Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule
35,776 words·~163 min read·
/register/2006/01/25/06-574A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 71 16 Wednesday, January 25, 2006 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 724 RIN 3206-AK55 Implementation of Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002—Reporting & Best Practices AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)is proposing regulations to carry out the reporting and best practices requirements of Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act). The No FEAR Act requires Federal agencies to report annually on certain topics related to Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. The No FEAR Act also requires a comprehensive study to determine the Executive Branch's best practices concerning disciplinary actions against employees for conduct that is inconsistent with these laws. This proposed rule will implement the reporting and best practices provisions of the No FEAR Act. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver written comments to Ana A. Mazzi, Deputy Associate Director for Workforce Relations and Accountability Policy, Office of Personnel Management, Room 7H28, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC, 20415; by FAX at
(202)606-2613; or by e-mail at *NoFEAR@opm.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary D. Wahlert by telephone at
(202)606-2930; by FAX at
(202)606-2613; or by e-mail at *NoFEAR@opm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States and its citizens are best served when the Federal workplace is free of discrimination and retaliation. In order to maintain a productive workplace that is fully engaged with the many important missions before the Government, it is essential that the rights of employees, former employees and applicants for Federal employment under antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws be protected and that agencies that violate these rights be held accountable. Congress has found that agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination. Furthermore, Congress has found that requiring Federal agencies to provide annual reports on discrimination, whistleblower, and retaliation cases should enable Congress to improve its oversight of compliance by agencies with laws covering these types of cases. Finally, Congress has required that the President or his designee conduct a study of discipline taken against Federal employees for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. The results of this study are then to be used to develop advisory guidelines that Federal agencies may follow to take such disciplinary actions. Congress entrusted the President with the authority to promulgate rules to carry out this title, and the President in turn delegated to OPM the authority to issue proposed regulations to implement the annual reporting and best practices provisions of Title II of the Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Public Law 107-174. These proposed regulations carry out that authority. Reporting Obligations Section 203 of the No FEAR Act requires Federal agencies to create annual reports on a number of items concerning Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws as defined in section 201 of 5 CFR part 724. The reports are to be submitted to Congress, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, and OPM. These regulations describe the required content and time line for the reports. Agencies are required to include in their first reports a one-time submission of five years of historical data, to the extent the data is available. The regulations call on agencies to report on numbers and types of disciplinary actions they have taken against their employees for conduct that is inconsistent with these laws. For purposes of these regulations, we propose to define “discipline” to include a range of actions that might be taken from reprimands through adverse actions such as removals and reductions in grade. This range reflects the types of actions that adjudicators and neutrals (mediators or others) have considered to be elements of an employee's past disciplinary record for purposes of determining the appropriateness of a penalty in an appeal of a subsequent disciplinary action. In addition, OPM is considering expanding the range of disciplinary actions reported to include unwritten actions such as oral admonishments. Consequently, OPM requests that respondents include in their comments any views as to whether unwritten actions, such as oral admonishments should be reported under the No FEAR Act. The regulations also require that agencies discuss in detail their policies for taking appropriate disciplinary action(s) against their employees for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. This information, in turn, will assist OPM in conducting a comprehensive study of the best practices in the Executive Branch for taking appropriate disciplinary actions for conduct that is inconsistent with these laws. Agencies are also required by the regulations to report the amounts reimbursed to the Judgment Fund for payments made in connection with litigation in Federal court about alleged violations of Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. To the extent such payments are made as part of a settlement agreement, those payments alone, and absent any other information, should not be construed as an admission of wrong-doing by any party to the proceedings. The regulations require reporting the dollar amounts involved, including a category for attorneys' fees where such fees are separately designated. Agencies are also required to discuss any adjustments to their agencies' budgets needed to meet their obligations to reimburse the Fund. Finally, the regulations note that the reports are due 180 days after the end of each fiscal year. The first reports under the No FEAR Act were due on March 30, 2005, based on the express terms of the statute and without regard to the status of the regulations. Thereafter, under the terms of the statute, these reports are due annually on March 30th. We recognize that many agencies already have submitted their reports based on their interpretations of the Act. In those cases, within 60 calendar days after the regulations become final, agencies will need to compare their reports with the regulations, supplement their earlier reports as necessary, and submit the supplemental information to the agencies receiving the annual reports, including OPM. Any such supplemental information would be due within 60 calendar days after the regulations become final. Agencies submitting supplemental reports must cover the data elements described in section 302(a)(1-8)(9 is excluded) of the regulations. Agencies submitting their reports after these regulations become final and any future reports must cover all data elements described in section 302(a). In all cases, agencies' first reports (and/or supplements) would cover information as of September 30, 2004. In addition, agencies that submitted reports before these regulations became final must submit copies of the entire reports to OPM within 60 calendar days after the regulations become final. Best Practices Section 204 of the No FEAR Act requires that the President or his designee issue rules to require a comprehensive study of the Executive Branch to determine the best practices concerning appropriate disciplinary actions agencies take against their employees for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. The Act also requires the President or his designee to develop advisory guidelines based on this study that agencies can follow in taking appropriate disciplinary actions in such circumstances. The regulations establish that the comprehensive study will be conducted by OPM. OPM welcomes comments on what and how performance should be measured to determine the effectiveness of agency disciplinary actions subject to the No FEAR Act. The regulations also provide that, as part of the study, OPM will review what agencies submit in their first reports under section 302 of the regulation. These regulations call for agencies to describe in detail their policies for taking disciplinary actions against employees for conduct that is inconsistent with the above laws. Finally, the regulations state that OPM will issue advisory guidelines to agencies on best practices they may follow in taking such disciplinary actions. Congress requires that agencies state specifically and in detail the extent to which they will follow the guidelines. The regulations require that these statements be in writing and state the extent to which the agency expects to implement the guidelines and the reasons for the stated degree of implementation. These statements must be submitted to Congress, the Attorney General, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and OPM within 30 working days from the date OPM issues the advisory guidelines. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulations pertain only to Federal employees and agencies. E.O. 12866—Regulatory Review This proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. E.O. 13132 This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. E.O. 12988—Civil Justice Reform This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Congressional Review Act This action pertains to agency management, personnel and organization and does not substantially affect the rights of obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 724 Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Claims. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend part 724, title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 724—IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE II OF THE NOTIFICATION AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACT OF 2002 1. In § 724.102 of subpart A, add a new definition for discipline in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 724.102 Definitions. *Discipline* means any one or a combination of the following actions: reprimand, suspension without pay, reduction in grade or pay, or removal. 2. In part 724, add subparts C and D to read as follows: Subpart C—Annual Report Sec. 724.301 Purpose and scope. 724.302 Reporting obligations. Subpart C—Annual Report § 724.301 Purpose and scope. This subpart implements Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 concerning the obligation of Federal agencies to report on specific topics concerning Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws covering employees, former employees, and applicants for Federal employment. § 724.302 Reporting obligations.
(a)Except as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section, each agency must report no later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal year the following items:
(1)The number of cases in Federal court pending or resolved in each fiscal year and arising under each of the respective provisions of the Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws as defined in § 724.102 of subpart A of this part in which an employee, former Federal employee, or applicant alleged a violation(s) of these laws separating data by the provision(s) of law involved;
(2)In the aggregate, for the cases identified in paragraph
(1)of this subsection and separated by provision(s) of law involved:
(i)The status or disposition (including settlement);
(ii)The amount of money required to be reimbursed to the Judgment Fund by the agency for payments as defined in § 724.102 of subpart A of this part;
(iii)The amount of reimbursement to the Fund for attorney's fees where such fees have been separately designated;
(3)In connection with cases identified in paragraph
(1)of this subsection, the total number of employees in each fiscal year disciplined as defined in § 724.102 of subpart A of this part and the specific nature, *e.g.* , reprimand, etc., of the disciplinary actions taken, separated by the provision(s) of law involved;
(4)The final year-end data about discrimination complaints for each fiscal year that was posted in accordance with Equal Employment Opportunity Regulations at subpart G of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (implementing § 301(c)(1)(B) of the No FEAR Act);
(5)Whether or not in connection with cases in Federal court, the number of employees in each fiscal year disciplined as defined in § 724.102 of subpart A of this part in *accordance with any agency policy* described in paragraph (a)(6) of this section. The specific nature, *e.g.* , reprimand, etc., of the disciplinary actions taken must be identified.
(6)A detailed description of the agency's policy for taking disciplinary action against Federal employees for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws or for conduct that constitutes another prohibited personnel practice revealed in connection with agency investigations of alleged violations of these laws;
(7)An analysis of the information provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(6)of this section in conjunction with data provided to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in compliance with 29 CFR 1614 subpart F of the Code of Federal Regulations. Such analysis must include:
(i)An examination of trends;
(ii)Causal analysis;
(iii)Practical knowledge gained through experience; and
(iv)Any actions planned or taken to improve complaint or civil rights programs of the agency with the goal of eliminating discrimination and retaliation in the workplace;
(8)For each fiscal year, any adjustment needed or made to the budget of the agency to comply with its Judgment Fund reimbursement obligation(s) incurred under § 724.103 of subpart A of this part; and
(9)The agency's written plan developed under § 724.203(a) of subpart B of this part to train its employees.
(b)The first report also must provide information for the data elements in paragraph
(a)of this section for each of the five fiscal years preceding the fiscal year on which the first report is based to the extent that such data is available. Under the provisions of the No FEAR Act, the first report was due March 30, 2005 without regard to the status of the regulations. Thereafter, under the provisions of the No FEAR Act, agency reports are due annually on March 30th. Agencies that have submitted their reports before these regulations became final must ensure that their reports contain data elements 1 through 8 of paragraph
(a)of this section and provide any necessary supplemental reports within 60 calendar days after the regulations become final. Future reports must include all of the data elements of paragraph(a) of this section.
(c)Agencies must provide copies of each report to the following:
(1)Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives;
(2)President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate;
(3)Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate;
(4)Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives;
(5)Each Committee of Congress with jurisdiction relating to the agency;
(6)Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
(7)Attorney General; and
(8)Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Subpart D—Best Practices Sec. 724.401 Purpose and scope. 724.402 Best practices study. 724.403 Advisory guidelines. 724.404 Agency obligations. Subpart D—Best Practices § 724.401 Purpose and scope. This subpart implements Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 concerning the obligation of the President or his designee
(OPM)to conduct a comprehensive study of best practices in the Executive Branch for taking disciplinary actions against employees for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection Laws and the obligation to issue advisory guidelines for agencies to follow in taking appropriate disciplinary actions in such circumstances. § 724.402 Best practices study.
(a)OPM will conduct a comprehensive study in the Executive Branch to identify best practices for taking appropriate disciplinary actions against Federal employees for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection Laws.
(b)The comprehensive study will include a review of agencies' discussions of their policies for taking such disciplinary actions as reported under § 724.302 of subpart C of this part. § 724.403 Advisory guidelines. OPM will issue advisory guidelines to Federal agencies incorporating the best practices identified under § 724.402 that agencies may follow to take appropriate disciplinary actions against employees for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Laws. § 724.404 Agency obligations.
(a)Within 30 working days of issuance of the advisory guidelines required by § 724.403, each agency must prepare a written statement describing in detail:
(1)Whether it has adopted the guidelines and if it will fully follow the guidelines;
(2)If such agency has not adopted the guidelines, the reasons for non-adoption; and
(3)If such agency will not fully follow the guidelines, the reasons for the decision not to do so and an explanation of the extent to which the agency will not follow the guidelines.
