the fire extinguishing bottle to determine if it has been activated, cleaning Halon filters and plumbing parts, and applying anti-fretting material. Further, after October 1, 2004, Airbus revised the following Airbus aircraft maintenance manuals (AMMs): AMMs For model— Page block— Of— A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-23-00 of A330 AMM (LDCC-FMS). A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-28-00 of A340 AMM (BCRC-FMS). A340-541 and -642 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-28-00 of A340-500/-600 AMM (BCRC-FMS). A340-642 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-23-00 of A340-600 AMM (LDCC-FMU). A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes, and A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-23-00 of A340 AMM (LDCC-FMS). A340-541 and -642 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-23-00 of A340-500/-600 AMM (LDCC-FMS). The revised AMMs describe procedures for restoring the fire extinguishing system in the LDCC and in the BCRC, as applicable, after any activation, and include a caution note in the work instructions about how to apply anti-fretting material during the restoration, which, when followed, prevents a malfunction of the system. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directives F-2005-019 R1 (for Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes), and F-2005-020 R1 (for Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes, and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes); both dated May 11, 2005; to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD 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. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Clarification Between the Proposed AD and French Airworthiness Directives The French airworthiness directives specify the following compliance times for inspecting the FMCU and FMS in the LDCC: Compliance Times in French Airworthiness Directives For airplanes— Compliance time On which the fire extinguishing system is confirmed to have never been activated Within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of the AD. On which the fire extinguishing system has been activated at least once or it is uncertain whether it has ever been activated or not Within 2,400 flight hours after the effective date of the AD. Like the French airworthiness directive, the proposed AD would require all affected airplanes to do the proposed actions within 2,400 flight hours after the effective date of the AD or within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of the AD if an operator can conclusively determine that the fire extinguishing system has never been activated. However, the French airworthiness directive does not specify the means of making that determination. We have determined that reviewing an airplane log book is not a reliable way to determine if a fire extinguishing bottle has been activated, and that the only means of making this determination is by reviewing the airplane maintenance records. Therefore, this proposed AD would allow the proposed inspections to be done within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, provided that reviewing the airplane maintenance records can conclusively determine that the fire extinguishing system has never been activated before the effective date of this AD. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection and restoration Between 7 and 9 depending on airplane configuration $65 None Between $455 and $585 depending on airplane configuration 25 $11,375 and $14,625 depending on airplane configuration. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the 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. 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. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus** : Docket No. FAA-2006-24246; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-115-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 27, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the airplanes in table 1 of this AD; certificated in any category. Table 1.—Affected Airplanes All airbus model—
(1)A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(2)A330-301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(3)A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
(4)A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
(5)A340-541 airplanes.
(6)A340-642 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that the flow metering system
(FMS)and the flow metering compact unit
(FMCU)of the fire extinguishing system may be blocked by anti-fretting material contamination. We are issuing this AD to prevent such anti-fretting material contamination, which could reduce the effectiveness of the fire extinguisher system to discharge fire extinguishing agents and to lower the concentration of Halon gas in the lower deck cargo compartment
(LDCC)and bulk crew rest compartment
(BCRC)in a timely manner. An ineffective fire extinguisher system in the event of a fire could result in an uncontrollable fire in the LDCC or BCRC. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restoration
(f)After the effective date of this AD, after any activation of the fire extinguishing system, before further flight, restore the fire extinguishing system in the LDCC and in the BCRC, as applicable, in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Direction Ge ne rale de l'Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent). The applicable airplane maintenance manual
(AMM)in table 2 of this AD is one approved method, provided that the following caution note is included in the work instructions of that AMM: “CAUTION: APPLY A SMALL QUANTITY OF THE CORRECT GREASE TO THE MALE THREADS OF THE CONNECTIONS. THIS WILL PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE THREADS. MAKE SURE THAT THE GREASE DOES NOT GO INTO THE PIPES. GREASE IN THE PIPES CAN CAUSE A MALFUNCTION OF THE SYSTEM.” Table 2.—AMMs For model— Page block— Of—
(1)A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-23-00 of A330 AMM (LDCC-FMS).
(2)A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-28-00 of A340 AMM (BCRC-FMS).
(3)A340-541 and -642 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-28-00 of A340-500/-600 AMM (BCRC-FMS).
(4)A340-642 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-23-00 of A340-600 AMM (LDCC-FMCU).
(5)A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes, and A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-23-00 of A340 AMM (LDCC-FMS).
(6)A340-541 and -642 airplanes 201 Chapter 26-23-00 of A340-500/-600 AMM (LDCC-FMS). Inspections of FMS in the LDCC
(g)For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD inclusive, on which the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness is before October 2, 2004: Except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD, within 2,400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time general visual inspection for anti-fretting material contamination of the Halon filters and plumbing parts of the FMS in the LDCC, do applicable corrective actions if necessary; and related investigative and other specified actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin in table 3 of this AD. The applicable corrective and related investigative and other specified actions must be done before further flight. Table 3.—Service Bulletins for Inspecting FMS in the LDCC For model— Airbus service bulletin—
(1)A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes A330-26-3031, Revision 02, dated February 1, 2005.
(2)A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes A340-26-4031, Revision 02, dated February 1, 2005.
(3)A340-541 airplanes A340-26-5007, dated January 31, 2005. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Inspection of FMCU in LDCC
(h)For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(6) of this AD, on which the date of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness is before October 2, 2004: Except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD, within 2,400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time general visual inspection for anti-fretting material contamination of the plumbing parts of the FMCU in the LDCC, and do applicable corrective and other specified actions. The actions must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-26-5008, dated January 31, 2005. The applicable corrective and other specified actions must be done before further flight. Inspection of the FMS in the BCRC
(i)For airplanes identified in Table 4 of this AD, on which the date of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness is before October 2, 2004: Except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD, within 2,400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time general visual inspection for anti-fretting material contamination of the Halon filters and plumbing parts of the FMS in the BCRC, do applicable corrective if necessary; and related investigative and other specified actions. The actions must be done in accordance with the applicable service bulletin in table 4 of this AD. The applicable corrective and related investigative and other specified actions must be done before further flight. Table 4.—Service Bulletins for Inspecting FMS in the BCRC For airplanes identified in— On which— Do the actions in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of—
(1)Paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6) of this AD The BCRC was incorporated in production in accordance with any Airbus modification 47198, 47884, 48895, 48710, 49316, 50107, 50900, or 51320 Airbus Service Bulletin A340-26-5009, dated January 31, 2005.