(b)Each agency's written statement must be provided within the time limit stated in paragraph
(a)of this section to the following:
(1)Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives;
(2)President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate;
(3)Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
(4)Attorney General; and
(5)Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management. [FR Doc. E6-933 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 56 and 57 [Docket No. PY-02-003] RIN 0581-AC25 Update Administrative Requirements for Voluntary Shell Egg, Poultry, and Rabbit Grading AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects the ADDRESSES section of the proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** on January 13, 2006, regarding Voluntary Shell Egg, Poultry, and Rabbit Grading. This correction clarifies that comments may be submitted electronically to an e-mail address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles L. Johnson, Chief, Grading Branch,
(202)720-3271. Correction In the proposed rule FR Doc. E6-258, published January 13, 2006, (71 FR 2168) make the following correction. On page 2168, in the first column, information appearing in the ADDRESSES section is corrected to read as follows: ADDRESSES: Send written comments to David Bowden, Jr., Chief, Standardization Branch, Poultry Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0259, Room 3944-South, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0259. Also, comments may be faxed to
(202)690-0941. Comments should be submitted in duplicate. Comments may also be submitted electronically to: *AMSPYDockets@usda.gov* or *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments should refer to Docket No. PY-02-003 and note the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register.** All comments received will be made available for public inspection at the above location during regular business hours. Comments received also will be made available in the rulemaking section of the AMS Web site *http://www.ams.usda.gov/rulemaking.* A copy of this proposed rule may be found at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/poultry/regulations/index/html.* Dated: January 19, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-905 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 457 RIN 0563-AB97 Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Peanut Crop Insurance Provisions AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
(FCIC)proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Peanut Crop Insurance Provisions to remove all references to quota and non-quota peanuts and add provisions that will allow coverage for peanuts whether or not they are under contract with a sheller to better meet the needs of insured producers. The changes will apply for the 2007 and succeeding crop years. DATES: Written comments and opinions on this proposed rule will be accepted until close of business March 27, 2006 and will be considered when the rule is to be made final. Comments on information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 must be received on or before March 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Director, Product Development Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0812, Room 421, Kansas City, MO 64133-4676. Comments titled “Peanut Crop Provisions” may be sent via the Internet to *DirectorPDD@rm.fcic.usda.gov,* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov/.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. A copy of each response will be available for public inspection and copying from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., c.s.t., Monday through Friday, except holidays, at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Johnson, Risk Management Specialist, Research and Development, Product Development Division, Risk Management Agency, at the Kansas City, MO, address listed above, telephone
(816)926-7730. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053 through November 30, 2007. Government Paperwork Elimination Act
(GPEA)Compliance FCIC is committed to compliance with the GPEA, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public with the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. FCIC requires that all reinsured companies be in compliance with the Freedom to E-File Act and section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Regulatory Flexibility Act FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). Federal Assistance Program This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 and 7 CFR part 400, subpart J for the informal administrative review process of good farming practices, as applicable, must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought. Environmental Evaluation This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed. Background FCIC proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Peanut Crop Insurance Provisions to remove all references to quota and non-quota peanuts because the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 eliminated the peanut quota program as administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). FCIC anticipated that quotas could be eliminated years ago and previously included provisions that permitted guarantees to be based on the actual production history of the producer. This has allowed the program to operate since 2002. However, reference to quotas in the pricing methodology and other provisions has caused some confusion that will be eliminated when references are removed. The proposed changes are as follows: Section 1—Definitions—Add definitions for “base contract price,” “handler,” “harvest,” “marketing association,” “price election,” “sheller,” and “sheller contract” since these terms are required to provide insurance under a sheller contract. To the maximum extent practicable, these definitions will be given the same meaning as similar terms in other insured contracted crops. Revise the definition of “farmers’ stock peanuts” to specifically state farmer stock peanuts have to be picked and threshed. Revise the definition of “planted acreage” to recognize peanuts are sometimes planted with two rows close together followed by a space wide enough to permit mechanical cultivation followed by two rows planted close together. This revision allows peanut producers to cultivate their peanuts in a manner recognized by agriculture experts as a good farming practice. Remove the definitions of “approved yield,” “county,” and “production guarantee (per acre)” because these definitions will now be the same as the definitions in the Basic Provisions. Remove the definitions of “average price per pound,” “average support price per pound,” “CCC,” “effective poundage marketing quota,” “inspection certificate and sales memorandum,” “non-quota peanuts,” “quota peanuts,” “segregation I, II, or III,” and “value per pound” because the elimination of the peanut quotas make these definitions no longer applicable to the Crop Provisions. Section 2—Revise section 2 to specify that if the producer insures any peanuts in accordance with a sheller contract all of the producer's peanut acreage in the county will be considered one enterprise unit. It is possible for producers to have several sheller contracts with different prices. Requiring that all peanut acreage in the county be included in one enterprise unit prevents the producer from shifting production from a unit with a higher price to a unit with a lower price in order to create or increase an indemnity. The producer must report all applicable information separately by sheller contract on the acreage report and any claim forms. However, the information for each contract will be aggregated to obtain the total information for the unit. This requirement for reporting separately, and aggregating for the unit, is also necessary if the producer has both peanuts under a sheller contract and non-contract peanuts in the same unit. Regardless of whether the peanuts are covered by a sheller contract, if the producer elects to insure all of the peanuts in the county using the price election provided by FCIC, the producer will be eligible for unit division (optional, basic, or enterprise) in accordance with section 34 the Basic Provisions if the requirements for such units are met. Section 3—Remove the references to quota and non-quota peanuts, quota price elections, and the effective poundage marketing quota throughout the section. FCIC is also proposing to now cover peanuts under contract with a sheller at the contract price. Currently, there is only one price election announced by FCIC that is applicable to all peanuts but many producers claim to receive a higher price for their peanuts under contract with shellers. These provisions will permit producers to insure their peanuts at the contract prices if all other conditions in the policy are met. Producers will still have the option to insure their peanuts that are not covered by a sheller contract under the FCIC announced price election. Further, even if the peanuts are covered by a sheller contract, the producer can still elect to insure them using the price election announced by FCIC. In section 3(a), FCIC also proposes to revise the provisions to specify that the price election percentage the producer chooses for peanuts not insured using the sheller contract price (which also includes peanuts in excess of the amount required to fulfill the producer's sheller contract) and for peanuts insured using the sheller contract price must have the same percentage relationship to the maximum price election offered by the FCIC. For example, if the producer elects a 100 percent price election percentage for peanuts insured at the contract price, the producer must also elect a 100 percent price election percent for peanuts insured using FCIC's announced price election. FCIC is proposing to revise a new section 3(b) to specify that producers who are insuring contracted peanuts cannot insure more pounds of peanuts than the production guarantee (per acre) multiplied by the number of acres that will be planted to peanuts. Provisions are also added that specify that production under a sheller contract equal to or less than the production guarantee will be valued by using the price election computed from the base contract price stated in the sheller contract. If the producer did not contract for the total production guarantee, any loss more than the amount stated in the sheller contract will be valued using the price election provided by FCIC. These provisions are necessary to prevent the producer from over insuring his peanuts by producing more than are under contract and insuring all the peanuts produced at the contract price. FCIC is proposing to remove the current section 3(c) because all producers will now be required to file an annual production report. The previous provisions states producers may be required to annually report production but since they now must report, and such reporting will be in accordance with section 3 of the Basic Provisions, there is no reason to have a separate report in these Crop Provisions. Removal of these provisions will result in a default to the requirements of section 3 of the Basic Provisions. FCIC is proposing to add a new section 3(c) to specify that any peanuts excluded from the sheller contract at any time during the crop year will be insured at the price election announced by FCIC. Again, this provision is necessary to prevent the over insurance of the peanuts by valuing them at a contract price when they are no longer under contract. Section 6—Remove the provisions regarding reporting the effective poundage marketing quota because it is no longer applicable and replacing them with provisions that require that a copy of all peanut sheller contracts must be provided to the insurance provider on or before the acreage reporting date if the producer wishes to insure the peanuts in accordance with the sheller contract. This will permit approved insurance providers to properly determine the production guarantees and premium owed. Section 7—Remove and reserve this section because the elimination of the quotas will permit annual premium to be calculated in accordance with the provisions in the Basic Provisions. Section 8—Restructure the section and add a new section 8(a)(5) to specify peanuts may be insured whether or not they are grown in accordance with a sheller contract. The policy allows insurance for both, the only issue is the value of the peanuts. The provision will specify that if the peanuts are not grown in accordance with the sheller contract, they will be valued at the price election announced by FCIC. This will prevent peanuts that do not qualify for the contract price from being insured at such price. FCIC also proposes to add a new section 8(b) specifying when the producer will be considered to have a share in the insured crop. To be insured, the producer must have a risk of loss in the crop. However, there may be contracts where a set payment under the contract is guaranteed by the sheller and the sheller bears the entire risk of crop loss. In such circumstances, the producer would not have an insurable interest. This is consistent with other contracted crops. FCIC also proposes to add a new section 8(c) that specifies that a peanut producer who is also a sheller or handler may establish an insurable interest if specified requirements are met. Since the sheller controls the contract price and the records of production to count, it is possible for such producers to manipulate losses. As a result, FCIC requires specific conditions to be met before producers who are shellers can insure the crop. This is consistent with other contracted crops. Section 12—Restructure the section. FCIC also proposes to revise the provisions to make the statement in the Basic Provisions ineffective that states the replanting payment per acre will be limited to the producers actual cost for replanting and remove such references from section 12. The actual costs associated with replanting peanuts have increased over the years and seldom, if ever, would the actual cost be less than the maximum amount allowed in the Crop Provisions. However, it is very burdensome for the approved insurance providers to collect the records of the actual costs. Since such records are seldom ever used, there is no longer the need impose this burden on the approved insurance provider. This change should have little effect on the replant payment amounts. FCIC is also proposing to add a new section 12(d) to specify replanting payments will be calculated using the applicable price election and production guarantee for the crop type that is replanted and insured. A revised acreage report will also be required to reflect the replanted type, if applicable. There have been instances where producers have replanted a different insured crop type that has different yields and prices than the type originally planted. This could result in the crop being over-insured or under-insured if the production guarantee and prices were based on the crop type originally planted. Instead, FCIC has proposed to add provisions to ensure that the production guarantee and replanting payment are based on the yield and prices for the type that is replanted. A revised acreage report will be required to reflect the replanted type, as applicable. Section 13—FCIC proposes to revise to remove those provisions that are now included in section 14 of the Basic Provisions. Section 14—FCIC is proposing to remove section 14(b) because it pertains to marketing quotas, which have been eliminated rendering the provisions moot. FCIC also proposes to revise and restructure section 14(b) to remove all references to quotas and instead, allow a distinction to be made between peanuts insured under a sheller contract and the contract price and those that are insured at the FCIC announced price election. Further, FCIC proposes to add provisions that specify the priority given for the contract price to the production to count when there is more than one sheller contract. The production to count will be valued using the highest price election first and will continue in decreasing order to the lowest price election based on the amount or peanuts insured at each price election. These provisions are necessary to prevent the producer from over insuring their peanuts by producing more peanuts than are under contract and insuring all the peanuts produced at the contract price. FCIC also proposes to revise the computations to take into consideration the different values of peanuts depending on whether they are under contract or not. To the extent the producer is unable to fulfill the sheller contract, the value of such lost peanuts will be based on the contracted price. The value of peanuts lost over and above the contracted amount will be valued at the FCIC announced price. Section 15—FCIC proposes to add a new provision to provide prevented planting coverage. Previously these provisions were in the Special Provisions and are being moved to the Crop Provisions to be consistent with other crops that have prevented planting provisions. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 Crop insurance, Peanuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Rule Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 7 CFR part 457 to read as follows: PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p). 2. Revise the introductory text of § 457.134 to read as follows: § 457.134 Peanut crop insurance provisions. The peanut crop insurance provisions for the 2007 and succeeding crop years are as follows: 3. Amend section 1 of § 457.134 by adding definitions for “base contract price,” “enterprise unit,” “handler,” “harvest,” “marketing associations,” “price election,” “sheller” and “sheller contract”, revising definitions of “farmers’ stock peanuts” and “planted acreage”, and removing definitions of “approved yield,” “average price per pound,” “average support price per pound,” “CCC,” “county,” “effective poundage marketing quota,” “inspection certificate and sales memorandum,” “non-quota peanuts,” “production guarantee (per acre),” “quota peanuts,” “segregation I, II, or III,” and “value per pound” to read as follows: 1. Definitions *Base contract price.* The price for farmers' stock peanuts stipulated in the sheller contract, without regard to discounts or incentives that may apply; not to exceed the maximum amount specified in the Special Provisions. *Enterprise unit.* If you do not insure any peanuts in accordance with a sheller contract, an enterprise unit is in accordance with section 34 and the definition of “enterprise unit” in section 1 of the Basic Provisions. However, if you insure any peanuts in accordance with a sheller contract, in lieu of the definition of “enterprise unit” in section 1 of the Basic Provisions, an enterprise unit will be all insurable acreage of the peanuts in the county in which you have a share on the date coverage begins for the crop year. *Farmers' stock peanuts.* Picked or threshed peanuts produced in the United States which are not shelled, crushed, cleaned, or otherwise changed (except for removal of foreign material, loose shelled kernels and excess moisture) from the condition in which peanuts are customarily marketed by producers. *Handler.* A person who is a sheller, a buying point, a marketing association, or has a contract with a sheller or a marketing association to accept all of the peanuts marketed through the marketing association for the crop year. The handler acquires peanuts for resale, domestic consumption, processing, exportation, or crushing through a business involved in buying and selling peanuts or peanut products. *Harvest.* Removal of peanuts from the field. *Marketing association.* A cooperative approved by the Secretary to issue payment programs for peanuts. *Planted acreage.* In addition to the requirement in the definition in the Basic Provisions, peanuts must initially be planted in a row pattern which permits mechanical cultivation or in a manner that allows the peanuts to be cared for in a manner recognized by agriculture experts as a good farming practice. Acreage planted in any other manner will not be insurable unless otherwise provided by the Special Provisions or by written agreement. *Price election.* In addition to the definition in the Basic Provisions, the price election for peanuts insured in accordance with a sheller contract will be the percentage you elect multiplied by the base contract price specified in the sheller contract. *Sheller.* Any business enterprise regularly engaged in processing peanuts for human consumption, that possesses all licenses and permits for processing peanuts required by the state in which it operates, and that possesses facilities, or has contractual access to such facilities, with enough equipment to accept and process contracted peanuts within a reasonable amount of time after harvest. *Sheller contract.* A written agreement between the producer and a sheller, or between the producer and a handler, containing at a minimum:
(a)The producer's commitment to plant and grow peanuts, and to deliver the peanut production to the sheller or handler;
(b)The sheller's or handler's commitment to purchase all the production stated in the sheller contract (an option to purchase is not a commitment); and
(c)A base contract price. If the agreement fails to contain any of these terms, it will not be considered a sheller contract. 4. Revise section 2 of § 457.134 to read as follows: 2. Unit Division
(a)If you insure any acreage in the county in accordance with one or more sheller contracts, you are only eligible for an enterprise unit on all insurable acreage of peanuts in the county.
(b)If you insure all acreage in the county under the price election announced by FCIC in accordance with the Basic Provisions, you may elect to insure your peanut acreage in the county as:
(1)An enterprise unit; or
(2)Any other unit structure you may qualify for under section 34 of the Basic Provisions. 5. Revise section 3 of § 457.134 to read as follows: 3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities In addition to the requirements of section 3 of the Basic Provisions:
(a)The price election percentage you choose for peanuts which are not insured in accordance with a sheller contract (may also include peanuts in excess of the amount required to fulfill your sheller contract) and for peanuts insured in accordance with a sheller contract must have the same percentage relationship to the maximum price election offered by us for peanuts not insured in accordance with a sheller contract. For example, if you choose 100 percent of the maximum price election for peanuts not insured in accordance with a sheller contract, you must also choose 100 percent of the applicable price election for peanuts insured in accordance with a sheller contract.
(b)You may insure your peanuts in accordance with a sheller contract, however, you may not insure for more pounds of peanuts than your production guarantee (per acre) multiplied by the number of acres that will be planted to peanuts.
(1)Any loss of production equal to or less than your production guarantee (per acre) will be valued by using the price election computed from the base contract price stated in your sheller contract.
(2)If you do not contract for your total production guarantee any loss above the amount stated in the contract will be valued based on the price election issued by FCIC.
(c)Any peanuts excluded from the sheller contract at any time during the crop year will be insured at the price election issued by FCIC and elected by you. 6. Revise section 6 of § 457.134 to read as follows: 6. Report of Acreage In addition to the requirements of section 6 of the Basic Provisions, you must provide a copy of all sheller contracts to us on or before the acreage reporting date if you wish to insure your peanuts in accordance with your sheller contract. 7. Remove and reserve section 7 of § 457.134. 8. Revise section 8 of § 457.134 to read as follows: 8. Insured Crop
(a)In accordance with section 8 of the Basic Provisions, the crop insured will be all the peanuts in the county for which a premium rate is provided by the actuarial documents:
(1)In which you have a share;
(2)That are planted for the purpose of marketing as farmers' stock peanuts;
(3)That are a type of peanut designated in the Special Provisions as being insurable;
(4)That are not (unless allowed by the Special Provisions or by written agreement):
(i)Planted for the purpose of harvesting as green peanuts;
(ii)Interplanted with another crop; or
(iii)Planted into an established grass or legume; and
(5)Whether or not the peanuts are grown in accordance with a sheller contract (if not grown in accordance with the sheller contract, the peanuts will be valued at the price election issued by FCIC for the purposes of determining the production guarantee, premium, and indemnity).
(b)You will be considered to have a share in the insured crop if, under the sheller contract, you retain control of the acreage on which the peanuts are grown, you are at risk of a production loss, and the sheller contract provides for delivery of the peanuts to the sheller or handler and for a stipulated base contract price.
(c)A peanut producer who is also a sheller or handler may establish an insurable interest if the following requirements are met:
(1)The producer must comply with these Crop Provisions;
(2)Prior to the sales closing date, the Board of Directors or officers of the sheller or the handler must execute and adopt a resolution that contains the same terms as a sheller contract. Such resolution will be considered a sheller contract under this policy; and
(3)Our inspection reveals that the processing facilities comply with the definition of a sheller contained in these Crop Provisions. 9. Revise section 12 of § 457.134 to read as follows: 12. Replanting Payments
(a)A replanting payment is allowed as follows:
(1)In lieu of provisions in section 13 of the Basic Provisions that limit the amount of a replant payment to the actual cost of replanting, the amount of any replanting payment will be determined in accordance with these Crop Provisions;
(2)Except as specified in section 12(a)(1), you must comply with all requirements regarding replanting payments contained in section 13 of the Basic Provisions; and
(3)The insured crop must be damaged by an insurable cause of loss to the extent that the remaining stand will not produce at least 90 percent of the production guarantee for the acreage and it is practical to replant.
(b)The maximum amount of the replanting payment per acre will be the lesser of:
(1)20.0 percent of the production guarantee, multiplied by your price election, multiplied by your share; or
(2)$80.00 multiplied by your insured share.
(c)When the crop is replanted using a practice that is uninsurable for an original planting, the liability on the unit will be reduced by the amount of the replanting payment. The premium amount will not be reduced.
(d)Replanting payments will be calculated using your price election and production guarantee for the crop type that is replanted and insured. A revised acreage report will be required to reflect the replanted type, if applicable. 10. Revise section 13 of § 457.134 to read as follows: 13. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss Representative samples are required in accordance with section 14 of the Basic Provisions. 11. Amend section 14 of § 457.134 as follows: a. Remove paragraphs
(b)and (g), redesignate paragraphs
(c)through
(f)as subsections
(b)through
(e)respectively; b. Revise paragraph
(a)and newly redesignated paragraph (b); c. Amend newly redesignated paragraph (d)(3) by removing “(f)” and adding “(e)” in its place; d. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (e); and e. Remove the note at the end of section 14. The revised and added text reads as follows: 14. Settlement of Claim
(a)We will determine your loss on a unit basis. In the event you are unable to provide records of production that are acceptable to us for any:
(1)Optional unit, we will combine all optional units for which acceptable records of production were not provided; or
(2)Basic unit, we will allocate any commingled production to such units in proportion to our liability on the harvested acreage for the unit.
(b)In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy, we will settle your claim by:
(1)Multiplying the number of insured acres by the respective production guarantee (per acre) for peanuts insured under a sheller contract at the base contract price and for peanuts not insured under a sheller contract or you have elected the FCIC issued price election, as applicable;
(2)Multiplying each result of section 14(b)(1) by the applicable price election for peanuts insured at the base contract price or the price election issued by FCIC, as applicable;
(3)Totaling the results of section 14(b)(2);
(4)Multiplying the production to be counted by the respective price election (If you have one or more sheller contracts, we will value your production to count by using your highest price election first and will continue in decreasing order to your lowest price election based on the amount or peanuts insured at each price election);
(5)Totaling the results of section 14(b)(4);
(6)Subtracting the result of section 14(b)(5) from the result of section 14(b)(3); and
(7)Multiplying the result in section 14(b)(6) by your share. Example # 1 (without a sheller contract): You have 100 percent share in 25 acres of Valencia peanuts in the unit, with a production guarantee (per acre) of 2,000 pounds, the price election is $0.17 per pound, and your production to be counted is 43,000 pounds.
(1)25 acres × 2,000 pounds = 50,000 pound guarantee;
(2)50,000 pound guarantee × $0.17 price election = $8,500.00 guarantee;
(4)43,000 pounds of production to be counted × $0.17 price election = $7,310.00;
(5)$8,500.00 guarantee −$7,310.00 = $1,190.00; and
(6)$1,190.00 × 1.000 = $1,190.00; Indemnity = $1,190.00. Example # 2 (with a sheller contract): You have 100 percent share in 25 acres of Valencia peanuts in the unit, with a production guarantee (per acre) of 2,000 pounds. You have two sheller contracts, the first is for 25,000 pounds, price election (contract) is $0.23 per pound, and the second is for 10,000 pounds, price election (contract) is $0.21 per pound. The price election (non-contract) is $0.17 per pound, and your production to be counted is 43,000 pounds.
(1)25 acres × 2,000 pounds = 50,000 pound guarantee;
(2)25,000 pounds contracted × $0.23 price election (contract) = $5,750.00; 10,000 pounds contracted × $0.21 price election (contract) = $2,100.00; 50,000 pound guarantee −25,000 pounds contracted −10,000 pounds contracted = 15,000 pounds not contracted; 15,000 pounds not contracted × $0.17 price election (non-contract) = $2,550.00;
(3)$5,750.00 + $2,100.00 + $2,550.00 = $10,400.00 guarantee;
(4)43,000 pounds of production to be counted: 25,000 pounds contracted × $0.23 price election (contract) = $5,750.00; 10,000 pounds contracted × $0.21 price election (contract) = $2,100.00; 43,000 pounds of production to be counted −25,000 pounds contracted (at $0.23 per pound) −10,000 pounds contracted (at $0.21 per pound) = 8,000 pounds; 8,000 pounds × $0.17 price election (non-contract) = $1,360.00;
(5)$5,750.00 + $2,100.00 + $1,360.00 = $9,210.00;
(6)$10,400.00 guarantee − $9,210.00 = $1,190.00; and
(7)$1,190.00 × 1.000 = $1,190.00; Indemnity = $1,190.00.
(e)Mature peanuts may be adjusted for quality when production has been damaged by insurable causes.
(1)To enable us to determine the number of pounds, price per pound, and the quality of production for any peanuts that qualify for quality adjustment, we must be given the opportunity to have such peanuts inspected and graded before you dispose of them.
(2)If you dispose of any production without giving us the opportunity to have the peanuts inspected and graded, the gross weight of such production will be used in determining total production to count unless you submit a marketing record satisfactory to us which clearly shows the number of pounds, price per pounds, and quality of such peanuts.