(2)Paragraph (c)(4) of this AD The BCRC was incorporated in production in accordance with Airbus modification 50901 Airbus Service Bulletin A340-26-4035, dated February 22, 2005. Compliance Time
(j)The inspection required by paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i)of this AD may be done within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, provided that you can conclusively determine from reviewing the airplane maintenance records that the fire extinguishing system has never been activated before the effective date of this AD. A log book entry is not acceptable for determining if a fire extinguishing bottle has been activated. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(l)French airworthiness directives F-2005-019 R1 (for Model A330-200 and A330 -300 series airplanes), and F-2005-020 R1 (for Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes, and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes), both issued May 11, 2005, also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 10, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4442 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Part 7 RIN 1219-AB43 Equivalency Evaluation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: We intend to review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA)standards for nonroad diesel engines to determine if certain EPA requirements in 40 CFR part 89, Control of Emissions From New and In-Use Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines, provide, or can be modified to provide, at least the same degree of protection as our existing applicable requirements in 30 CFR part 7, subpart E—Diesel Engines Intended for Use in Underground Coal Mines. This review is limited to the testing of Category B diesel engines as defined in 30 CFR 7.82, Definitions. DATES: Comments must be received by May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified as such and transmitted electronically to *equivalencycomment@dol.gov* . Alternatively, comments can be submitted by using the Federal eRulemaking portal *http://www.regulations.gov* and following the instructions. Persons unable to file comments electronically should submit their comments to us by regular mail or hand delivery to MSHA, Approval and Certification Center, Attention: John P. Faini, Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, West Virginia 26059 or transmit by facsimile to
(304)547-2071. Please specify RIN 1219-AB43 on documents sent in response to this notice. You may contact us with any format questions. Comments are posted for public viewing at *http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John P. Faini, Mechanical and Engineering Safety Division, Approval and Certification Center, MSHA; phone:
(304)547-2042; facsimile:
(304)547-2084; E-mail: *faini.john@dol.gov* . We maintain a listserve on our Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when we publish rulemaking documents in the **Federal Register** . To subscribe to the listserve, visit our site at *http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 17, 2003 we published a final rule, Testing and Evaluation by Independent Laboratories and Non-MSHA Product Safety Standards (68 FR 36417). The final rule allows manufacturers to test their products in accordance with non-MSHA standards if we determine that the non-MSHA standard is equivalent to our applicable product approval requirements or can be modified to provide at least the same level of protection. Part 7 of 30 CFR specifies requirements for our approval of applicant or third party testing and evaluation of equipment and materials for use in underground mines that do not involve subjective testing. Paragraph 7.10(b) requires us to publish our intent to review any non-MSHA product safety standard for equivalency in the **Federal Register** for the purpose of soliciting public input. In addition, paragraph 7.10(c) requires us to list our equivalency determinations in 30 CFR part 7. EPA is a Federal agency that regulates both the gaseous and diesel particulate matter emissions from nonroad diesel engines sold in the United States. The EPA standards in 40 CFR part 89, Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines, establish laboratory testing procedures and application requirements for nonroad engines. Diesel engine manufacturers are redesigning their engines to meet new EPA emission standards. Manufacturers must apply for our approval for each new engine design if they are to be used in underground coal mines. Manufacturers would benefit if they were able to streamline engine testing so they could solicit approval from us as well as EPA using the same set of results. We are asking for public input concerning our intent to review certain EPA Nonroad Diesel Engine standards published under part 89, Title 40, CFR to determine whether these standards provide, or could be modified to provide, at least the same degree of protection as our existing applicable requirements. We intend to limit our review to the following EPA standards: • 89.2, Definitions, • 89.6, Reference materials, • 89.115, Application for certificate, • 89.119, Emission tests, • Subpart D, Emission Test Equipment Provisions, • Appendix A, to Subpart D, • Appendix B, to Subpart D, and • Subpart E, Exhaust Emission Test Procedures. We intend to review these specific EPA standards to determine whether the EPA requirements provide adequate testing procedures and technical information needed for the issuance of our approval under part 7, subpart E. The requirements in our part 7 apply to certain equipment and materials whose product testing and evaluation does not involve subjective analysis. We have reviewed the applicable EPA requirements and have determined that they do not involve subjective analysis. If we determine the specified sections of 40 CFR part 89 would provide at least the same degree of protection in their original form or could be modified to demonstrate equivalency to 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, Category B diesel engines, then we would amend 30 CFR part 7 accordingly. If modifications are required, they would also be specified in our part 7. We welcome comments on whether the EPA requirements provide testing procedures and technical information equivalent to the approval requirements set out in part 7 subpart E. If you feel the specified sections of 40 CFR part 89 do not provide the same degree of protection in their original form, but could be modified to do so, specify what modifications are necessary to demonstrate equivalency. After the comment period closes, we will perform an evaluation of the EPA standards. At the conclusion of the evaluation, we will publish our determination in the **Federal Register** accompanied by a summary of the findings and a list of required modifications, if necessary. Dated: March 20, 2006. David G. Dye, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E6-4362 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Parts 18 and 75 RIN 1219-AB34 High-Voltage Continuous Mining Machine Standard for Underground Coal Mines AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: We (the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)) are reproposing provisions involving two issues included in the notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the **Federal Register** on July 16, 2004. These issues involve the following: Types of trailing cables that can be used with high-voltage continuous mining machines; and a requirement to use high-voltage insulating gloves or insulated cable handling tools when handling energized high-voltage trailing cables. In connection with the second issue, we are also addressing the availability requirement for high-voltage insulating gloves and insulated cable handling tools, and the safety requirements for these tools. We are reproposing these provisions after consideration of the oral and written pre- and post-hearing comments that we received. DATES: Comments must be received by May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified as such and transmitted electronically to *http://www.regulations.gov* or to *zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov.* Include “RIN 1219-AB34” in the subject line of the message. Persons unable to file comments electronically should submit their comments to us by regular mail or hand delivery to MSHA, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939, or by facsimile at 202-693-9441. You may contact us with any format questions. *Instructions:* All comments, including any personal information contained therein, will be posted without change at *http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp.* *Docket:* The entire rulemaking record may be viewed in MSHA's public reading room at 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Robert Stone, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939. Mr. Stone can be reached at
(202)693-9440. We maintain a listserve on our Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when we publish rulemaking documents in the **Federal Register** . To subscribe to the listserve, visit our site at *http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.* You may obtain copies of this proposed rule in an alternative format by accessing the Internet at *http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM.* The document is also available by calling 202-693-9440. I. Rulemaking Background On July 16, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** (69 FR 42812) to establish design requirements for approval of high-voltage continuous mining machines operating in face areas of coal underground mines. The rule also proposed to establish new mandatory electrical safety standards for the installation, use, and maintenance of high-voltage continuous mining machines used in underground coal mines. The proposed rule would enable mines to safely utilize high-voltage continuous mining machines with enhanced safety protection from fire, explosion, and shock hazards without the need for mine operators to file petitions for modification
(PFM)to use them. In the July 16, 2004 **Federal Register** notice we also announced that four public hearings would be held in September 2004. The post-hearing comment period was scheduled to close on October 14, 2004. However, on August 23, 2004, we published a notice changing the public hearing dates to November 2004, and the close of the post-hearing comment period to December 10, 2004 (69 FR 51787). Hearings were held accordingly. We then reviewed all oral and written comments received. Based on that review, we have decided to repropose provisions that relate to the types of trailing cables that can be used with high-voltage continuous mining machines and the types of cable handling equipment that must be used when handling energized high-voltage trailing cables. We are requesting comments on these provisions. All submissions to us concerning these provisions will be placed in the record and made available for public review. Any submissions concerning other provisions of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule submitted at this time are beyond the scope of this regulatory action and will not be considered. II. Section-by-Section Discussion The following section-by-section analysis explains how the provisions proposed today compare with the associated provisions as proposed on July 16, 2004. We also discuss the public comments received on the associated July 16, 2004 provisions. Section-by-Section Analysis Section 18.54(f)(4) High-Voltage Trailing Cable(s) Jackets The July 16, 2004 proposed rule incorporated by reference the current carrying capacity (ampacity) ratings and outside diameter requirements for trailing cables listed in the Insulated Cable Engineers Association Standards
(ICEA)S-75-381/National Electrical Manufacturer's Association
(NEMA)Standard NEMA WC 58-1997. However, the proposed rule failed to include an incorporation by reference of the physical properties for the double-jacketed cable listed in the ICEA S-75-381/NEMA WC 58-1997 standard. We are correcting this oversight by proposing to incorporate by reference the physical properties of the double-jacketed trailing cable specified in the ICEA/NEMA document referenced above. The proposed incorporation does not include additional requirements and is being proposed only to clarify that double-jacketed trailing cables will be required to meet the ampacity ratings, the outside diameter requirements, as well as the physical properties listed in ICEA S-75-381/NEMA WC 58-1997, as do all the double-jacketed trailing cables accepted in granted PFMs. Accordingly, proposed paragraph