(3)Such production to count will be reduced if the price per pound received for damaged peanuts is less than 85 percent of the applicable price election by:
(i)Dividing the price per pound, as determined by us in accordance with section 14(e)(1), received for the insured type of peanuts by the applicable price election; and
(ii)Multiplying this result by the number of pounds of such production. 12. Add a new section 15 of § 457.134 to read as follows: 15. Prevented Planting Your prevented planting coverage will be 50 percent of your production guarantee for timely planted acreage. If you have additional levels of coverage, as specified in 7 CFR part 400, subpart T, and pay an additional premium, you may increase your prevented planting coverage to a level specified in the actuarial documents. Signed in Washington, DC, on January 17, 2006. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-855 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AH29 Risk-Informed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant Accident Technical Requirements; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule: Extension of comment period. SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005 (70 FR 67598), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)published for public comment a proposed rule amending its regulations to permit current power reactor licensees to implement a voluntary, risk-informed alternative to the current requirements for analyzing the performance of emergency core cooling systems during loss-of-coolant accidents. On December 6, 2005, the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)requested a 30 day extension to the comment period for the proposed rule. On December 20, 2005, the Westinghouse Owners Group submitted a letter endorsing the NEI extension request. The extension requests were based on the occurrence of two major holidays during the comment period which limited the time available to coordinate industry comments from owners groups, vendors, and licensees. The NRC is extending the comment period on the proposed rule by an additional 30 days from the original February 6, 2006 deadline until March 8, 2006. This comment period extension also applies to related public comments submitted on the NRC report on Seismic Considerations for the Transition Break Size (70 FR 75501). DATES: The comment period has been extended and now expires on March 8, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Hand delivered comments should also be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and delivered to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays. You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking Web site *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* This site also provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher,
(301)415-5905; e-mail: *CAG@nrc.gov.* Certain documents relating to this rulemaking, including comments received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1-F21, Rockville, MD. The same documents may also be viewed and downloaded electronically via the rulemaking Web site; *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999 are also available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. For more information, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 202-634-3273 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard F. Dudley, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone
(301)415-1116, e-mail *rfd@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of January, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-857 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 120 RIN 3245-AE83 Business Loans and Development Company Loans; Liquidation and Litigation Procedures AGENCY: Small Business Administration (SBA). ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of reopening of the comment period. SUMMARY: On November 3, 2005, SBA published in the **Federal Register** a proposed rule which establishes procedures for Certified Development Companies
(CDCs)that are eligible for, and that request, authority from SBA to handle liquidation and litigation of loans that are funded with the proceeds of debentures guaranteed by the SBA under the 504 business loan program, and rights of appeal from denied applications; provides for new liquidation and debt collection litigation procedures for authorized CDCs and for lenders participating in the 7(a) business loan program (Lenders); establishes procedures for, and restrictions on, the payment by SBA of legal fees and expenses to CDCs and Lenders; requires Lenders to complete all cost-effective debt recovery actions prior to requesting guaranty purchase by SBA; limits to 120 days the number of days of interest that SBA will pay Lenders on 7(a) loans that have gone into default; revises SBA regulations pertaining to loan servicing actions; states that for 7(a) loans approved after the effective date of the rule, a Lender's consent to SBA's sale of certain 7(a) loans after guaranty purchase is granted; and clarifies existing regulations regarding the applicability of SBA regulations and loan program requirements, and regarding SBA purchases of guaranties. The proposed rule provided a 60-day comment period closing on January 3, 2006. We are re-opening the comment period until February 24, 2006, because we have been informed that, given the time of year, the public needs more time to formulate comments. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule published at 70 FR 66800, November 3, 2005, must be received on or before February 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by agency name and RIN 3245-AE83 for this rulemaking, by any of the following methods: Follow instructions for submitting electronic comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov;* E-mail: *james.hammersley@sba.gov,* include RIN number in the subject line of the message; Fax:
(202)481-2381; Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: James Hammersley, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Portfolio Management, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. Dated: January 19, 2006. Michael W. Hager, Associate Deputy Administrator for Capital Access. [FR Doc. E6-881 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23675; Directorate Identifier 2001-NM-320-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2-203 and A300 B4-203 Airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes); and Model A310-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that affects certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and all Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive inspections of the pitch trim system to detect continuity defects in the autotrim function, and follow-on corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require replacing the flight augmentation computers
(FACs)with new improved FACs. This proposed AD also revises the applicability of the existing AD. This proposed AD results from the development of a final action intended to address the unsafe condition. We are proposing this AD to prevent a sudden change in pitch due to an out-of-trim condition combined with an autopilot disconnect, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 24, 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. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL-401, on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-23675; Directorate Identifier 2001-NM-320-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 our docket 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 can 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 can 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 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 DMS receives them. Discussion On November 6, 2000, we issued AD 2000-23-07, amendment 39-11977 (65 FR 68876, November 15, 2000), for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and all Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections of the pitch trim system to detect any continuity defect in the autotrim function, and follow-on corrective actions if necessary. That AD was prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by the Direction Ge ne rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France. We issued that AD to prevent a sudden change in pitch due to an out-of-trim condition combined with an autopilot disconnect, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued One operator reported an undetected slow pitch trim movement in the nose-down direction leading to an out-of-trim situation and airplane nose-down attitude during climb phase after autopilot engagement. Investigation revealed an open circuit in the existing flight augmentation computer
(FAC)software design did not allow the FAC pitch trim monitoring function to provide automatic disengagement of pitch trim. Since AD 2000-23-07 was issued, as a result of these new findings and the incidents that prompted AD 2000-23-07, a new FAC was developed for Model A300-600 and A310-200 and -300 series airplanes to restore full capability of the FAC autotrim monitoring function. In AD 2000-23-07, we explain that we consider the requirements “interim action” and were considering further rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A300-22-6050, dated October 8, 2004, and A310-22-2058, dated April 6, 2005. The service bulletins describe procedures for replacing the FACs with new improved FACs. To ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France, the DGAC mandated the service information by issuing French airworthiness directive F-2005-111 R1, dated December 21, 2005. (The DGAC also mandated Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6041, described in AD 2000-23-07, for Model A300 B2-203 and A300 B4-203 airplanes, in French airworthiness directive F-2000-115-304 R5, dated July 6, 2005.) Accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletins is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. 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 AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. We are proposing to supersede AD 2000-23-07. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This action would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described in this proposed AD. Explanation of Changes to Existing AD We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. AD 2000-23-07 requires operators to report their inspection findings. We no longer need this information and have removed this requirement from this proposed AD. We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Costs of Compliance This AD would affect about 86 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Cost Estimates Action Service bulletins Work hours Hourly labor rate Parts cost Total per airplane Inspection required by AD 2000-03-07, per inspection cycle A300-22A6042, A300-22A0115, A310-22A2053 1 $65 None $65, per inspection cycle. Proposed FAC replacement A300-22-6050, A310-22-2058 9 $65 $2,677 $3,262. 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-11977 (65 FR 68876, November 15, 2000) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-23675; Directorate Identifier 2001-NM-320-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on this AD action by February 24, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2000-23-07. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category.
(1)Model A300 B2-203 and A300 B4-203 airplanes, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22A0115, Revision 02, dated March 7, 2000.
(2)Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, A300 B4-605R, B4-622R, A300 F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, except those modified in production by Airbus Modification 12932.
(3)Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, except those modified in production by Airbus Modification 12932. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from the development of final action intended to address the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent a sudden change in pitch due to an out-of-trim condition combined with an autopilot disconnect, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. 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. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2000-23-07 Repetitive Inspections
(f)For airplanes subject to the requirements of AD 2000-23-07: At the applicable time specified by paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, perform an inspection of the autotrim function by testing the flight control computer (FCC)/flight augmentation computer
(FAC)integrity in logic activation of the autotrim, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22A6042, Revision 01 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); A300-22A0115, Revision 02 (for Model A300 series airplanes); or A310-22A2053, Revision 01 (for Model A310 series airplanes); all dated March 7, 2000; as applicable. If any discrepancy is found, prior to further flight, perform all applicable corrective actions (including trouble-shooting; replacing the FCC and/or FAC, as applicable; retesting; checking the wires between certain FCC and FAC pins; and repairing damaged wires) in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours. Replacement of both FACs in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD terminates the inspection requirements of this paragraph.
(1)For airplanes on which the pitch trim system test has been performed in accordance with the requirements of AD 2000-02-04, amendment 39-11522: Inspect within 500 flight hours after accomplishment of the test required by that AD, or within 20 days after December 20, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-23-07, whichever occurs later.
(2)For all other airplanes: Inspect within 20 days after December 20, 2000. New Requirements of This AD FAC Replacement
(g)At the time specified in Table 1 of this AD, replace the two FACs with new FACs in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6050, dated October 8, 2004, or A310-22-2058, dated April 6, 2005; as applicable. Table 1.—Compliance Times To Replace FACs Airplane model/series Configuration Required compliance time after the effective date of this AD A300-600 Without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6041, Revision 01, dated February 21, 2001, or previous version, or Modification 12277 24 months. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6050, dated October 8, 2004, or Modification 12932. With accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6041, Revision 01, dated February 21, 2001, or previous version, or Modification 12277. 36 months. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6050, dated October 8, 2004, or Modification 12932. A310 Without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2052, Revision 01, dated November 8, 2001, or previous version, or Modification 12277 24 months. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2058, dated April 6, 2005, or Modification 12931. With accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2052, Revision 01, dated November 8, 2001, or previous version, or Modification 12277. 36 months. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2058, dated April 6, 2005, or Modification 12931. Part Installation
(h)On or after the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, any FAC having P/N B471AAM7 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes) or FAC P/N B471ABM4 (for Model A310 series airplanes), unless the FAC is in compliance with this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 14 CFR 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
(j)The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directives F-2005-111 R1, dated December 21, 2005, and F-2000-115-304 R5, dated July 6, 2005. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 17, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-897 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-23392; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-47-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Corporation (Formerly Allison Engine Company, Allison Gas Turbine Division, and Detroit Diesel Allison) Models 250-C30, 250-C40, and 250-C47 Series Turboshaft Engines 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 Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly Allison Engine Company, Allison Gas Turbine Division, and Detroit Diesel Allison)
(RRC)models 250-C30, 250-40, and 250-C47 series turboshaft engines. This proposed AD would add an additional life limit for third- and fourth-stage turbine wheels. This proposed AD results from analysis by RRC of failures of third- and fourth-stage turbine wheels. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of power, possible engine shutdown, or uncontained failure. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by March 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment 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 20590-0001. • 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 Rolls-Royce Corporation, P.O. Box 420, Indianapolis, IN 46206-0420; telephone
(317)230-6400; fax
(317)230-4243, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696; telephone
(847)294-8180; fax
(847)294-7834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-23392; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-47-AD” in the subject line 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 the DOT 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 AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and, any final disposition in person at the DOT Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management Facility receives them. Discussion Rolls-Royce Corporation investigated and analyzed nine failures of third- and fourth-stage turbine wheels, installed in models 250-C30, 250-40, and 250-C47 series turboshaft engines. The analysis revealed that third- and fourth-stage turbine wheels can prematurely fail if they are operated too many times in the transient overspeed region. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of power, possible engine shutdown, or uncontained engine failure. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of RRC Alert Commercial Engine Bulletins
(CEBs)No. CEB A-72-3272 (250-C30 series engines), No. CEB A-72-5048 (250-C40 series engines), and No. CEB A-72-6054 (250-C47 series engines), all Revision 1, all dated July 1, 2005 (combined in one document). These Alert CEBs contain revised transient overspeed limit tables, and include the steady-state avoidance range and new transient event thresholds. These Alert CEBs also include requirements to record events exceeding the “Event Threshold”. 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 products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require recording the number of times the third- and fourth-stage turbine wheels enter into the speed range between “Event Threshold” and “Maximum Overspeed Transient”. This proposed AD would also require retiring and replacing third- and fourth-stage turbine wheels that accumulate six transient overspeed events based on certain duration and speed parameters. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,300 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 42 work hours per engine to replace the third- and fourth-stage turbine wheels, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $25,000 per engine. We estimate that only 10% of all turbine wheel replacements would result from operators exceeding the new transient overspeed event limits. Based on these figures, we estimate the total potential maximum cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $3,604,900. 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. Would 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. 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 Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **Rolls-Royce Corporation:** Docket No. FAA-2005-23392; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-47-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by March 27, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly Allison Engine Company, Allison Gas Turbine Division, and Detroit Diesel Allison)
(RRC)models 250-C30, 250-40, and 250-C47 series turboshaft engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Bell 206L-3, Bell 206L-4, Bell 407, MDHI 369F, MDHI 369FF, MDHI 600N, and Sikorsky S-76A helicopters. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from analysis by RRC of failures of third- and fourth-stage turbine wheels. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of power, possible engine shutdown, or uncontained failure. 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.
(f)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, record each time the third- and fourth-stage turbine wheels enter into the speed range between “Event Threshold” and “Maximum Overspeed Transient”. Use paragraph 2.A. through 2.A.(5) of the Accomplishment Instructions and the applicable Figures 1 through 5 of RRC Alert Commercial Engine Bulletins
(CEBs)No. CEB A-72-3272, No. CEB A-72-5048, and No. CEB A-72-6054, all Revision 1, all dated July 1, 2005 (combined in one document) to determine the speed range.
(g)Remove and retire any third-stage turbine wheel or fourth-stage turbine wheel after the sixth time the wheel enters into the speed range between “Event Threshold” and “Maximum Overspeed Transient”. Third- and Fourth-Stage Turbine Wheel Life Limits
(h)The retirement criteria in this AD are in addition to the existing third- and fourth-stage turbine wheel hour and cycle life limits. You must retire the wheels when you exceed any published life limit (transient speed excursions, hours, or cycles). Alternative Methods of Compliance
(i)The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(j)None. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 18, 2006. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-898 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23673; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-233-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP 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 EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting to determine the part number of the ailerons. For airplanes with affected aileron part numbers, this proposed AD would require reworking the aileron damper fitting. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require replacing the rod end of the aileron damper assembly with an improved rod end. This proposed AD results from reports of structural failure of the rod end of the aileron damper, which was caused by insufficient clearance between the lugs of the aileron damper fitting and the rod end of the aileron damper. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the aileron damper, which could result in failure of the aileron actuator and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 24, 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 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-1175; 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-2006-23673; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-233-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 Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The DAC advises of reports indicating structural failure of the rod ends of the aileron damper. This failure has been attributed to insufficient clearance between the lugs of the aileron damper fitting and the rod end of the aileron damper. The insufficient clearance is associated with improper clearance between the rod end and its bearing race. A failed rod end is a hidden failure of the aileron damper. Flutter caused by failure of the aileron damper could result in failure of the aileron actuator. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145-27-0108, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2005, which is effective for airplanes that are equipped with an affected aileron. The service bulletin describes procedures for reworking the aileron damper fitting on the left- and right-hand sides of the airplane. For aileron dampers with certain part numbers and serial numbers, the service bulletin also describes procedures for replacing the rod end of the aileron damper assembly with an improved rod end on the left- and right-hand sides of the airplane. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-10-04, dated November 17, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. The EMBRAER service bulletin refers to Textron Service Bulletin 41012130-27-02, dated July 12, 2004, as an additional source of service information for replacing the rod end of the aileron damper assembly. The Textron service bulletin is included within the pages of the EMBRAER service bulletin. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil 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 DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DAC'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. 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 for Part Number 1 $65 None $65 680 $44,200. Rework 2 65 Free 130 680 $88,400. Replacement 2 65 Free 130 Up to 680 Up to $88,400. 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): **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2006-23673; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-233-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 24, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of structural failure of the rod end of the aileron damper, which was caused by insufficient clearance between the lugs of the aileron damper fitting and the rod end of the aileron damper. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the aileron damper, which could result in failure of the aileron actuator and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. 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. Part Number Determination
(f)Within 400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the ailerons on the left- and right-hand sides of the airplane to determine the part number (P/N). A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the P/N of the ailerons can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1)If the P/N of the aileron is not listed under “Affected components” in paragraph 1.A.(1) of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0108, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2005: No further action is required by this AD for that aileron.
(2)If the P/N of the aileron is listed under “Affected components” in paragraph 1.A.(1) of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0108, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2005: Do paragraph
(g)of this AD. Rework of Aileron Damper Fitting
(g)For any airplane equipped with an aileron having a P/N listed under “Affected components” in paragraph 1.A.(1) of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0108, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2005: Within 400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, rework the aileron damper fitting on the left- and right-hand sides of the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0108, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2005. Replacement of the Rod End of the Aileron Damper Assembly
(h)For airplanes equipped with an aileron damper assembly having P/N 41012130-102, -103, or -104, and serial number 001 through 0712 inclusive: Within 400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the rod end of the aileron damper assembly, P/N 41011486-101, with an improved rod end, P/N 41011486-102, on the left- and right-hand sides of the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0108, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2005. Note 1: EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0108, Revision 01, refers to Textron Service Bulletin 41012130-27-02, dated July 12, 2004, as an additional source of service information for replacing the rod end of the aileron damper assembly. The Textron service bulletin is included within the pages of the EMBRAER service bulletin. Actions Accomplished Previously
(i)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0108, dated July 28, 2004, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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. Related Information
(k)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-10-04, dated November 17, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 17, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-901 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23672; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-237-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, and 727-200 Series 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 Boeing transport category airplanes. This proposed AD would require determining if the terminal fittings of the spars of the wings are made of 7079 aluminum alloy material. For any positive finding, the proposed AD would require doing repetitive inspections for cracks and corrosion of all exposed surfaces of the terminal fitting bores; doing repetitive inspections for cracks, corrosion, and other surface defects, of all exposed surfaces, including the flanges, of the terminal fitting; applying corrosion inhibiting compound to the terminal fittings; and repairing or replacing any cracked, corroded, or defective part with a new part. This proposed AD also provides for an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD results from reports of cracking of the terminal fittings of the spars of the wings. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct stress-corrosion cracking of the terminal fittings, which could result in the failure of one of the terminal fitting connections. Such a failure, combined with a similar failure of one of the other three terminal fittings, could result in the inability of the airplane structure to carry fail-safe loads, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the wing attachment points. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 13, 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, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel F. Kutz, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)917-6456; fax
(425)917-6590. 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-2006-23672; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-237-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 We have received reports of cracking of the terminal fittings of the front and rear spars of the wings. The affected terminal fittings were made from a 7079-T6 aluminum forging. This material is known to be susceptible to stress-corrosion cracking. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the failure of one of the terminal fitting connections. Such a failure, combined with a similar failure of one of the other three terminal fittings, could result in the inability of the airplane structure to carry fail-safe loads, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the wing attachment points. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0185, Revision 1, dated November 3, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for determining if the terminal fittings of the front and rear spars of the wings are made of 7079 aluminum alloy material by either inspecting the forging number or doing a conductivity test. For any case where the terminal fitting is determined to be made of 7079 aluminum alloy material or where the material cannot be determined, the service bulletin describes procedures for doing repetitive fluorescent dye penetrant inspections for cracks and corrosion of all exposed surfaces of the terminal fitting bores; doing repetitive detailed inspections for cracks, corrosion, and other surface defects, of all exposed surfaces, including the flanges, of the terminal fitting; applying corrosion inhibiting compound to the terminal fittings; and repairing any cracked, corroded, or defective part or contacting Boeing if necessary. 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 Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.” In addition, the proposed AD would provide for an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The proposed AD also would require sending the initial inspection results to Boeing. Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. In paragraph 1.E., the service bulletins states, “Contact Boeing for replacement of the fitting with a fitting not made from 7079 aluminum alloy. Replacement of the fitting is considered terminating action for that fitting only.” However, the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin do not contain any procedures for accomplishing this replacement. Therefore, this proposed AD specifies that the optional replacement be done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office. Interim Action This proposed AD is considered to be interim action. The inspection reports that are required by this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the extent of the cracking and corrosion of the terminal fittings of the front and rear spars of the wings in the fleet, and to develop additional action if necessary to address the unsafe condition. If additional action is identified, we may consider further rulemaking. Costs of Compliance There are about 302 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 157 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed determination of forging number/material identification would take about 4 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $40,820, or $260 per airplane. Accomplishing the fluorescent dye penetrant and detailed inspections, if required, will take about 16 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the inspections to be $1,040 per airplane, per inspection cycle. 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): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2006-23672; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-237-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 13, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, and 727-200 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0185, Revision 1, dated November 3, 2005. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of cracking of the terminal fittings of the front and rear spars of the wings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct stress-corrosion cracking of the terminal fittings, which could result in the failure of one of the terminal fitting connections. Such a failure, combined with a similar failure of one of the other three terminal fittings, could result in the inability of the airplane structure to carry fail-safe loads, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the wing attachment points. 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. Determination of Type of Terminal Fittings, Repetitive Inspections, and Corrective Actions
(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, determine if the terminal fittings of the front and rear spars of the wings are made of 7079 aluminum alloy material by either inspecting the forging number or doing a conductivity test, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0185, Revision 1, dated November 3, 2005.
(1)If the forging number is that identified in Table 1 of this AD, or if the terminal fitting material is not made of 7079 aluminum alloy: No further action is required by this AD for that terminal fitting only. Table 1.—Forging Numbers Not Made of 7079 Aluminum Alloy Forging No. of terminal fittings Location
(i)65-16214-3 Rear spar of left wing.
(ii)65-16213-3 Front spar of left wing.
(iii)65-16214-4 Rear spar of right wing.
(iv)65-16213-4 Front spar of right wing.
(2)If any forging number other than those identified in Table 1 of this AD is found, or if any forging material is made of 7079 aluminum alloy, or if the material cannot be determined: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do the inspections specified in Table 2 of this AD and apply corrosion inhibiting compound
(CIC)to the terminal fittings, and before further flight, repair or replace any cracked, corroded, or defective part found during the inspections. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 60 months for the first two repeat intervals, and then thereafter at intervals not to exceed 30 months. Do the inspections, application of CIC, and repair in accordance with the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraphs
(h)and
(i)of this AD. Do the replacement in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD. Table 2.—Inspections Do— For— Of—
(i)A fluorescent dye penetrant inspection Cracks and corrosion All exposed surfaces of the terminal fitting bores.
(ii)A detailed inspection Cracks, corrosion, and other surface defects All exposed surfaces, including the flanges, of the terminal fitting. Optional Terminating Action
(g)Replacement of any terminal fitting of the front and rear spars of the wings with a new terminal fitting not made of 7079 aluminum alloy, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD for that terminal fitting only. For the replacement to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD. Exception to Service Information
(h)Where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracked, corroded, or defective part using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(l)of this AD, or replace in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD.
(i)Although the note in paragraph 3.B.7. of the service bulletin specifies procedures for a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection of the body fitting bore and repair if necessary, those procedures are not required by this AD. Parts Installation
(j)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any terminal fitting having forging number 65-16213-1/-2 or 65-16214-1/-2, or install any terminal fitting material made of 7079 aluminum alloy, on any airplane. Reporting
(k)Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the initial inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD to Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Attention: Manager, Airline Support, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, WA 98124-2207, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD. The report must include the operator's name, inspection results, a detailed description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of flight cycles and flight hours on the airplane. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)If the inspection was done after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2)If the inspection was accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 17, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-903 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23578; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-01-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Series 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 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
(MHI)MU-2B series airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to do the following: Remove and visually inspect the wing attach barrel nuts, bolts, and retainers for cracks, corrosion, and fractures; replace any cracked, corroded, or fractured parts; inspect reusable barrel nuts and bolts for deformation and irregularities in the threads; replace any deformed or irregular parts; and install new or reusable parts and torque to the correct value. This proposed AD results from a recent safety evaluation that used a data-driven approach to evaluate the design, operation, and maintenance of the MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary to ensure their safe operation. Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct cracks, corrosion, fractures, and incorrect torque values in the wing attach barrel nuts, which could result in failure of the wing barrel nuts and/or associated wing attachment hardware. This failure could lead to in-flight separation of the outer wing from the center wing section and result in loss of controlled flight. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment 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: 1-202-493-2251. • 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 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Nagoya Aerospace Systems Works, 10, OYE-CHO, Minato-Ku, Nagoya, Japan, or Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc., 4550 Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone:
(972)248-3108; facsimile:
(972)248-3321, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; facsimile:
(210)308-3370. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited *How do I comment on this proposed AD?* We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-23578; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-01-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 rulemaking. Using the search function of the DOT docket web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into 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 Dockets *Where can I go to view the docket information?* You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the DOT Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management Facility receives them. Discussion *What events have caused this proposed AD?* Recent accidents and the service history of the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes prompted FAA to conduct an MU-2B Safety Evaluation. This evaluation used a data-driven approach to evaluate the design, operation, and maintenance of MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary to ensure their safe operation. The safety evaluation provided an in-depth review and analysis of MU-2B incidents, accidents, safety data, pilot training requirements, engine reliability, and commercial operations. In conducting this evaluation, the team employed new analysis tools that provided a much more detailed root cause analysis of the MU-2B problems than was previously possible. Part of that evaluation was to identify unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. One of these conditions is the discovery of the right wing upper forward and lower forward barrel nuts found cracked during a scheduled 7,500-hour inspection on one of the affected airplanes. The manufacturer conducted additional investigations of the barrel nuts on other affected airplanes. The result of this investigation revealed no other cracked barrel nuts. However, it was discovered that several airplanes had over-torqued barrel nuts, which could result in cracking. *What is the potential impact if FAA took no action?* This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in failure of the wing barrel nuts and/or associated wing attachment hardware. This failure could lead to in-flight separation of the outer wing from the center wing section and result in loss of controlled flight. Relevant Service Information *Is there service information that applies to this subject?* We have reviewed Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin referenced as JCAB T.C.: No. 241, dated July 14, 2004, and MU-2 Service Bulletin referenced as FAA T.C.: No. 103/57-004, dated August 2, 2004. *What are the provisions of this service information?* These service bulletins describe procedures for: • Removing and inspecting the wing attach barrel nuts and retainer for cracks, corrosion, and fractures; • Replacing any wing attach barrel nuts and retainer with cracks, corrosion, or fractures; • Inspecting any bolts or barrel nuts to be reused for deformation or irregularities in the threads; • Replacing any bolts or barrel nuts with deformation or irregularities in the threads; and • Reinstalling the wing attach barrel nuts and hardware to the correct torque value. *Since Japan is the State of Design for the affected airplanes on one of the two type certificates, did the Japan Civil Airworthiness Board
(JCAB)take any action?* The MU-2B series airplane was initially certificated in 1965 and again in 1976 under two separate type certificates that consist of basically the same type design. Japan is the State of Design for TC No. A2PC, and the United States is the State of Design for TC No. A10SW. The affected models are as follows (where models are duplicated, specific serial numbers are specified in the individual TCs): Type certificate Affected models A10SW MU-2B-25, MU-2B-26, MU-2B-26A, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A, MU-2B-40, and MU-2B-60. A2PC MU-2B, MU-2B-10, MU-2B-15, MU-2B-20, MU-2B-25, MU-2B-26, MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36. The JCAB approved Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin referenced as JCAB T.C.: No. 241, dated July 14, 2004, and MU-2 Service Bulletin referenced FAA T.C.: No. 103/57-004, dated August 2, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Japan. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD *Why have we determined AD action is necessary and what would this proposed AD require?* We are proposing this AD to address an unsafe condition that we determined is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. This proposed AD would require you to do the following: • Remove and visually inspect the wing attach barrel nuts, bolts, and retainers for cracks, corrosion, and fractures; • Replace any cracked, corroded, or fractured wing attach barrel nuts, bolts, and retainers with new parts; • Inspect reusable barrel nuts and bolts for deformation and irregularities in the threads; replace any deformed or irregular wing attach barrel nuts or bolts with new parts; and • Install new or reusable parts and torque to the correct value. This proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Costs of Compliance *How many airplanes would this proposed AD impact?* We estimate that this proposed AD affects 397 airplanes in the U.S. registry. *What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes?* We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: X Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work hour × $65 per hour = $65 N/A $65 $65 × 397 = $25,805. We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane to replace all 8 barrel nuts 11 work hours × $65 per hour = $715 $60 for each barrel nut. There are 8 barrel nuts on each airplane Possible total cost of: $60 × 8 = $480. $715 + $480 = $1,195. *Are there other actions that FAA is issuing that would present a cost impact on the MU-2B series airplane fleet?* This is one of several actions that FAA is evaluating for unsafe conditions on the MU-2B airplanes. To date, this is the first proposed AD action to be taken. Authority for This Rulemaking *What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action?* 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 *Would this proposed AD impact various entities?* 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. 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 Federal Aviation Administration 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): **Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.:** Docket No. FAA-2006-23578; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-01-AD. When Is the Last Date I Can Submit Comments on This Proposed AD?