(f)notes that the incorporation of the ICEA S-75-381/NEMA WC 58-1997 standard was approved by the Director of the Federal Register, and includes details regarding where the public may inspect or purchase a copy of such standard. Single-jacketed trailing cables will need to meet the ampacity ratings and outside diameter requirements listed in the referenced ICEA/NEMA standard. Proposed paragraph (f)(4)(ii) includes the physical properties (minimum tear and tensile) requirements as discussed below. Proposed § 18.54(f)(4) addresses the design and construction of high-voltage trailing cable jackets. As originally proposed on July 16, 2004, paragraph (f)(4) would have required trailing cables to have two reinforced layers of jacket material. With this type of construction, the inner-most layer of the two-layered protective cable jacket would have been required to be a color distinctive from the outer jacket color so that the damaged jacket would be easily identifiable, and the color black was not permitted to be used for either layer. We received several comments on § 18.54(f)(4) as it was proposed in July 2004. Some commenters were in favor of using single-jacketed cables made of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU). A commenter stated that the TPU jacket is stronger than a two-layer jacket and it should be allowed as an option to the two-layered jacket. This commenter further stated that the TPU jacket material has a very high tensile strength and is extremely resistant to abrasion and tear. This commenter reported that the minimum tensile strength and tear strength of extra heavy duty rubber jackets were 2400 pounds per square inch and 40 pounds per inch, while the values for the TPU jackets were 5000 pounds per square inch and 120 pounds per inch, respectively. The commenter indicated that the TPU material can be made in a color other than black, and is so rugged that it can only be successfully manufactured in a single layer. This commenter stated that TPU-jacketed trailing cables have been in use in the mining industry for 11 or 12 years and have also been used successfully as shearer power cables and trailing cables on some medium-voltage continuous mining machines and other pieces of mining equipment. Another commenter stated that at least one PFM permitted the use of a TPU jacket as an alternative to the double-jacket requirement. This commenter further noted that this type of single-jacketed cable had been used at a mine on two high-voltage continuous mining machines and on shuttle cars for over two years, both successfully. Another commenter suggested that § 18.54(f)(4) (as proposed in July 2004) use the same PFM language to allow both the single-jacketed and double-jacketed trailing cables. However, this commenter later stated that a single-jacketed trailing cable should not be included in the regulation, and offered no explanation for the basis of his comment. Based on the information provided by commenters, we are proposing to revise § 18.54(f)(4) of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule to permit the use of a single-jacketed cable. Proposed § 18.54(f)(4)(ii) would require that a single-jacketed cable have a tear strength of more than 100 pounds per inch thickness and a tensile strength exceeding 4000 pounds per square inch. Proposed § 18.54(f)(4)(i) would require a double-jacketed trailing cable to have two reinforced layers of jacket material. ICEA Publication S-75-381 specifies requirements for double-jacketed cables. The publication lists a number of physical properties (including tear and tensile strengths) for four different jacket materials. ICEA also cites minimum values for tear and tensile strengths. The ICEA requirements have applied to all of our PFMs. However, since the TPU jacket material is not covered by this ICEA standard, we are proposing to set requirements for the TPU jacket as discussed above. Proposed paragraph (f)(4) results from wording we used in granted PFMs which permit the use of double-jacketed trailing cables and a granted PFM that permits the option of using a single-jacketed trailing cable for high-voltage continuous mining machines. The granted PFM for the single-jacketed trailing cable specified that the jacket must have a tear-strength of more than 100 pounds per inch thickness and a tensile strength exceeding 4000 pounds per square inch. Our experience with the granted PFM permitting the use of a single-jacketed cable, suggests that the proposed tear and tensile strength values specified above will protect the cable from damage, thereby protecting miners from shock hazards. A single-jacketed cable that meets the proposed tear and tensile strength values would be in compliance with the proposed provision. The single jacketed cable would be permitted to be used for a trailing cable on high-voltage continuous mining machines provided it also meets the other applicable provisions of this part. We are also proposing to remove the extraneous language in § 18.54(f)(4)(i) which states, “to allow easy recognition of damaged jacket areas.” This language, although helpful in understanding why we are requiring that the innermost layer of the double-jacketed cable be a different color than the outermost layer, is not needed as rule text. This section was also rewritten for clarity. These proposed rule changes would not reduce the protection afforded by existing 30 CFR part 18 standards. We are requesting comments on proposed § 18.54(f)(4), including the minimum tear and tensile strength values for single-jacketed cables. Section 75.828 Trailing Cable Handling and Pulling
(a)Handling Section 75.828(a), as proposed on July 16, 2004, addressed the types of personal protective equipment
(PPE)required to be used when it is necessary to handle energized cables. Section 75.828(a) would have prohibited handling energized high-voltage trailing cables without wearing properly tested and rated insulating gloves. The provision would have required that testing and rating of the insulating gloves be in accordance with § 75.833 as proposed on July 16, 2004. Furthermore, § 75.828(a) would have required the use of high-voltage insulating gloves even if mitts, hooks, tongs, slings, aprons, or other PPE was used. Many comments were received on § 75.828(a) as proposed on July 16, 2004. Several commenters stated that the high-voltage trailing cable would be the safest cable in the mine because of the proposed cable design and sensitive ground-fault protection required. These commenters indicated that the energized cable could be safely handled without the use of high-voltage gloves. A commenter submitted a safety analysis concluding that, “handling cable used on a 2400-V continuous miner in the same fashion as on low- and medium-voltage continuous miners would not present an increased shock hazard.” Another commenter referred to the above analysis and stated, “This cable is as safe or safer than low- and medium-voltage cables and should not be treated differently than any other trailing cable on the section.” Some commenters supported the use of gloves as providing the safest method for handling energized trailing cables. A few commenters suggested the use of additional protection such as chest protectors and face shields. Other commenters suggested the use of a cable handling system as an alternative to insulating gloves. Some commenters discussed how cumbersome it is to use high-voltage insulating gloves for handling high-voltage cables. These commenters stated that the gloves are so uncomfortable that many miners would have them at hand but probably would not use them. A few commenters suggested that the hygiene concerns of some miners would require mine operators to purchase many sets of gloves and leather protectors. These commenters suggested the use of slings, tongs, hooks, etc., as an alternative to high-voltage insulating gloves. We agree that it is appropriate to provide an alternative to requiring high-voltage insulating gloves to handle energized cables, and believe that insulated cable handling tools would provide such a suitable option. Examples of insulated cable handling tools are hooks, slings, and tongs when designed and manufactured for cable handling. Consequently, we would not consider aprons, face shields, and chest protectors to be insulated cable handling tools because they are not designed and manufactured for cable handling. However, this proposed rule would not prohibit the use of these other personal protective equipment when they are used in conjunction with insulating gloves or insulated cable handling tools. Also, in the July 16, 2004 proposed rule, we had implied in error that mitts (or mittens) are different than gloves and the proposed rule would have required that they be used in conjunction with gloves. Since high-voltage insulating gloves may be finger gloves or mittens, this proposed rule does not make a distinction between them. Therefore, any reference in this proposed rule to insulating gloves would also include mittens. Based on the above comments, we are now proposing to revise § 75.828(a) of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule to allow the option of either using high-voltage insulating gloves, which includes both the rubber gloves and the leather outer protector gloves, or insulated cable handling tools when handling energized high-voltage trailing cables. We are proposing to add the words “including both the rubber gloves and the leather outer protector gloves” to clarify that both gloves must be worn to satisfy the glove requirement. In addition, we are proposing to redesignate revised § 75.828(a) as § 75.833(a) to consolidate all the cable handling requirements under one standard. Consequently, we are proposing to revise the section heading of § 75.828 to read, “Trailing cable pulling,” and the provision would be renumbered and redesignated as proposed § 75.833, as discussed below. This proposed rule would not reduce the protection afforded by existing 30 CFR part 75 standards. We are requesting comments on the revision of this provision to allow the option of using insulated cable handling tools. We also request comments on the revision and redesignation of this provision as proposed § 75.833(a). Section 75.833 Handling High-Voltage Trailing Cables Section 75.833, as proposed on July 16, 2004, addressed the ratings, tests required, and frequency of examination and testing of high-voltage insulating gloves. Section 75.833(a) would have required mine operators to provide high-voltage insulating gloves to miners for handling energized high-voltage trailing cables. Section 75.833(b) would have required high-voltage insulating gloves to have a Class 1 (7,500 maximum use volts) or higher voltage rating in accordance with ASTM F496-02a. Section 75.833(c) would have required the rubber portion of the insulating gloves to be air-tested at the beginning of each shift. Section 75.833(d) would have required the leather and rubber insulating gloves to be visually examined before each use for signs of damage. Section 75.833(e) would have required the damaged rubber gloves to be removed from underground or destroyed. Section 75.833(f) would have required that rubber insulating gloves be electrically tested every 30 days in accordance with ASTM F496-02a. Based on the comments received on § 75.828(a) of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule, and as discussed above, we are proposing to add revised § 75.828(a) to proposed § 75.833, changing the section heading for § 75.833, and redesignating it as proposed § 75.833(a). This proposed rule would not reduce the protection afforded by existing 30 CFR part 75 standards. We request comments on proposed § 75.833(a). We are also reproposing § 75.833(a) of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule to require that mine operators provide high-voltage insulating gloves or insulated cable handling tools to miners who handle energized high-voltage trailing cables. This provision would be redesignated as paragraph
(b)of proposed § 75.833. We request comments on proposed § 75.833(b), formerly § 75.833(a). Additionally, we are reproposing §§ 75.833(b) and 75.833(f) of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule to consolidate in one paragraph the voltage rating and testing requirements for the rubber portion of the high-voltage insulating gloves. This consolidation does not include additional requirements, but simplifies the document because it would contain a single incorporation by reference of the ASTM F496-02a “Standard Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and Sleeves (2002).” The new paragraph would be codified as proposed § 75.833(c)(1). We request comments on proposed § 75.833(c)(1), formerly §§ 75.833(b) and 75.833(f). Finally, we are proposing to add a new paragraph to § 75.833 of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule to specify requirements for insulated cable handling tools. This new paragraph would be codified as proposed § 75.833(d). Proposed § 75.833(d)(1) would require that insulated cable handling tools be rated and maintained to withstand at least 7,500 volts. We are proposing to require 7,500 volts rating to ensure that the insulated cable handling tools provide at least the same level of protection to miners as the insulating high-voltage gloves. Proposed § 75.833(d)(2) would require that an insulated cable handling tool be designed and manufactured for cable handling in order to protect miners against shock hazards. This proposed requirement is also intended to ensure that miners use cable handling tools that are an effective substitute for high-voltage insulating gloves. As discussed under § 75.828(a), examples of insulated cable handling tools are hooks, slings, and tongs, when designed and manufactured for cable handling. While face shields and chest protectors protect miners against shock hazards, we do not consider them to be insulated cable handling tools because they are not designed and manufactured for cable handling. However, under the proposed rule such personal protective equipment may be used in conjunction with high-voltage insulating gloves or insulated cable handling tools. Proposed § 75.833(d)(3) would require that the insulated cable handling tools be visually examined before each use for signs of damage or defects. This proposed requirement would help identify damaged or defective insulated cable handling tools before they present a hazard to miners. Proposed § 75.833(d)(4) would require that damaged or defective insulated cable handling tools be removed from the underground area of the mine or destroyed. This proposed requirement is intended to ensure that the insulated cable handling tools available to miners who handle energized high-voltage cables are safe to use. This proposed rule would not reduce the protection afforded by existing 30 CFR part 75 standards. We specifically request comments on all of the proposed provisions of § 75.833(d). Sections 75.833(c), (d), and
(e)of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule are not being reproposed. These sections have been redesignated as §§ 75.833(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4), and any comments received on these sections would be beyond the scope of the rulemaking and would not be considered. For the reader's convenience, we are publishing, in this notice, proposed § 75.833 in its entirety, including those sections that are not being reproposed. III. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and Regulatory Flexibility Act) Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 as amended by E.O. 13258 requires that regulatory agencies assess both the costs and benefits of proposed regulations. We have fulfilled this requirement for the proposed rule, and have determined that it would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. Therefore, the proposed rule is not an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Mining Sectors Affected As of the end of 2003, this proposed rule would apply to 640 underground coal mines in the United States (and the approximately 36,100 underground coal miners employed in those mines). Benefits The proposed rule would reduce the potential for electrical-related fatalities and injuries. This risk reduction is derived from proposed §§ 18.54(f)(4) and 75.833. Proposed § 75.833 would require miners to use either high-voltage insulating gloves or insulated cable handling tools while handling energized high-voltage trailing cable. The proposed rule would ensure the safety of miners from electrical shock by requiring the insulated cable handling tools to be designed and maintained to withstand a voltage of at least 7,500 volts. This is the same voltage requirement as Class 1 high-voltage insulating gloves required in the proposed rule of July 16, 2004. Proposed § 18.54(f)(4) retains the July 16, 2004 requirement in proposed § 18.54(f)(4) for the use of double-jacketed high-voltage trailing cables used on high-voltage continuous mining machines, and adds technical specifications for the use of single-jacketed high-voltage trailing cables on such machines. We propose that single-jacketed high voltage trailing cables would have a tear strength of more than 100 pounds per inch and a tensile strength of more than 4000 pounds per square inch. These values exceed the minimum cable industry standard values cited for typical extra-heavy-duty double-jacketed cables. The single-jacketed cables that would be permitted under proposed § 18.54(f)(4) would produce trailing cables that are much more durable than the double-jacketed trailing cables currently used on the majority of high-voltage continuous mining machines in underground coal mines. Our experience with single-jacketed cables has shown that the strength and durability of the single jacketed cables reduce the potential for cable damage. Damaged trailing cables must be immediately repaired in order to be safe to use or removed from service. Cable repairs take time away from production, and damaged cables can pose serious fire and shock hazards to miners if not repaired in a timely manner. A durable trailing cable that is less prone to physical damage would benefit the industry and improve miner safety. Compliance Cost Savings Proposed § 75.833 would result in annual net cost savings of $33,920 to underground coal mine operators. The derivation of the annual cost savings is described below. Proposed § 75.833(a) would require miners to use insulating gloves or insulated cable handling tools while handling energized high-voltage trailing cables. Proposed paragraph
(a)would not require that insulated cable handling tools be used in conjunction with high-voltage insulating gloves. Proposed § 75.833(b) would require that each mine operator make available to miners handling energized high-voltage trailing cables, high-voltage insulating gloves or insulated cable handling tools. We do not expect that mine operators, under the proposed rule, would stop purchasing gloves altogether, but rather that they would decrease the quantity of gloves they now purchase and increase their use of insulated cable handling tools. When rubber gloves are used, proposed § 75.833(c) would require that they be tested every 30 days. The PREA that accompanied the proposed rule issued on July 16, 2004, noted that the proper type of gloves to handle high-voltage trailing cables includes a pair of rubber and a pair of leather gloves. The rubber gloves are put on first; then the leather gloves are put over the rubber gloves in order to provide protection. We estimated that, on average, a pair of rubber gloves would cost approximately $70 and would last for about six months. We also estimated that, on average, the cost of a pair of leather gloves was approximately $30 and the life of the gloves would be one month. Thus, one person would need two pairs of rubber gloves and 12 pairs of leather gloves per year, costing $500 [($70 × 2) + ($30 × 12)]. Based on a testing cost of $10 per pair of rubber gloves, the annual cost to test a pair of gloves is estimated to be $120 ($10 × 12). Operators that use some type of insulated cable handling tool are assumed to use a hook that, on average, costs approximately $90 per hook. Since the proposed rule issued on July 16, 2004 would have required mine operators to purchase gloves, we estimated in the PREA that accompanied the July 16, 2004 proposed rule that there would be five persons, each needing a pair of rubber and leather gloves, for every section where a high-voltage continuous mining machine operated. Since proposed § 75.833(b) would not require that mine operators purchase gloves, we estimate that for each section where a high-voltage continuous mining machine operates, the mine operator would decrease the purchase and testing of gloves from 5 to 3 pairs and would increase the use of insulated cable handling tools. In addition, for every section where a high-voltage continuous mining machine operates, we also estimate that the mine operator would purchase 2 hooks per year. Table IV-1 shows estimated annual net cost savings for mine operators under the requirements of proposed § 75.833. Table IV-1.—§ 75.833 Annual Net Cost Savings Related To Use of Insulated Cable Handling Equipment Emp. size category Number of sections per HVCM Net cost savings per section a Annual net cost savings 20 to 500 30 $1,060 $31,800 >500 2 1,060 2,120 Total 33,920 a Net Cost Savings of $1,060 per section = [(($500 annual gloves cost per person × 2 pairs) + ($120 to test rubber gloves/yr. × 2 pairs))—($90 cost per hook × 2 hooks per year)]. We have preliminarily determined that underground coal mine operators would not incur any costs to comply with proposed § 18.54(f)(4). Although the cost of the single-jacketed TPU cable is approximately 15 percent higher than the double-jacketed cable, there are no compliance costs associated with proposed § 18.54(f)(4) because mine operators would have the option of using either a double-jacketed trailing cable or a single-jacketed trailing cable. Thus, after the rule becomes effective, mine operators currently using a double-jacketed trailing cable can continue to do so, and those operators that intend to purchase high-voltage continuous mining machines in the future will have the choice of what type of high-voltage trailing cable they want to use. Feasibility We have concluded that the requirements of the proposed rule are both technologically and economically feasible. This proposed rule is not a technology-forcing standard and does not involve activities on the frontiers of scientific knowledge. Insulated cable handling tools are available for purchase that could be used in place of high-voltage insulating gloves. Thus, we believe that this proposed rule is technologically feasible. This rulemaking would provide an annual net cost savings of $33,920 to underground coal mine operators whose 2003 annual revenues are estimated at $9 billion. Therefore, this rulemaking is economically feasible. IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)of 1980 as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), we have analyzed the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses. Further, we have made a determination with respect to whether or not we can certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that are covered by this rulemaking. Under the SBREFA amendments to the RFA, we must include in the rule a factual basis for this certification. If the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we must develop a regulatory flexibility analysis. Definition of a Small Mine Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities, we must use the Small Business Administration
(SBA)definition for a small entity or, after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative definition for the mining industry by publishing that definition in the **Federal Register** for notice and comment. We have not taken such an action and hence are required to use the SBA definition. The SBA defines a small entity in the mining industry as an establishment with 500 or fewer employees. All mines affected by this rulemaking fall into this category and hence can be viewed as sharing the special regulatory concerns which the RFA was designed to address. We have looked at the impacts of our rules on a subset of mines with 500 or fewer employees—those with fewer than 20 employees, which we and the mining community have traditionally referred to as “small mines.” These small mines differ from larger mines not only in the number of employees, but also in economies of scale in material produced, in the type and amount of production equipment, and in supply inventory. Therefore, their costs of complying with our rules and the impact of our rules on them will also tend to be different. It is for this reason that “small mines,” as traditionally defined by our agency, are of special concern to us. No underground coal mine operator having fewer than 20 employees has applied for a PFM to use a high-voltage continuous mining machine. In addition, in the future, we do not expect mine operators in this size class to use a high-voltage continuous mining machine. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed rule would have no economic impact on mine operators in this size class. We limit the remainder of the analysis to impacts on “small entities” with respect to SBA's definition of a small mine (those employing 500 or fewer workers). We conclude that we can certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities that are covered by this rulemaking. Factual Basis for Certification Our analysis of impacts on “small entities” begins with a “screening” analysis. The screening compares the estimated compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by the rule to the estimated revenues for those small entities. When estimated compliance costs or savings are less than one percent of the estimated revenues, we believe it is generally appropriate to conclude that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. When estimated compliance costs or savings exceed one percent of revenues, it tends to indicate that further analysis may be warranted. The 2003 production for underground coal mine operators that employ 500 or fewer employees was 299,300,775 tons. Using a 2003 price of underground coal of $26.71 per ton, the 2003 underground coal revenues for these mine operators is estimated to be approximately $8 billion. 1 Based on SBA's definition of a small mine the proposed rule cost savings of $33,920 are substantially less than 1 percent (less than 0.0001 percent) of estimated revenues of underground coal mine operators. 