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 27, 2006. What Other ADs Are Affected by This Action?
(b)None. What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD?
(c)This AD affects the following Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Model Serial numbers MU-2B-10 101 through 347 (Except 313 and 321). MU-2B-15 101 through 347 (Except 313 and 321). MU-2B-20 101 through 347 (Except 313 and 321). MU-2B-25 101 through 347 (Except 313 and 321), 313SA, 321SA, and 348SA through 394SA. MU-2B-26 101 through 347 (Except 313 and 321), 313SA, 321SA, and 348SA through 394SA. MU-2B-26A 313SA, 321SA, and 348SA through 394SA. MU-2B-30 501 through 696 (Except 652 and 661). MU-2B-35 501 through 696 (Except 652 and 661), 652SA, 661SA, and 697SA through 730SA. MU-2B-36 501 through 696 (Except 652 and 661), 652SA, 661SA, and 697SA through 730SA. MU-2B-36A 652SA, 661SA, and 697SA through 730SA. What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?
(d)This AD results from a recent safety evaluation that used a data-driven approach to evaluate the design, operation, and maintenance of the MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary to ensure their safe operation. Part of that evaluation was to identify unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect and correct cracks, corrosion, fractures, and incorrect torque values in the wing attach barrel nuts, which could result in failure of the wing barrel nuts and/or associated wing attachment hardware. This failure could lead to in-flight separation of the outer wing from the center wing section and result in loss of controlled flight. What Must I Do To Address This Problem?
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Remove each wing attach barrel nut, bolt, and retainer and do a detailed visual inspection for cracks, corrosion, and fractures Within the next 200 hours time-in-service
(TIS)or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, unless already done Follow Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletins referenced as JCAB T.C.: No. 241, dated July 14, 2004, and FAA T.C.: No. 103/57-004, dated August 2, 2004, as applicable.
(2)If any signs of cracks, corrosion, or fractures are found on any wing attach barrel nut during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, replace that wing attach barrel nut, bolt, and retainer with new parts and install to the correct torque value Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, unless already done Follow Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletins referenced as JCAB T.C.: No. 241, dated July 14, 2004, and FAA T.C.: No. 103/57-004, dated August 2, 2004, as applicable, and the appropriate maintenance manual.
(3)If no signs of cracks, corrosion, or fractures are found during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, you may reuse the barrel nuts and bolts if they have been inspected and are free of deformation and irregularities in the threads. Reinstall inspected parts to the correct torque value. If the barrel nuts and bolts are not free of deformation and irregularities in the threads, install new parts to the correct torque value Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, unless already done Follow Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletins referenced as JCAB T.C.: No. 241, dated July 14, 2004, and FAA T.C.: No. 103/57-004, dated August 2, 2004, as applicable, and the appropriate maintenance manual. May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance?
(f)The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(g)For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance or for information pertaining to this AD, contact Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; facsimile:
(210)308-3370. Is There Other Information That Relates to This Subject?
(h)Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletins JCAB T.C.: No. 241, dated July 14, 2004, and FAA T.C.: No. 103/57-004, dated August 2, 2004, pertain to the subject of this AD. May I Get Copies of the Documents Referenced in This AD?
(i)To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Nagoya Aerospace Systems Works, 10, OYE-CHO, Minato-Ku, Nagoya, Japan, or Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc., 4550 Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone:
(972)248-3108; facsimile:
(972)248-3321. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-23578; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-01-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 19, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-912 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23674; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-234-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT 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 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the interior of the internal elevator torque tube of each elevator control surface for oxidation and corrosion, and corrective actions. This proposed AD results from corrosion in torque tubes of the elevators found during scheduled maintenance. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the torque tubes of the elevators, which could lead to an unbalanced elevator and result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 24, 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 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-1175; 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-2006-23674; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-234-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 Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT airplanes. The DAC advises that, during scheduled maintenance, corrosion was found inside the torque tubes of the elevators. Corrosion in the torque tubes can lead to an unbalanced elevator. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 120-55-0015, dated January 14, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a visual inspection of the interior of the internal elevator torque tube of each elevator control surface for oxidation and corrosion, and corrective actions. If no oxidation or corrosion is found and the internal diameter of the torque tube is protected (painted), the corrective action includes cleaning the internal diameter and applying a corrosion inhibiting compound. If no oxidation or corrosion is found but the internal diameter of the torque tube is unprotected, the corrective action includes cleaning the internal diameter and applying a chemical conversion coating, finishing coat, and corrosion inhibiting compound. If only oxidation is found, the corrective action includes removing the oxidation and applying a chemical conversion coating, finishing coat, and corrosion inhibiting compound. If oxidation is found but cannot be completely removed or if any corrosion points are found, the corrective action includes removing the affected elevator; removing any oxidation or corrosion from the interior part of the torque tubes with sandpaper; and applying a chemical conversion coating, finishing coat, and corrosion inhibiting compound. If the thickness of the removed corrosion is greater than 0.005 inch, the corrective action is to replace the corroded torque tube with a new torque tube. The DAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-10-03, dated November 3, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in Brazil and is 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 DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DAC'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, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-10-03 is applicable to “all EMB-120( ) aircraft models in operation.” However, this does not agree with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-55-0015, which states that only certain EMB-120 airplanes are affected and identifies them by serial number. This proposed AD would be applicable only to the airplanes listed in the service bulletin. This difference has been coordinated with the DAC. Clarification of Inspection Terminology The “visual inspection” specified in the EMBRAER service bulletin is referred to as a “detailed inspection” in this proposed AD. We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in this proposed AD. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 108 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $21,060, or $195 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): **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER)** : Docket No. FAA-2006-23674; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-234-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 24, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-55-0015, dated January 14, 2005. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from corrosion in torque tubes of the elevators found during scheduled maintenance. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the torque tubes of the elevators, which could lead to an unbalanced elevator and result in reduced controllability of the airplane. 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. Detailed Inspection and Corrective Actions
(f)Within 4,000 flight hours or 730 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first: Do a detailed inspection of the interior of the internal elevator torque tube of each elevator control surface for oxidation and corrosion, and the applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-55-0015, dated January 14, 2005. The corrective actions must be done before further flight after accomplishing the inspection. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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. Related Information
(h)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-10-03, dated November 3, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 17, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-902 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0003-200539; FRL-8024-6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama; Redesignation of the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On November 16, 2005, the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a request for parallel processing to redesignate the Birmingham 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (Birmingham area) to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and for EPA approval of an Alabama draft State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision containing a maintenance plan with a 2017 end year for the Birmingham area. The Birmingham area is composed of two counties, Jefferson and Shelby. EPA is proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the Birmingham area. Additionally, EPA is parallel processing the redesignation request and draft 8-hour ozone maintenance plan SIP revision for the Birmingham area (a required component of any redesignation to attainment) and is proposing approval of this draft maintenance plan because EPA has determined that the draft plan complies with the requirements of Section 175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This proposed approval is based on EPA's determination that Alabama has demonstrated that the Birmingham area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the CAA, including the determination that the entire Birmingham area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. In this action, EPA is also providing information on the status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for the new motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the year 2017 that is contained in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Birmingham area. EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0003, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *lakeman.sean@epa.gov.* 3. Fax: 404.562.9019. 4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0003”, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Sean Lakeman Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 12th floor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. “EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0003”. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at *lakeman.sean@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Background for the Proposed Actions? III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions? V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions? VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request? VII. What Is An Adequacy Determination and What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area's New MVEBs for the Year 2017? VIII. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2017 MVEBs IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking? Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to take several related actions. The Birmingham area is a basic 8-hour nonattainment ozone area and is composed of two counties, Jefferson and Shelby. EPA is proposing to determine that the Birmingham area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation request to change the legal designation of the Birmingham area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve Alabama's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Birmingham area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Birmingham area in attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2017. Additionally, through this rulemaking, EPA is announcing the status of EPA's Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2017 MVEBs for the Birmingham area. The Adequacy comment period for the 2017 MVEBs began on November 17, 2005, with EPA's posting of the availability of this submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/adequacy.htm* ). The Adequacy comment period for the 2017 MVEBs closed on December 19, 2005. No requests or adverse comments on this submittal were received during EPA's Adequacy comment period. EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs. Please see section VII of this rulemaking for further explanation of this process. II. What Is the Background for the Proposed Actions? Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the NAAQS. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e. 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information). Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, “Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards” states: The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm. The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data. The Birmingham 8-hour ozone nonattainment area was designated using 2001 to 2003 ambient air quality data. The **Federal Register** document making these designations was signed on April 15, 2004, and published on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857). The CAA contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic” nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant—including ozone—governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified” nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA's Phase I 8-hour ozone implementation rule (69 FR 23857), signed on April 15, 2004, an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart 2). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour ambient air quality design values. The Birmingham area was originally designated as a “basic” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857) and is subject to subpart 1 of part D. In 2005, the ambient ozone data for the Birmingham nonattainment area indicated no further violations of the 8-hour ozone standard, using data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 (with the 2003-2005 design value of 0.084 ppm), to demonstrate attainment. On November 16, 2005, Alabama requested redesignation to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard for the Birmingham area. The redesignation request includes three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality data for the ozone seasons of 2003 through 2005, indicating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS had been achieved for the Birmingham area. The ozone season for this area is from April 1 until October 31 of a calendar year. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured data is available for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that:
(1)The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2)the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k);
(3)the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;
(4)the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and,
(5)the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D. EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents: 1. “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,” Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990; 2. “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992; 3. “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)Redesignations,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992; 4. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; 5. “State Implementation Plan
(SIP)Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act
(ACT)Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; 6. “Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 7. “State Implementation Plan
(SIP)Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,1993; 8. “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993; 9. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and 10. “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions? On November 16, 2005, Alabama requested redesignation of the Birmingham area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA believes that Alabama has demonstrated that the Birmingham area has attained the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions? Approval of this redesignation request would change the official designation of the Birmingham area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Alabama SIP a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 2017. The 8-hour ozone maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes MVEBs of 23 tons per day
(tpd)for VOC, and 42 tpd for NO <sup>X</sup> for the year 2017. VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request? EPA is proposing to determine that the Birmingham 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all redesignation criteria have been met. The basis for EPA's determination is as follows:
(1)*The Birmingham area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.* EPA is proposing to determine that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. ADEM submitted ozone monitoring data from ten ambient ozone monitoring stations in the Birmingham area for the ozone seasons from 2003 to 2005. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AQS. The fourth high averages for 2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year average of these values (i.e. design value), are summarized in the following table: 8-Hour Ozone [Parts per million, ppm] Monitor County 4th high 8-hr ozone average 2003 2004 2005 3-year average Fairfield Jefferson 0.075 0.070 0.081 0.075 McAdory Jefferson 0.073 0.073 0.085 0.077 Hoover Jefferson 0.077 0.077 0.085 0.079 Pinson Jefferson 0.081 0.068 0.072 0.073 Tarrant Jefferson 0.075 0.068 0.084 0.075 Corner Jefferson 0.077 0.068 0.077 0.074 Providence Jefferson 0.070 0.070 0.079 0.073 N. Birmingham Jefferson 0.068 0.070 0.079 0.072 Leeds Jefferson 0.070 0.073 0.071 0.071 Helena Shelby 0.083 0.084 0.085 0.084 The design value for an area is the highest design value recorded at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the design value for the Birmingham area is 0.084 ppm, which meets the standard as described above. ADEM has also committed to continue monitoring in these areas in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA believes that the data submitted by Alabama provides an adequate demonstration that the Birmingham 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
(2)*Alabama has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the Birmingham area and*
(5)*Alabama has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.* Below is a summary of how these two criteria were met. EPA has determined that Alabama has met all applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Birmingham area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA has also determined that the Alabama SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation and that if applicable they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements. *a. Alabama has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.* The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E). Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See also Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA; *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri). General SIP requirements: Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D requirements (New Source Review
(NSR)permit programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the transport of air pollutants (NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The State will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e. for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001). EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, since, as explained below, no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission of the redesignation request. Therefore, as discussed above, for purposes of redesignation, they are not considered applicable requirements. EPA has previously approved general requirements in the Alabama SIP addressing section 110 elements (May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842). Part D requirements: EPA has also determined that the Alabama SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the area's redesignation request. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. Subpart 2 is not applicable to the Birmingham area. Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements: For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, and therefore none is applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation. For example, the requirements for an attainment demonstration that meets the requirements of section 172(c)(1) are not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for Reasonably Achievable Control Technology
(RACT)and Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM)(section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP)(section 172(c)(2)), and contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)). In addition to the fact that no part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the redesignation request and therefore are not applicable, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval prior to redesignation. Section 176 Conformity Requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code and the Federal Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa, FL). EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR in effect since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. The rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Alabama has demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect, and therefore, Alabama need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. Alabama's PSD program will become effective in the area upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). Thus, the area has satisfied all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA. b. *The area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.* EPA has fully approved the applicable Alabama SIP for the Birmingham area under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request, see Calcagni Memo at p. 3; *Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance* v. *Browner* , 144 F.3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001); plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. Following passage of the CAA of 1970, Alabama has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour standard applicable in the Birmingham area (May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842). As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that since the part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the redesignation request, they also are therefore not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
(3)*The air quality improvement in the Birmingham 8-hour ozone area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions.* EPA believes that Alabama has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. EPA has determined that the implementation of the following permanent and enforceable emissions controls have reduced local NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC emissions and brought the area into attainment during 2003-2005: The Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP)Control Program—gasoline sold from June 1st until September 15th of each year, in Jefferson and Shelby Counties was required to have a RVP no greater than 7.0 pounds per square inch (psi). Since 2003, utility NO <sup>X</sup> controls on Alabama Power Company plants Gorgas (in Jefferson Co.) and Miller (in Shelby Co.) have been required for the period of May 1st to September 30th each year. NO <sup>X</sup> emission limitations have been established at 0.21 lb/mmbtu for the two plants, based on a rolling 30-day average. Alabama's NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call established a NO <sup>X</sup> budget from 2004 and beyond for large industrial sources such as boilers, turbines, and electric generating units that are subject to the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call. EPA has implemented several programs that have resulted in reduced emissions in recent years. For cars and light trucks, EPA has instituted the National Low Emissions Vehicles
(NLEV)program, which went into effect nationally in 2001, and EPA's Tier 2 rules, which went into effect in 2004. In addition, Tier 2 standards for nonroad diesel engines were phased in between 2001 and 2004. Over time the phase-in of these programs has resulted in reductions in emissions as new vehicles have replaced older, higher-polluting vehicles. Further reductions have occurred as a result of further implementation of EPA standards for small spark-ignited engines ( *e.g.* lawnmowers) and locomotives. The heavy duty highway truck engine rule also implemented reductions beginning in 2004. EPA promulgated the Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements in 2000 (65 FR 6697). In addition to the reductions mentioned above, the State of Alabama is also relying on the following controls to maintain the 8-hour standard: 1. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery for Light-Duty Vehicles 2. Federal Non-road Diesel Engine Standards 3. Federal Marine Engine Requirements 4. Federal Locomotive Requirements 5. Consumer Solvents Requirements 6. Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings Requirements 7. Automobile Refinishing Requirements 8. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); the majority of which are also VOCs 9. Phase II Acid Rain Program for NO <sup>X</sup> 10. Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)11. NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call Phase II 12. Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Requirements Alabama has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent and enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions. Alabama has also demonstrated that year-to-year meteorological changes and trends have an impact on ozone precursor emissions and the formation of ozone but, that they are not the likely source of the overall, long-term improvement in ozone levels. EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions in and surrounding the nonattainment area are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels, and resulted in the area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Jefferson County alone has reduced point source NO <sup>X</sup> emissions by 37 percent from 2002 to 2004 and will reduce them by 65 percent by 2017. The whole area has reduced the total NO <sup>X</sup> emissions by 22 percent from 2002 to 2004 and will reduce them by 45 percent by 2017. Additional reductions from outside the Birmingham area will be realized as the above programs are implemented throughout the State. NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions From 2002 to 2004 [Tons per Summer Day, tpsd] County/source category 2002 2004 Jefferson: Point 110 69 Area 3 3 Non-road 18 17 Total 131 89 Shelby: Point 97 94 Area 1 1 Non-road 6 6 Total 104 101 Total for the Birmingham area: Point 207 163 Area 4 4 Mobile 57 54 Non-road 24 23 Total 292 244
(4)*The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.* In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Birmingham 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment status, ADEM submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Birmingham area for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. Alabama requested that EPA “parallel process” the redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revision. Under this procedure, the Regional Office works closely with Alabama while developing new or revised regulations. The State submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed State action, and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the **Federal Register** between the time frame Alabama submits its prehearing and final submittal. Alabama and EPA then provide for public comment periods on both the State action and the Federal action. After Alabama submits the final request and State-effective SIP revision (including a response to all public comments raised during the State's public participation process, and the approved maintenance plan for the Birmingham area), EPA will prepare a final rulemaking notice on the redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revision. If Alabama's formal maintenance plan SIP revision contains changes which occur after EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must be described in EPA's final rulemaking action. If Alabama's changes are significant, then EPA must decide whether it is appropriate to re-propose the State's maintenance plan SIP revision action. In addition, if Alabama's final maintenance plan SIP revision changes significantly and/or is disapprovable in its final form, EPA will also not take final action to approve the Birmingham redesignation request because the existence of a fully EPA-approved maintenance plan is a necessary criterion for redesignation to attainment status. a. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, Alabama must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni memorandum, dated September 4, 1992, provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address five requirements: the attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. b. Attainment Emissions Inventory Point source emissions were obtained for calendar year 2004 as a result of the annual data obtained from regulated facilities and projected to 2009, 2015 and 2017. Non-road mobile emissions were calculated using the most recent non-road model. On-road mobile source emissions were calculated using MOBILE 6.2 for 2004 and three horizon years, 2009, 2015 and 2017. Area source emissions were grown from the 2002 National Emissions Inventory for 2004, 2009, 2015 and 2017. The maintenance plan establishes an attainment inventory for the year 2004. This attainment inventory identifies the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. c. *Maintenance Demonstration* The November 16, 2005, submittal includes a maintenance plan with a 2017 end year for the Birmingham area. This demonstration:
(i)Shows compliance and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> remain at or below attainment year 2004 emissions levels. The year 2004 was chosen as the attainment year because it is one of the most recent three years ( *i.e.* , 2003, 2004, and 2005) for which the Birmingham area has clean air quality data for the 8-hour ozone standard.
(ii)Uses 2004 as the attainment year and includes future inventory projected years for 2009, 2015, and 2017.
(iii)Identifies an “out year” at least 10 years after the time necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, MVEBs were established for the last year of the maintenance plan. See section VII below.