1 The 2003 underground coal price of $26.71 can be found in Table 28 of the Department of Energy/Energy Information Agency, Annual Coal Report 2003. V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The reproposed provisions do not contain any information collection requirements. VI. Other Regulatory Considerations A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This proposed rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, nor would it increase private sector expenditures by more than $100 million annually, nor would it significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Accordingly, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* ) requires no further agency action or analysis. B. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families This proposed rule would have no affect on family well-being or stability, marital commitment, parental rights or authority, or income or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires no further agency action, analysis, or assessment. C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights This proposed rule would not implement a policy with takings implications. Accordingly, Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, requires no further agency action or analysis. D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and was carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system. Accordingly, this proposed rule would meet the applicable standards provided in section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This proposed rule would have no adverse impact on children. Accordingly, Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, as amended by Executive Orders 13229 and 13296, requires no further agency action or analysis. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This proposed rule would not have “federalism implications” because it 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.” Accordingly, Executive Order 13132, Federalism, requires no further agency action or analysis. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule would not have “tribal implications” because it would not “have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” Accordingly, Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires no further agency action or analysis. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use We have reviewed this proposed rule for its impact on the supply, distribution, and use of energy because it applies to the underground coal mining sector. Because this proposed rule would result in yearly net cost savings to the coal mining industry, this proposed rule would neither reduce the supply of coal nor increase its price. This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” because it would not be “likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy * * * (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies).” Accordingly, Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, requires no further agency action or analysis. I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking We have thoroughly reviewed this proposed rule to assess and take appropriate account of its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations. As discussed in Chapter V of this PREA, we have determined and certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, Executive Order 13272, Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking, requires no further agency action or analysis. List of Subjects 30 CFR Part 18 Approval regulations, Electric motor-driven mine equipment and accessories, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 30 CFR Part 75 Electric power, Fire prevention, High-voltage continuous mining machines, Incorporation by reference, Mandatory safety standards, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Underground coal mines. Dated: March 20, 2006. David G. Dye, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Mine Safety and Health Administration proposes to further amend the proposed rule published at 69 FR 42812, July 16, 2004, as follows: PART 18—ELECTRIC MOTOR-DRIVEN MINE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES 1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957 and 961. 2. In proposed § 18.54, revise paragraphs
(f)introductory text and (f)(4) to read as follows: § 18.54 High-voltage continuous mining machines.
(f)*High-Voltage Trailing Cable(s).* High-voltage trailing cable(s) must conform to the ampacity and outer dimensions in accordance with the Insulated Cable Engineers Association
(ICEA)Standard ICEA S-75-381/National Electrical Manufacturer's Association
(NEMA)Standard NEMA WC 58-1997. The physical properties of the double-jacketed cable required in (f)(4)(i), must also be in accordance with ICEA S-75-381/NEMA WC 58-1997. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect a copy of these incorporated documents at any of the following locations: MSHA Coal Mine Safety and Health District Office, MSHA Approval and Certification Center, the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For more information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . You may also purchase a copy from Global Engineering Documents, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, Colorado 80112. In addition, the cable must be constructed with:
(4)Either a double-jacketed or single-jacketed cable as follows:
(i)*Double jacket.* A double-jacketed cable consisting of reinforced outer and inner protective layers. The inner layer must be a distinctive color from the outer layer. The color black must not be used for either protective layer.
(ii)*Single jacket.* A single layer jacketed cable with a tear strength of more than 100 pounds per inch thickness, and a tensile strength of more than 4000 pounds per square inch. The cable jacket must not be black in color. PART 75—MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND COAL MINES 1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811. 2. Revise proposed § 75.828 to read as follows: § 75.828 Trailing cable pulling. The trailing cable must be de-energized prior to being pulled by any equipment other than the continuous mining machine. Cable manufacturers' recommended pulling procedures must be followed when pulling the trailing cable with such equipment. 3. Revise proposed § 75.833 to read as follows: § 75.833 Handling high-voltage trailing cables.
(a)*Cable Handling.* Miners must not handle energized trailing cables unless they are wearing high-voltage insulating gloves, which include the rubber gloves and leather outer protector gloves, or are using insulated cable handling tools that meet the requirements of paragraphs
(c)or
(d)of this section.
(b)*Availability.* Each mine operator must make high-voltage insulating gloves or insulated cable handling tools available to miners handling energized high-voltage trailing cables.
(c)*High-voltage insulating gloves.* High-voltage insulating gloves provided under paragraph
(b)of this section must meet the following requirements:
(1)The rubber gloves must be designed and maintained to have a voltage rating of at least Class 1 (7,500 volts) and electrically tested every 30 days in accordance with publication ASTM F496-02a, “Standard Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and Sleeves”
(2002)which is incorporated by reference. You may inspect a copy at any MSHA Coal Mine Safety and Health District office, at the MSHA Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. You may also purchase a copy from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959. The Director of the Federal Register has approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)The rubber glove portion must be air-tested at the beginning of each shift to ensure its effectiveness.
(3)Both the leather protector and rubber insulating gloves must be visually examined before each use for signs of damage or defects.
(4)Damaged rubber gloves must be removed from the underground area of the mine or destroyed. Leather protectors must be maintained in good condition or replaced.
(d)*Insulated cable handling tools.* Insulated cable handling tools provided under paragraph
(b)of this section must be:
(1)Rated and properly maintained to withstand at least 7,500 volts;
(2)Designed and manufactured for cable handling;
(3)Visually examined before each use for signs of damage or defects; and
(4)Removed from the underground area of the mine or destroyed if damaged or defective. [FR Doc. E6-4359 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD13-06-009] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones: Fireworks Displays in the Captain of the Port Portland Zone AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to amend and revise 33 CFR 165.1315 to establish additional safety zones on the waters of the Suislaw, Willamette, Columbia, Coos, and Chehalis Rivers, located in the Area of Responsibility
(AOR)of the Captain of the Port, Portland, Oregon, during annual fireworks displays. The Captain of the Port, Portland, Oregon, is taking this action to safeguard watercraft and their occupants from safety hazards associated with these displays. Entry into these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: You will mail comments and related material to Petty Officer Keuter at Sector Portland 6767 N. Basin Ave, Portland OR 97217. Sector Portland maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Sector Portland between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Charity Keuter, c/o Captain of the Port, Portland 6767 N. Basin Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97217,
(503)240-9301. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in the rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD13-06-009], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if your comments reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Sector Portland at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one 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 The Coast Guard is proposing to establish additional permanent safety zones to allow for safe annual fireworks displays. All events occur within the Captain of the Port, Portland, OR, Area of Responsibility (AOR). These events may result in a number of vessels congregating near fireworks launching barges and sites. The safety zones are needed to protect watercraft and their occupants from safety hazards associated with fireworks displays. This safety zone will be enforced by representatives of the Captain of the Port, Portland, Oregon. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal and local agencies. Discussion of Rule This proposed rule, for safety concerns, will control vessels, personnel and individual movements in a regulated area surrounding the fireworks event indicated in section 2 of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Entry into these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Portland or his designated representative. Captain of the Port, Portland, Oregon, will enforce these safety zones. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other Federal and local agencies. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 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 has not reviewed this rule under that Order. This rule is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated areas established by the proposed regulation will encompass small portions of the Columbia, Willamette, Coos, Chehalis and Siuslaw Rivers in the Portland AOR on different dates, all in the evening when vessel traffic is low. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 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-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of the Willamette, Columbia, Coos, Chehalis and Suislaw Rivers during the times mentioned in section 2(a)(8-14) at the conclusion of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These safety zones will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only sixty minutes during the evenings when vessel traffic is low. Traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives on scene, if safe to do so. 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 (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why 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), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please contact Petty Officer Keuter by phone at
(503)240-9301 or by e-mail at *Charity.S.Keuter@uscg.mil.* The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)
(2)of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule establishes safety zones which have duration of no more than two hours each. Due to the temporary safety zones being less than one week in duration, an Environmental Checklist and Categorical Exclusion is not required. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 165.1315 by adding paragraphs (a)(9) through
(15)to read as follows: § 165.1315 Safety Zones: Fireworks displays in the Captain of the Port Portland Zone.
(a)* * *
(9)*Florence Chamber 4th of July Fireworks Display, Florence, OR:*
(i)*Location.* All water of the Siuslaw River enclosed by the following points: 43°58′ 05″ N, 124°05′54″ W following the shoreline to 43°58′20″ N, 124°04′46″ W then south to 43°58′07″ N, 124°, 04′40″ W following the shoreline to 43°57′48″ N, 124°05′54″ W then back to the point of origin.
(ii)*Enforcement Period.* This section is enforced annually on July fourth from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (PDT).
(10)*Oaks Park July 4th Celebration, Portland, OR:*
(i)*Location.* All water of the Willamette River enclosed by the following points: 45°28′26″ N, 122°39′43″ W following the shoreline to 45°28′10″ N, 122°39′54″ W then west to 45°28′41″ N, 122°40′06″ W following the shoreline to 45°28′31″ N, 122°40′01″ W then back to the point of origin.
(ii)*Enforcement Period.* This section is enforced annually on July fourth from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (PDT).
(11)*Rainier Days Fireworks Celebration, Rainier, OR:*
(i)*Location.* All water of the Columbia River enclosed by the following points: 46°06′04″ N, 122°56′35″ W following the shoreline to 46°05′53″ N, 122°55′58″ W then south to 46°05′24″ N, 122°55′58″ W following the shoreline to 46°05′38″ N, 122°56′35″ W then back to the point of origin.
(ii)*Enforcement Period.* This section is enforced annually on the second Saturday of July each year from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (PDT). Except that when the first Saturday falls on July 1, this section will be enforced on the third Saturday of July. In 2006, this zone will be enforced on July 15th.
(12)*Ilwaco July 4th Committee Fireworks, Ilwaco, WA:*
(i)*Location.* All water of the Columbia River extending out to a 700′ radius from the launch site at 46°18′17″ N, 124°01′55″ W.
(ii)*Enforcement Period.* This section is enforced annually on the first Saturday of July from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (PDT). In 2006, this zone will be enforced on July 1st.
(13)*Milwaukie Centennial Fireworks Display, Milwaukie, OR:*
(i)*Location.* All water of the Willamette River enclosed by the following points: 45°26′41″ N, 122°38′46″ W following the shoreline to 45°26′17″ N, 122°38′36″ W then west to 45°26′17″ N, 122°38′55″ W following the shoreline to 45°26′36″ N, 122°38′50″ W then back to the point of origin.
(ii)*Enforcement Period.* This section is enforced annually on the third Saturday of July each year from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (PDT). Except that when the first Saturday falls on July 1, this section will be enforced on the fourth Saturday of July. In 2006, this zone will be enforced on July 22th.
(14)*Splash Aberdeen Waterfront Festival, Aberdeen, WA:*
(i)*Location.* All water of the Chehalis River extending out to 500 feet of the following points: 46°58′40″ N, 123°47′45″ W.
(ii)*Enforcement Period.* This section is enforced annually on July fourth from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (PDT).
(15)*City of Coos Bay July 4th Celebration, Coos Bay, OR:*
(i)*Location.* All water of the Coos River extending out to 1200 feet of the following points: 43°22′12″ N, 124°12′39″ W.
(ii)*Enforcement Period.* This section is enforced annually on July fourth from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. (PDT). Dated: March 20, 2006. Patrick G. Gerrity, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Portland, OR. [FR Doc. E6-4380 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. RM 2006-1] Fees AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking is issued to inform the public that the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is considering adoption of new fees for special services and Licensing Division services, and that the Office has submitted to Congress proposed new statutory fees for certain other services. The proposed fees would recover a significant part of the costs to the Office of registering claims and provide full cost recovery for many services provided by the Office which benefit only or primarily the user of that service. DATES: Comments should be in writing and received on or before April 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a private party, an original and ten copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered by a commercial courier, an original and ten copies of any comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington DC. If sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to: Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya M. Sandros, Associate General Counsel, or Kent Dunlap, Principal Legal Advisor for the General Counsel, Telephone:
(202)707-8380. Telefax:
(202)707-8366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 708 of the copyright law establishes two separate procedures for adjusting fees for Copyright Office services to account for increases in costs. Fees for services specifically enumerated in section 708(a)(1)-(9) (“statutory fees”) are adjusted according to the procedures set forth in section 708(b). This procedure includes the completion of a cost study, and the forwarding of an economic report and proposed fee schedule to Congress, which takes effect unless Congress enacts a law within 120 days disapproving of the new fees. The second procedure concerns fees for services not specifically enumerated in section 708(a)(1)-(9), and for the purposes of this rulemaking, these fees are termed “discretionary fees.” Section 708(a) authorizes the Register to set these fees at “the cost of providing the service.” As with the statutory fees, the Copyright Office adjusts the discretionary fees only after conducting a cost study to determine the cost of providing the services. This is the third schedule of fees to be proposed under the current fee setting procedure which was adopted when section 708 was amended in 1997 with the passage of the Technical Amendments Act, Public Law 105-80, 111 Stat. 1529. The first schedule was adopted in 1999, see 63 FR 43426 (August 13, 1998) and 64 FR 29518 (June 1, 1999), and the second schedule was adopted three years later in 2002. To cover the rising costs of providing copyright services, most fees were increased in 2002. However, notable among fees that were not adjusted at that time was the basic registration filing fee, which was kept at the 1999 level. The Register provided a number of reasons for her determination that no increase in basic registration fees was warranted at the time. They included the substantial increase of 1999 which accounted for an acceptable level of cost recovery, the costs associated with increasing the fee, and the changes in processing anticipated from the Copyright Office's impending business process reengineering effort. 67 FR 38003 (May 31, 2002). Because costs have continued to rise since the last fee adjustment in 2002, the Office undertook a third cost study to assess how well current fees allowed the Copyright Office to recover its costs of providing its services to the public. The result of that study is today's proposal to increase most fees to a level that allows the Office to recover a significant portion of its costs as contemplated by Congress. I. Overview The expenses of the Copyright Office have always been substantially funded through the charging of fees for the services provided, although programs relating to domestic and international copyright policy and public information have been generally paid for by appropriated funds. Yet, for the last fifty years, fees have not provided for full cost recovery. During this period, cost recovery through the charging of fees has ranged from 50% to 80% of the expenses of the Copyright Office. In fiscal year 2005, the Copyright Office collected $23,788,227 in fees, sufficient to offset only 56.7% of the total expenditures of the Office, whereas in 2002, fees covered just over 66% of the Office's costs for providing its services. In order to place the Copyright Office on a sounder financial footing, a cost study was undertaken last year by the Office which evaluated all the fees charged by the Copyright Office. Based upon its findings, the Office determined that most fees for services mandated by statute should be adjusted to reflect increased costs of providing the various services. These proposed new fees falling within the rate adjustment procedure of section 708(b) were submitted to Congress on March 1, 2006. Congress now has 120 days to consider these fees. During that time, the Office is also providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the statutory fees which the Office intends to adjust to recover the increased costs of providing the specified services. Section 708(a) also provides the Register of Copyrights with authority to fix fees for other services based on the cost of providing that service. Like the statutory fees, the Office is proposing to adjust these discretionary fees to reflect increases in the cost of providing those services and, in those instances where the service benefits primarily the user of that service, the fee has been set to recover the full cost to the Office of providing that service. However, before adopting these proposed new fees, the Office is providing the public with an opportunity to comment. The Copyright Office plans to implement the new discretionary fees on the same day the statutory fees are scheduled to become effective, July 1, 2006. II. Discretionary Fees In general, the proposed discretionary fees have been adjusted to reflect the current cost of providing the service. Before making this decision, the Office conducted a study of the costs of the services provided and took into account the criterion that the Register may set fees at a level no more than necessary to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the Copyright Office. Because costs have increased, and the Register is keenly aware of Congress's basic criterion of cost recovery, most fees will be increased. Some will be increased at full cost recovery where the service benefits only or primarily the requester, e.g, secure test processing, expedited handling of claims, and expedited searches. Fees for first and second level reconsideration of refusal to register a claim are also being increased, but not at the level of full cost recovery, since it may be helpful to courts to have the claims reexamined at a higher level, and the purpose of providing such review is to ensure that the Office's decisions on registration comply with the applicable legal standards. While this notice will not discuss each fee increase individually because fees have been adjusted either to recover the cost of the service or to account for the rate of inflation since the last fee adjustment, the Copyright Office believes further clarification is useful for the following fees. 1. *Registration of GATT Group* . The Copyright Office has decided to eliminate the option of registering up to ten related, restored works published within the same calendar year as a GATT/Group. This service is seldom used and it is costly to the Office. Consequently, GATT/Group has been listed as discontinued. However, works that would have been filed under this provision can still be registered, although each work must be registered individually. Technical amendments will be made in the final rule to 37 CFR 202.12(c) to reflect this change. 2. *Recordation of Notices of Intent to Enforce (NIE's)* . With the enactment of section 104A of the copyright law in 1993, the Copyright Office was given the responsibility of recording documents known as Notices of Intent to Enforce copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Because the term of eligibility for filing NIE's has concluded for most countries, this is now a seldom used service. The Copyright Office has decided to apply the same fees to NIE's as are applicable to other recorded documents. 3. *Search estimate by the Reference & Bibliography Section* . Currently, the Reference & Bibliography Section provides a free written estimate of the number of hours which will likely be needed to complete a search and report and an estimate of the fee to conduct this search. But in order to arrive at the estimate, the Reference and Bibliography Section actually performs a major part of the search; and if the client requesting the estimate decides not to order the search, the Office receives no fee to cover its cost of providing the estimate. Consequently, the Office will no longer provide free estimates under the new fee schedule. Instead, as with other services that are primarily for the benefit of the user, the Copyright Office is setting the fee at a level to recover its cost for the service provided. The fee to prepare a written estimate will now be $100. If the client requests that the search and report be undertaken, the $100 fee will be applied to the total fee charged. 4. *Handling fee for extra deposit copy for certification* . For claimants who wish to obtain certified copies of their deposits after issuance of the certificate of registration, the Copyright Office will accept an extra deposit copy to be certified upon registration of the claim. The current fee for this service is the same as the fee for the basic registration and it has been adjusted under the new schedule to the same level as the basic registration fee. 5. *Expedited Reference & Bibliography Search and Report* . The Copyright Office is adopting an hourly fee for providing a written search report based on an expedited search of the Copyright Office records. This fee replaces the current hourly fee and surcharge now used to cover the costs of these services. The new single fee covers both the search and the written report and has been calculated to maintain full cost recovery. 6. *Copying fees* . Current fees do not recover the costs of providing copies of Copyright Office records or copies of deposits, often exceeding by approximately 50% the amount of fees received by the Office for these services. To eliminate this shortfall, the new fees for various forms of reproductions have been increased by up to 50% and, in the case of photocopying documents, a minimum fee of $6.00 has been added to cover the administrative costs of handling these requests. Moreover, the Office has decided to harmonize the fees for photocopying throughout the Office. III. Statutory Fees The Office is basing its conclusion that most statutory fees should be increased upon its findings from the cost study and after considering a number of policy and economic factors such as fairness and equity and consideration of the objectives of the copyright system, projected inflation, and the effect of these increases on the public's decision to utilize these services. In light of these considerations, a number of statutory fees have been adjusted to achieve or maintain full cost recovery, *e.g.* , the fees for filing a supplemental registration, filing a registration for renewal or for a group of related works, issuing a receipt for a deposit under 17 U.S.C. 407, recording documents of various types, and providing additional certificates, whereas other statutory fees have been adjusted only to account for inflation since the last fee adjustment in 2002. Moreover, the Office has concluded that the basic registration filing fee, which was not adjusted in 2002, should be increased by 50% this year from $30 to $45. However, this increase does not reflect full cost recovery for the service provided nor does the Office seek to recover its full cost for registration of a single claim. The registration system provides benefits to the public and to the Library of Congress that offset the need to set fees at a level that would recover full costs. Although the copyright law provides incentives to register copyrights, *see* 17 U.S.C. 410(c), 411(a), and 412, the Office nevertheless recognizes that copyright owners balance the benefits of these incentives against the costs of registration, and that there is a fair degree of price elasticity with respect to registration. Therefore, the Office has set the fee for the basic registration at a level to allow reasonable recovery of costs but not so high as to discourage copyright owners from filing their claims with the Office. The “Analysis and Proposed Copyright Fee Schedule to Go into Effect July 1, 2006,” which was submitted to Congress on March 1, 2006, is posted on the Office's Web site at: *http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/proposedfees2006.pdf.* IV. Proposed New Statutory and Filing Fees Based upon the cost study prepared by the Copyright Office, the Copyright Office is proposing a new fee schedule for registration and related services, special services, and Licensing Division services. A comparison of existing and new fees is included in the following charts: Current fees Fee to become effective July 1, 2006 Registration, Recordation and Rated Services
(1)Registration of a basic claim in an original work of authorship: Forms TX, SE, PA, VA (including Short Forms), and Form SR $30 $45
(2)Registration of a claim in a group of contribution to periodicals (GR/CP) 30 45
(3)Registration of a renewal claim (Form RE): Claim without Addendum 60 75 Addendum 30 220
(4)Registration of a claim in a mask work (Form MW) 75 95
(5)Registration of a claim in a group of serials (Form SE/Group) [per issue, with minimum 2 issues] 1 15 25
(6)Registration of a claim in a group of daily newspapers and qualified newsletters (Form G/DN) 55 70
(7)Registration of a claim in a restored copyright (Form GATT) 30 45
(8)Registration of a claim in a group of restored works (Form GATT Group [per issue, with $45 minimum] 2 15 discontinued.
(8)Registration of a group of published photographs 3 NA 75
(9)Preregistration of certain unpublished works 3 100 150
(10)Registration of a correction or amplification to a claim (Form CA) 100 115
(11)Providing an additional certificate of registration 30 40
(12)Certification of other Copyright Office records (per hour) 80 150
(13)Search-report prepared from official records (per hour) 75 150 Estimate of search fee 4 NA 100
(14)Location of Copyright Office records (per hour) 80 150 Location of in-process materials (per hour) 100 150
(15)Recordation of document, including a Notice of Intention to Enforce
(NIE)(single title) 80 95 Additional titles (per group of 10 titles) 20 25
(15)Recordation of a Notice of Intention to Enforce
(NIE)a restored copyright containing no more than one title 5 30 discontinued, see item 14. Additional NIE titles
(each)1 discontinued, see item 14.
(16)Recordation of Notice of Intention to Make and Distribute Phonorecords 12 12
(17)Recordation of an Interim Designation of Agent to Receive Notification of Claimed Infringement under § 512(c)(2) 3 30 80
(18)Issuance of a receipt for a § 407 deposit 10 20
(19)Registration of a claim in a vessel hull 3 140 200 Special Services
(1)Service charge for deposit account overdraft 100 150
(2)Service charge for dishonored deposit account replenishment check 35 75
(3)Appeals:
(i)First appeal 200 250 Additional claim in related group 20 25
(ii)Second appeal 500 500 Additional claim in related group 20 25
(4)Secure test processing charge, per hour 60 150
(5)Copying of Copyright Office Records by staff, 3 Photocopy (b&w) (per page, minimum $6) 0.50 0.50 Photocopy (color) (per page, minimum $6) 1 1.50 Photograph (Polaroid) 10 15 Photograph (digital) 30 45 Slide 2 3 Audiocassette (first 30 minutes) 50 75 Additional 15 minute increments 20 20 Videocassette (first 30 minutes) 50 75 Additional 15 minute increments 25 25 CD or DVD 40 50 Zip or floppy disk 75 100
(6)Special handling fee for a claim 580 685 Each additional claim using the same deposit 50 50
(7)Special handling fee for recordation of a document 330 435
(8)Handling fee of extra deposit copy for certification 6 30 45
(9)Full-term retention of a published deposit 425 425
(10)Expedited Reference and Bibliography search and report 7 NA 400/hr. (surcharge, per hour) 250 discontinued.
(11)Expedited Certification & Documents services (surcharge, per hour) 200 240
(12)Notice to Libraries and Archives 3 50 50 Each additional title 20 20
(13)Use of COINS terminal in LM-B14 (per hour) 3 20 25
(14)Fed Ex Service 3 15 35
(15)Delivery of documents via facsimile (per page, 7 page maximum) 3 1 1 Licensing Division Services
(1)Recordation of a Notice of Intention to Make and Distribute Phonorecords (17 U.S.C. 115) 12 12
(2)Certificate of Filing a Notice of Intention (17 U.S.C. 115) 8 discontinued. 9
(3)Filing Fee for Recordation of License Agreements under 17 U.S.C. 118 50 125
(4)Recordation of Certain Contracts by Cable Television Systems Located Outside the Forty-Eight Contiguous States 50 50
(5)Initial Notice of Digital Transmission of Sound Recording (17 U.S.C. 114) 20 20 Amendment of 17 U.S.C. 114 Notice 20 20
(6)Statement of Account Amendment (Cable Television Systems and Satellite Carriers, 17 U.S.C. 111 and 119) 15 95
(7)Statement of Account Amendment (Digital Audio Recording Devices or Media, 17 U.S.C. 1003) 8 20 95
(8)Photocopy made by staff (b&w) (per page, minimum $6) 0.40 0.50
(9)Search, per hour 65 150
(10)Certification of Search Report 65 150 1 Amended to replace $45 minimum with a 2 issues minimum. 2 To be removed; *see* section II 1. 3 New items: fees not currently listed in 37 CFR 201.3(d). 4 New fee, *see* section II 3. 5 *See* section II 2. 6 New item: fee not currently listed in 37 CFR 201.3(d), *see* section II 4. 7 New fee, *see* section II 5. 8 To be combined with item 6 in the final regulation. 9 Discontinued service, *see* 69 FR 34582 (June 2, 2004). V. Technical Amendments The Office will adopt technical amendments as needed to conform existing regulations with the changes proposed in this notice. VI. Request for Comments The Copyright Office is publishing the proposed new fees in order to provide the public with an opportunity to comment by April 27, 2006. The new fees will take effect on July 1, 2006, unless the Copyright Office has received adverse substantive comments, and publishes a notice withdrawing the new fees before that date. Dated: March 21, 2006. Tanya M. Sandros, Associate General Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-4385 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P 71 59 Tuesday, March 28, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 23, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Information Collection Pursuant to the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6201-13). *OMB Control Number:* 0596-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The Cabin User Fee Fairness Act (CUFFA) of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6201-13) directs the Forest Service
(FS)to promulgate regulations and adopt policies for assessing a base cabin user fee for recreation residence on National Forest System lands. Section 614 of CUFFA establishes a “transition period”, defines how long the transition period will last, and provides guidelines on how the annual cabin user fees should be assessed and adjusted during the transition period. Upon adoption of the final regulations and agency directives, recreation resident permit holders will have 2 years to request that the FS take one of the following actions to establish a new base cabin user fee:
(1)Conduct a new appraisal pursuant to the final regulations and policies;
(2)commission a peer review of an existing appraisal report; or
(3)establish a new fee based on the market value of the typical lot identified in an existing appraisal report that was completed and approved after September 30, 1995. *Need and Use of the Information:* The information request is necessary for the FS to collect the permit holder's request, agreement, and accompanying signatures. The information will also assist the FS in establishing an accurate base cabin user fee during the transition period prescribed in CUFFA. Failure to collect this information could prevent the FS from complying with the provision of CUFFA and deny holders the opportunity to exercise one of the three options provided under CUFFA. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 305. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (One Time Collection). *Total Burden Hours:* 81.25. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-4449 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tongass National Forest Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, will prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)that evaluates a potential significant amendment to the 1997 Tongass National Forest Plan. The Record of Decision will consider and identify changes, if any, to the current 1997 Forest Plan. DATES: A specific proposed action is expected to be identified and posted on the Web site, *http://tongass-fpadjust.net* , in May 2006. The Draft EIS is expected to be mailed in November 2006, which will begin a 90-day public comment period. Public meetings and subsistence hearings will be scheduled during the 90-day comment period. The Record of Decision is expected to be signed in July 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information is available on the Tongass Forest Plan Adjustment Internet site at *http://www.tongass-fpadjust.net* . General and specific comments on the amendment can be submitted online at this Internet site. Questions about the project can be also directed to Lee Kramer, Forest Plan Project Manager, (Telephone 907-586-8811, ext. 225 or e-mail *lkramer@fs.fed.us* ). Written inquiries can be directed to: Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest, Attn: Forest Plan Amendment, 648 Mission Street, Ketchikan, AK 99901. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires the Forest Service to develop land and resource management plans for each unit of the National Forest System. These plans are often referred to as forest plans. The Tongass National Forest adopted its first forest plan in 1979. The Tongass National Forest issued a Record of Decision (ROD), which revised its forest plan in 1997. A new Forest Plan Record of Decision was issued in 1999, which was set aside in 2001 as a result of litigation. Other litigation, occurring at the same time, indicated the Forest Plan EIS needed to be supplemented to evaluate roadless areas on the Tongass for wildnerness recommendations. Therefore, a Forest Plan Supplemental EIS was completed in 2003. The Tongass forest plan is being amended to respond to the court decision in *National Resources Defense Council* v. *U.S. Forest Service* , 421 F.3d 797 (9th Circ. 2005). In that decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the environmental impact statement and record of decision for the Tongass forest plan adopted in 1997 had errors relating to the use of projected market demand for timber, the range of alternatives considered, and the cumulative effects of activities on non-National Forest System lands. In addition, ongoing implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of the 1997 Forest Plan has generated a list of potential changes. Most of these changes were identified during the 5 Year Review of the Forest Plan conducted in 2004 and documented on the 5 Year Review Web site ( *http://www.tongass-5yearreview.net/* ). For additional related information see the Forest Plan Maintenance Program Web sites ( *http://www.tongass-fpmaintprog.net/* ). Examples of these potential Forest Plan changes include: new director for invasive species management, consideration of new direction on Off Highway Vehicle
(OHV)use, and heritage sacred sites standards and guidelines. Information on these and other Forest Plan-related work items can be found on the Forest Plan Adjustment Web site ( *http://tongass-fpadjust.net* ). This amendment will draw upon a wealth of existing information. The environmental impact statements and planning records for the 1997 forest plan and the 2003 wilderness evaluation contain a great deal of analysis of land allocations, effects on communities and impacts to fish and wildlife. It will also be informed by the ideas and information from five substantial public comment efforts that have occurred since the 1997 forest plan was adopted:
(1)The 69 day comment period for the proposed national roadless area conservation rule that began May 10, 2000;
(2)the 60 day comment period for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the roadless area conservation rule that began July 10, 2001;
(3)the 90-day comment period for the Tongass 2003 wilderness area Supplemental EIS that began May 17, 2002;
(4)the 30 day comment period for the interim roadless area conservation rule for the Tongass National Forest that began July 15, 2003; and
(5)the 122 day comment period on the 2004 roadless area conservation rule that began July 12, 2004. Further analysis, including new estimates of timber market demand by the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, follow-up studies commissioned after the 1997 forest planning process, and experience gained while implementing the 1997 Tongass forest plan will also aid in responding to the inadequacies identified by the Court and the potential changes that surfaced during the Forest Plan 5 Year Review. Appropriate alternatives for amending the Forest Plan will be developed and then evaluated in the EIS. The major issues that are likely to drive alternative development include timber demand and supply, wildlife and fish conservation, and maintaining inventoried roadless areas. Since 1997 timber harvest and road construction have been well below the level permitted by the Forest Plan. Because the 5 Year Review did not identify any individual concerns requiring revision, the proposed action would amend the Forest Plan. The amendment will respond to the 9th Circuit Court and some of the concerns identified in the 5 Year Review. In addition, the proposed action will integrate past decisions (the 1997, 1999, and 2003 RODs, and all plan amendments completed to date) to resolve confusion regarding current management direction for the Tongass. The Forest Service recently issued the 2005 Forest Planning Rule. Because the Court indicated that an EIS needed to be prepared, and because the 2005 Rule does not require EISs for Forest Plans, the planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 will be followed for this amendment. Opportunities for the public to participate in the development of the EIS will be provided throughout the process. The Forest Service is using a combination of methods to engage and involve the public, but is emphasizing a Web-based approach. A Web site has already been established to provide information to the public and to accept comments ( *http://www.tongass-fpadjust.net/* ). The public is invited to visit this site to learn more about the amendment process and to provide comment on the process or on specific work items. Other potential public involvement methods include public mailings, public meetings, and use of the news media. Information from previous public input efforts related to the 1997 Forest Plan and the 2003 Supplemental EIS, will be incorporated. The comment period on the Draft EIS will be 90 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)publishes the notice of availability of the EIS in the **Federal Register** . A series of public meetings and subsistence hearings will be held during the 90-day public comment period. The Draft EIS is projected to be filed with the EPA in November 2006. The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental preview of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553, (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in the proposed action participate by the close of the 90-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns of the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)permits such confidentiality. Requesters should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 7 days. No outside permits or licenses are required to implement the proposed action. *Responsible Official:* The Tongass Forest Supervisor, 648 Mission Street, Ketchikan, AK, 99901, is the responsible official. The responsible official will consider the comments, response, disclosure of environmental consequences, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making the decision and stating the rationale in the Record of Decision. Dated: March 20, 2006. Forrest Cole, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 06-2952 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 38
Traces to 38 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
27 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 25
  • 14 CFR 34
  • 14 CFR 36
  • Pub. L. 93-574
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 30 CFR 7
  • 40 CFR 89
  • 30 CFR 18
  • 30 CFR 75
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 37 CFR 201
  • Pub. L. 105-80
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 16 USC 6201-13
  • 421 F.3d 797
  • 435 U.S. 519
  • 803 F.2d 1016
  • 490 F. Supp. 1334
  • 40 CFR 1503.3
  • 7 CFR 1.27(d)
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed special conditions
C.F.R.§ 21.17
C.F.R.§ 21.16
C.F.R.§ 11.19
C.F.R.§ 11.38
C.F.R.§ 21.101
C.F.R.§ 25.519
U.S.C.§ 106
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
F. App'x421 F.3d 797
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
F. App'x803 F.2d 1016
Cites 65 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.