(iv)Provides the following actual and projected emissions inventories for the Birmingham area. NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions TPSD County/source category 2004 2009 2015 2017 Jefferson: Point 69 45 48 49 Area 3 4 4 4 Non-road 17 14 11 10 Total 89 63 63 63 Shelby: Point 94 69 72 73 Area 1 1 1 1 Non-road 6 5 4 4 Total 101 75 77 78 Total for the Birmingham area: Point 163 114 120 122 Area 4 5 5 5 Mobile 1 54 39 24 21 Non-road 23 19 15 14 Total 244 177 164 162 2004 NO <sup>X</sup> Safety Margin * 67 80 82 * After assigning 21 tpsd of the NO <sup>X</sup> safety margin to the NO <sup>X</sup> MVEB, the revised 2017 NO <sup>X</sup> safety margin will be 61 tpsd. 1 Since the transportation network is based on the two-County (Jefferson and Shelby) area, mobile source emissions were not broken out by county. VOC Emissions TPSD County/source category 2004 2009 2015 2017 Jefferson: Point 13 14 17 18 Area 57 47 51 52 Non-road 10 8 7 7 Total 80 69 75 77 Shelby: Point 2 2 2 2 Area 11 9 9 10 Non-read 5 4 4 3 Total 18 15 15 15 Total for the Birmingham NA: Point 15 16 19 20 Area 68 56 60 62 Mobile 2 32 28 20 19 Non-road 15 12 11 10 Total 130 112 110 111 2004 VOC Safety Margin * 18 20 19 * After assigning 4 tpsd of the VOC safety margin to the VOC MVEB, the revised 2017 VOC safety margin will be 15 tpsd. 2 Since the transportation network is based on the two-County (Jefferson and Shelby) area, mobile source emissions were not broken out by county. A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. d. Monitoring Network There are currently ten monitors measuring ozone, located within Jefferson and Shelby Counties which provide air quality data for the entire Birmingham area. Alabama has committed in the maintenance plan to continue operation of the ozone monitors in compliance with 40 CFR part 58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring. e. Verification of Continued Attainment Alabama has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for the Birmingham area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems. Alabama will track the progress of the maintenance plan by performing future reviews of actual emissions for the area using the latest emissions factors, models and methodologies. For the purpose of verifying continued attainment based upon the emissions inventory, major point sources of air pollution will continue to submit data on an annual basis and area and mobile sources will continue to be quantified on a three-year cycle. The next overall emissions inventory will be compiled for 2005. For these periodic inventories, Alabama will review the assumptions made for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth of activity levels. If any of these assumptions result in future growth greater than or equal to 10 percent, Alabama will re-project emissions and reassess the area's ability to maintain attainment. f. Contingency Plan The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that Alabama will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d). In the November 16, 2005, submittal, Alabama commits to implement all measures that were contained in the SIP before the redesignation as expeditiously as possible. Alabama also affirms that all programs instituted by Alabama and EPA will remain enforceable, and that sources are prohibited from reducing emissions controls following the redesignation of the area. In the submittal, Alabama commits to adopt, within 18 months of a violation, one or more contingency measures as needed to re-attain the standard. Alabama also identified that in the event that any individual monitor in the Birmingham area records an annual fourth high reading of 0.085 ppm or higher, Alabama will evaluate existing control measures to determine if further emission reduction measures should be implemented. Also, if periodic emissions inventory shows a future growth greater than or equal to ten percent, Alabama will re-project emissions and reassess the area's ability to maintain attainment. Alabama notes that all regulatory programs will be implemented within 18 months of a violation. The State will consider and implement one or more of the following contingency measures: *RACT for NO* <sup>X</sup> *sources—* The State would investigate other smaller point sources of lower thresholds for specific controls. *RACT for additional VOC sources—* Rules would be implemented for application of RACT to additional VOC sources not currently subject to RACT. *Schedule for Point Source Regulation Development* —A schedule for the development of NO <sup>X</sup> and/or VOC regulations from the time of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard or inventory trigger of future growth follows: 1. Identify potential stationary sources for reductions—3 months 2. Identify applicable RACT—3 months 3. Initiate a stakeholder process—3 months 4. Draft SIP regulations—3 months 5. Initiate rulemaking process (including public comment period, hearing, Commission adoption and final submission to EPA)—6 months Completion no later than—18 months EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: Attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Alabama for the Birmingham area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. VII. What Is an Adequacy Determination and What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area's New MVEBs for the Year 2017? Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPs (e.g., reasonable further progress SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB is established for the last year of the maintenance plan. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and revise the MVEB. Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. “Conformity” to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not “conform,” most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEBs contained therein “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects “conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA's process for determining “adequacy” consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” This guidance was finalized in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations. Alabama's maintenance plan submission contained new VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> MVEBs for the year 2017. The availability of the SIP submission with these MVEBs was announced for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web page on November 17, 2005, at: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/currsips.htm.* The EPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2017 MVEBs for the Birmingham area closed on December 19, 2005. EPA did not receive any adverse comments or requests for the submittal. EPA intends to make its determination of the adequacy of the 2017 MVEBs for the Birmingham area for transportation conformity purposes in the final rulemaking on the Birmingham area 8-hour ozone redesignation. If EPA finds the 2017 MVEBs adequate for transportation conformity purposes prior to EPA's final approval, or finds the 2017 MVEBs adequate and approves the 2017 MVEBs in the final rulemaking action, the new MVEBs must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. The new 2017 MVEBs, if found adequate and approved in the final rulemaking, will be effective the date of publication of EPA's final rulemaking in the **Federal Register** . For required regional emissions analysis years that involve the year 2016 or before, the applicable budget for the purposes of conducting transportation conformity will be the applicable MVEBs from the Birmingham 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration or the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. The 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration established MVEBs for the year 2003 of 65 tpd for NO <sup>X</sup> and 52 tpd for VOCs. The 1-hour ozone maintenance plan established MVEBs for the year 2015 of 41 tpd for NO <sup>X</sup> and 23 tpd for VOCs. For required regional emissions analysis years that involve the year 2017 or beyond, the applicable budget for the purposes of conducting transportation conformity analyses will be the 2017 VOC (23 tpsd) and NO <sup>X</sup> (42 tpsd) MVEB for this maintenance area. Birmingham Area 2017 MVEBs NO <sup>X</sup> , tpsd—42 VOC, tpsd—23 EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs because the maintenance plan demonstrates that expected emissions for the area in 2017, including the 2017 MVEBs plus the estimated emissions for all other source categories, will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard. VIII. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request, the Maintenance Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2017 MVEBs After evaluating Alabama's redesignation request, EPA has determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Based on the discussion of compliance with the redesignation criteria above, and on the fact that Alabama is in the process of completing the adoption of a maintenance plan meeting the requirements of section 175A, we conclude that the area will comply with the criteria for redesignation to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore we are proposing to approve this redesignation request and maintenance plan. If the State substantially revises the maintenance plan from the version proposed by the State and reviewed here, this may result in the need for additional proposed rulemaking. Additionally, EPA is providing the status of its Adequacy Determination for the 2017 MVEBs and is proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs, submitted by Alabama for the Birmingham area, in conjunction with its redesignation request. Within 24 months from the effective date of the final rule for this action, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to these new MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e) as effectively amended by new section 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: January 17, 2006. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E6-907 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0487; FRL-7754-8] Pesticides: Minimal Risk Tolerance Exemptions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document proposes to reorganize certain existing tolerance exemptions. All of these chemical substances were reviewed as part of the tolerance reassessment process required under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). As a result of that review, 13 chemical substances are now classified as “minimal risk.” The Agency intends to shift the existing tolerance exemptions for these chemicals to 40 CFR 180.950(e). The Agency is merely moving certain tolerance exemptions from one section of the CFR to another section: No tolerance exemptions are lost or added as a result of this action. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0487, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov/* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Agency Website* : *http://www.epa.gov/edocket/* . EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail* : Comments may be sent by e-mail to *opp-docket@epa.gov* , Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0487. • *Mail* : Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0487. • *Hand delivery* : Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0487. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. • *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0487. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.epa.gov/edocket/* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, *regulations.gov* , or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the *regulations.gov* websites are *anonymous access* systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or *regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the **Federal Register** of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102) (FRL-7181-7). *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at *http://www.epa.gov/edocket/* . Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division, (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-6304; fax number:
(703)305-0599; e-mail address: *boyle.kathryn@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111) • Animal production (NAICS code 112) • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311) • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? In addition to using EDOCKET ( *http://www.epa.gov/edocket/* ), you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/* . A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/* . C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through EDOCKET, *regulations.gov* , or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date, and page number). ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? This proposed rule is issued under section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA)(Public Law 104-170). Section 408(e) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish, modify, or revoke tolerances, or exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. III. What Action is the Agency Taking? In the **Federal Register** of May 24, 2002 (67 FR 36534) (FRL-6834-8) EPA established a new section 180.950 to list the pesticide chemical substances that are exempted from the requirement of a tolerance based on the Agency's determination that these chemical substances are of “minimal risk.” This proposed rule shifts existing tolerance exemptions for certain inert ingredients that have been classified by the Agency as List 4A, “minimal risk,” to 40 CFR 180.950(e). The decision documents supporting the minimal risk, List 4A classification, are in the docket. Because this action merely moves certain tolerance exemptions from one section of CFR to another section, it will have no substantive or procedural effect on the moved tolerance exemptions. No tolerance exemptions are lost or added as a result of this action. The Agency is proposing to shift the following tolerance exemptions to 40 CFR 180.950(e): • From 40 CFR 180.910: Ascorbic acid (CAS Reg, No. 50-1-7); beeswax; carnauba wax; glycerol; isopropyl alcohol; soap (sodium or potassium salts of fatty acids); sodium benzoate; sodium bicarbonate; sorbitol; and sperm oil conforming to 21 CFR 172.210; • From 40 CFR 180.920: Vanillin • From 40 CFR 180.930: Carnauba wax (CAS Reg. No. 8015-86-9); glycerol(glycerin); isopropyl alcohol; and sodium benzoate • From 40 CFR 180.940(a): 2-propanol(isopropanol); and sodium bicarbonate • From 40 CFR 180.940(b): 2-propanol(isopropanol) • From 40 CFR 180.940(c): 2-propanol(isopropanol); and sodium bicarbonate • One of the exemptions (sorbic acid, and potassium salt) covers two chemicals. One of the chemicals has been determined to be List 4A and other List 4B. Another tolerance exemption (potassium carbonate) covers three chemicals. One of the chemicals has been determined to be List 4A, and the other two are List 4B. Therefore, these tolerance exemptions are essentially “split” with only the 4A chemicals to be shifted to 40 CFR 180.950, while the 4B chemicals are to remain where currently established. Therefore, these two existing tolerance exemptions are to be revised to specify only the List 4B chemicals. IV. Nomenclature Changes For most of the chemical substances that are being shifted to 40 CFR 180.950(e), EPA is changing the chemical substance names that were previously used. The Agency has attempted to identify each of the listed chemical substances using the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS No.). The CAS No. provides one of the most distinct and universally accepted means of identifying chemical substances. Generally, there will be only one CAS No. per listed substance. EPA has both broadened and consolidated names to account for differing terminologies and current usage status. These name changes are not intended to broaden or narrow the scope of the existing exemption but rather to define the scope of the exemption more precisely. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This proposed rule merely re-organizes existing exemptions in 40 CFR part 180. This has no substantive effect and hence causes no impact. On its own initiative, the Agency is acting under section 408(e) of the FFDCA in shifting these existing tolerance exemptions to a different section of CFR. Under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) this action is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review and by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Because the proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled * Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations * (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: January 12, 2006. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 374 2. In §180.910, the table is amended by removing the following entries: Ascorbic acid (CAS Reg, No. 50-81-7); beeswax; carnauba wax; glycerol; isopropyl alcohol; soap (sodium or potassium salts of fatty acids); sodium benzoate; sodium bicarbonate; sorbitol; and sperm oil conforming to 21 CFR 172.210; and by revising the entry for sorbic acid (and potassium salt) to read as follows:. § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert Ingredients Limits Uses * * * * * * * Sorbic acid (CAS Reg. No. 110-44-1) Preservative for formulations * * * * * * * 3. In §180.920, the table is amended by removing the entry for vanillin; and the entry for potassium carbonate is removed and replaced with two new entries to read as follows: § 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert Ingredients Limits Uses * * * * * * * Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt (CAS Reg. No. 584-08-7) Buffering agent Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt, trihydrate (CAS Reg. No. 18662-52-7) Do. * * * * * * * § 180.930 [Amended] 4. In §180.930 the table is amended by removing the following entries: Carnauba wax (CAS Reg. No. 8015-86-9); glycerol(glycerin); isopropyl alcohol; and sodium benzoate. § 180.940 [Amended] 5. In §180.940, the table in paragraph
(a)is amended by removing the entries for 2-propanol(isopropanol) and sodium bicarbonate; the table in paragraph
(b)is amended by removing the entry for 2-propanol(isopropanol); and the table in paragraph
(c)is amended by removing the entries for 2-propanol(isopropanol) and sodium bicarbonate. 6. In §180.950, the table in paragraph
(e)is amended by adding alphabetically the following entries to read as follows: § 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for minimal risk active and inert ingredients.
(e)* * * Chemical Name CAS Reg. No. * * * * * * * * Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) 50-81-7 Beeswax 8012-89-3 Benzoic acid, sodium salt 532-32-1 * * * * * * * * Carnauba wax 8015-86-9 Carbonic acid, monopotassium salt 298-14-6 Carbonic acid, monosodium salt (sodium bicarbonate) 144-55-8 * * * * * * * * D-Glucitol (sorbitol) 50-70-4 Glycerol (glycerin) (1,2,3-propanetriol) 56-81-5 * * * * * * * * 2-Propanol (isopropyl alcohol) 67-63-0 * * * * * * * * Soap (The water soluble sodium or potassium salts of fatty acids producted by either the saponification of fats and oils, or the neutralization of fatty acid None Sorbic acid, potassium salt 24634-61-5 Sperm oil 8002-24-2 * * * * * * * * Vanillin 121-33-5 [FR Doc. 06-574 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
register
U.S. Code
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- General powers§ 1506
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Purposes§ 3501
- Definitions§ 601
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues§ 346a
- Definitions; generally§ 321
33 references not yet in our index
- 5 CFR 724
- Pub. L. 107-174
- 29 CFR 1614
- 7 CFR 457
- 7 CFR 3015
- 7 CFR 11
- 7 CFR 400
- 10 CFR 50
- 13 CFR 120
- 14 CFR 39
- 40 CFR 50
- 40 CFR 81
- 40 CFR 58
- 375 F.3d 537
- 265 F.3d 426
- 144 F.3d 984
- 40 CFR 93
- 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
- 40 CFR 93.104(e)
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 180
- 40 CFR 180.950(e)
- 40 CFR 2
- Pub. L. 104-170
- 40 CFR 180.910
- 40 CFR 180.920
- 40 CFR 180.930
- 40 CFR 180.940(a)
- 40 CFR 180.940(b)
- 40 CFR 180.940(c)
- 40 CFR 180.950
- Pub. L. 104-113
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Proposed rule
F. App'x375 F.3d 537
F. App'x265 F.3d 426
F. App'x144 F.3d 984
Cites 54 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources