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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-03-21 · Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

15,232 words·~69 min read·/register/2006/03/21/06-2770·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-08-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AH87 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: VSC-24 Revision 6 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is proposing to amend its regulations revising the BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation VSC-24 cask system listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 6 to the Certificate of Compliance. Amendment No. 6 would modify the present cask system design to revise the Technical Specification
(TS)requirements related to periodic monitoring during storage operation. Specifically, the amendment would eliminate TS 1.3.4 that requires daily temperature measurement of the cask. The daily temperature measurement is not required because the daily visual inspection of the cask inlet and outlet vent screens, required by TS 1.3.1, provides the capability to determine when corrective action needs to be taken to maintain safe storage conditions under the requirements that govern general design criteria for spent fuel storage casks. This is because the visual inspection would determine if the cask inlets and outlets were blocked (the focus of the thermal analysis submitted by the CoC holder). The amendment would also revise TS 1.2.3 to correspond with TS 1.3.1 by revising the method of thermal performance evaluation to allow for daily temperature surveillance after the cask has reached thermal equilibrium. In addition, the amendment would update editorial changes associated with the company name change from BNFL Fuel Solutions Corporation to BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before April 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH87) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comment will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: *SECY@nrc.gov* . If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at
(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov* . Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays [telephone
(301)415-1966]. Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room 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. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . An electronic copy of the proposed Certificate of Compliance (CoC), TS, and preliminary safety evaluation report
(SER)can be found under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML053330269, ML053340113, and ML053330282, respectively. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule published in the final rules section of this **Federal Register** . Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1007 and does not include other aspects of the VSC-24 cask system design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on June 5, 2006. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by April 20, 2006, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1)The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, in a substantive response:
(a)The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b)The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c)The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2)The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3)The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the CoC or TS. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72. PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1007 is revised to read as follows: § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. Certificate Number: 1007. Initial Certificate Effective Date: May 7, 1993. Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: May 30, 2000. Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: September 5, 2000. Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: May 21, 2001. Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: February 3, 2003. Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: September 13, 2005. Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: June 5, 2006. SAR Submitted by: BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Ventilated Storage Cask System. Docket Number: 72-1007. Certificate Expiration Date: May 7, 2013. Model Number: VSC-24. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E6-4083 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 25, 91, 121, 125, and 129 [Docket No. FAA-2005-22997; Notice No. 05-14] RIN 2120-A123 Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); extension of comment period. SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for an NPRM published on November 23, 2005. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed new rules that would require operators and manufacturers of transport category airplanes to take steps that, in combination with other required actions, should greatly reduce the chance of a catastrophic fuel tank explosion. The extension of the comment period is a result of requests from a number of entities to allow public comment on new information that has recently been placed in the public docket. DATES: Send your comments on or before May 8, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments on the NPRM, identified by Docket No. FAA-2005-22997, using any of the following methods: • 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: 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. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the NPRM. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the NPRM. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael E. Dostert, FAA Propulsion/Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-2132, facsimile (425-227-1320); e-mail: *mike.dostert@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA continues to invite interested persons to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views about the NPRM we issued on November 17, 2005, Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes (70 FR 70922, November 23, 2005). We also invite comments about the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in the NPRM. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the NPRM, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. Background On November 17, 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)issued Notice No. 05-14, Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes (70 FR 70922, November 23, 2005). The comment period for the NPRM ends on March 23, 2006. We received requests from a number of entities to extend the comment period on this NPRM by 60 days. These entities noted that information contained in a report prepared for the FAA by Sandia National Laboratories, that assesses the effectiveness of previous actions resulting from SFAR 88 at reducing the occurrence of ignition sources and associated accident rate resulting from fuel tank explosions, has only recently been placed in the public docket and they requested additional time to consider this information in their comments. In addition, the FAA will include copies of independent peer reviews of the Sandia Report and the Fuel Tank Flammability Assessment User's Manual, in the public docket for the NPRM. The FAA agrees with the petitioners' requests for an extension of the comment period. We recognize the NPRM's contents are significant and complex. Also, the original comment period is insufficient because the additional information was not available in the public docket earlier in the comment period. Further, we understand that additional requests for extensions will be filed shortly by some entities that will be directly affected by the proposals in the NPRM. We have determined that an additional 45 days will be sufficient to allow for all commenters to collect and send information they believe necessary for the FAA to understand their concerns on the proposed rules and the additional information recently added to the NPRM public docket as previously discussed. Absent unusual circumstances, the FAA does not anticipate any further extension of the comment period for the NPRM. On November 18, 2005, we issued a Notice of availability of proposed AC 25.981-2A, Fuel Tank Flammability, and request for comments (70 FR 71365; November 28, 2005). This Notice announced the availability of and requested comments on a proposed AC which sets forth an acceptable means, but not the only means, of demonstrating compliance with the provisions of the airworthiness standards in the NPRM. The comment period for the proposed AC ends on March 23, 2006 and is also being extended by 45 days. The extension of the comment period for the proposed AC is being published concurrently with this extension. Extension of Comment Period In accordance with 14 CFR 11.47(c), the FAA has reviewed the requests of a number of entities for an extension of the comment period to the NPRM. The FAA finds that an extension of the comment period for Notice No. 05-14 is consistent with the public interest, and that good cause exists for taking this action. Accordingly, the comment period for Notice No. 05-14 is extended until May 8, 2006. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2006. John J. Hickey, Director, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4025 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 96-NM-143-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G-159 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G-159 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required repetitive non-destructive testing inspections to detect corrosion of the skin of certain structural assemblies, and corrective action if necessary. The original NPRM also would have required x-ray and ultrasonic inspections to detect corrosion and cracking of the splicing of certain structural assemblies, and repair if necessary. The original NPRM resulted from reports that exfoliation corrosion had been found in the lower layer of the lower wing plank splices. This action revises the original NPRM by expanding the inspection areas to include the wing lower plank splices, ailerons, flaps, elevators, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, rudder, rudder trim tab, and aft lower fuselage from fuselage station (FS)559 to FS669. The actions specified by this new proposed AD are intended to detect and correct corrosion and cracking of the lower wing plank splices and spot-welded skins of certain structural assemblies, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. DATES: Comments must be received by April 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-143-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to
(425)227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: *9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov* . Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 96-NM-143-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or ASCII text. The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Mail Station D-25, Savannah, Georgia 31402. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Cann, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone
(770)703-6038; fax
(770)703-6097. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received. Submit comments using the following format: • Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues. • For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested. • Include justification ( *e.g.* , reasons or data) for each request. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 96-NM-143-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Availability of NPRMs Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-143-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Discussion A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G-159 airplanes, was published as a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)in the **Federal Register** on June 6, 2001 (66 FR 30343). That NPRM would have required repetitive non-destructive testing inspections to detect corrosion of the skin of certain structural assemblies, and corrective action if necessary. That NPRM also would have required x-ray and ultrasonic inspections to detect corrosion and cracking of the splicing of certain structural assemblies, and repair if necessary. That NPRM was prompted by reports that exfoliation corrosion had been found in the lower layer of the lower wing plank splices. That condition, if not corrected, could result in local instability failures of the wing under certain load conditions and result in degradation of wing capability. Actions Since Issuance of Previous Proposal Since the issuance of that NPRM, we have received additional reports indicating corrosion in a larger area of the wing than the area specified in the original NPRM. This condition, if not corrected, could cause cracking and corrosion of the lower wing plank splices and spot-welded skins of certain structural assemblies, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Customer Bulletin Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation has issued Gulfstream GI Customer Bulletin
(CB)337B, including Appendix A, dated August 17, 2005. The procedures in the CB describe non-destructive testing
(NDT)inspections for corrosion and cracking of spot-welded skins of the elevators, aileron, rudder and rudder trim tab, flaps, aft lower fuselage, and vertical and horizontal stabilizers. The procedures in the CB also describe NDT inspections ( *e.g.* , x-ray and ultrasonic) for exfoliation corrosion and cracking for wing plank splices from wing station
(WS)40 to WS 310. Additionally, the procedures in the CB describe performing an eddy current or fluorescent penetrant inspection for evaluating any prior blending in the riser areas. The procedures in the CB also specify that if the blend-out exceeds the repair drawing specifications, contact the manufacturer. The procedures in the CB also request operators to send a report to the manufacturer specifying inspection results. Additionally, Appendix A provides corrosion repair schemes for certain structural repair removal thresholds in accordance with certain drawing numbers. Gulfstream has also issued Gulfstream Tool No. ST905-377, an x-ray negative that is used as a chart to define corrosion levels. The tool describes specific levels of corrosion and contains criteria for determining certain levels of corrosion (“light,” “moderate,” and “severe”). Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Requests To Revise the Cost Impact Section Two commenters request that the estimate for the Cost Impact section of the original NPRM, which was based on 80 work hours, be increased to reflect a more realistic cost. One commenter states that it has received price quotes from shops that range from $11,000 to $19,000 to perform the actions proposed in the original NPRM. The other commenter states that it has completed the inspections (excluding the x-rays and ultrasonic inspections) proposed in the original NPRM. The operator advises that its actual cost for each inspection, not including incidental and access costs, was $18,000. We agree that the estimated cost impact should be revised. Based on the latest information provided by the manufacturer in Gulfstream GI CB 337B, we estimate that the work hours necessary for the inspections proposed in this supplemental NPRM would be between 300 and 450 work hours, depending on how many spot-welded skins have been replaced with bonded skin panels. We have revised the Cost Impact section to reflect the increase of the estimated work hours. Request To Revise Initial Compliance Time One commenter requests that the initial compliance times be revised. The commenter requests that the initial compliance time for the requirements of paragraph
(a)of the original NPRM be changed to 18 months from the last inspection of Gulfstream GI CB 337 (referenced in the original NPRM as the appropriate source of service information) or 9 months from the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. The commenter states that operators who are currently in compliance with Gulfstream GI CB 337 would still be required to re-inspect within 9 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenter advises that this would cause unnecessary cost and airplane downtime, since CB 337 has an 18-month inspection time. We do not agree that, in this case, the initial inspections required by paragraphs
(a)and
(c)of this supplemental NPRM can be revised for the convenience of the operators. The inspection areas have been expanded since the issuance of the original proposed NPRM, which referenced the original issuance of Gulfstream GI CB 337, dated December 10, 1993, as the appropriate source of service information. The expanded inspection areas are specified in Gulfstream GI CB 337B, including Appendix A, dated August 17, 2005, which is referenced in this supplemental NPRM as the appropriate source of service information. Operators who have accomplished the inspections specified in earlier revisions of the CB, may request approval of an extension of the compliance time in accordance with paragraph
(h)of the supplemental NPRM. The repetitive inspections remain at intervals not to exceed 18 months. No change is necessary to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request Not To Expand the Inspection Area One commenter requests that we do not expand the inspection area unless it can be shown that those expanded areas have been found to have corrosion. The commenter advises that it has been informed by the manufacturer that a revision to Gulfstream GI CB 337 is going to be issued with additional inspection areas of the wing plank. The commenter also states that it has not found corrosion in all of the areas specified in the original NPRM. We do not agree. We have received several reports indicating that corrosion has occurred on the inspection areas discussed in this supplemental NPRM, including the wing planks. The source of corrosion was determined to be spot-welded skins for the flight controls and aft lower fuselage. Gulfstream GI CB 337B, as explained previously, describes the appropriate areas of inspection. We have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that Gulfstream GI CB 337B describes the methods of detection of corrosion and cracking, and correction if necessary. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM as a result of this request. Request To Provide a Different Inspection Interval That same commenter also requests that, if a sampling of airplanes indicates corrosion on other areas, those areas of inspection have a different inspection interval than the inboard wing. We do not agree. The commenter did not provide a suggested “different inspection interval” or any technical justification for what a “different inspection interval” might be. However, under the provisions of paragraph
(h)of the supplemental NPRM, we may approve requests for adjustments to the inspection interval if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. No change to the supplemental NPRM is necessary in this regard. Request To Revise Compliance Times for Repairs Two commenters request that the FAA allow more time to address repairs to the wing plank splices. The commenters also request that, if corrosion is seen on the x-ray, it may also be confirmed by another form of NDT, such as ultrasonic inspection. The commenters both point out that all the other inspection areas allow for either mild or moderate corrosion to be deferred. One of the commenters requests that the FAA allow a “trace” of corrosion in the wing plank splices to be re-inspected in 18 months to see if the suspect area has changed in size, shape, or density before any action must be taken. The commenter adds that it is a known fact in the x-ray industry that not all indications are corrosion, and the commenter quotes an Applied Technical Services report: “In some cases indications similar to those observed on the films provided for evaluation of the wing plank splices may actually be attributed to conditions other than corrosion.” We do not agree. The loading conditions and magnitudes on the wing are different from the flight controls and the fuselage. “Trace” levels of corrosion on the flight controls and fuselage are not as critical as on the wing. No change to the supplemental NPRM is necessary in this regard. Request To Extend the Repetitive Inspection Interval One commenter requests that the repetitive inspection interval be changed from “at intervals not to exceed 18 months,” to “at intervals not to exceed 36 months.” The commenter notes that, although the first Gulfstream GI flew in August of 1958, there has never been a structural problem with the wing. The commenter also points out that, prior to 1994, there wasn't even a requirement to NDT the parts of the GI. We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the repetitive inspection interval. In developing an appropriate interval, we considered the safety implications, the service history of the airplane regarding corrosion of the wings, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the inspections. In light of these items, we have determined that a 18-month interval is appropriate. However, paragraph
(h)of the supplemental NPRM provides affected operators the opportunity to apply for an adjustment of the repetitive inspection interval if the operator also presents data that justify the adjustment. Request To Defer Certain Inspections One commenter requests that an inspection compliance time of 12 years be provided for lower wing planks that have been replaced or reconditioned. The commenter states that the manufacturer has told the commenter that replaced or reconditioned lower wing planks shouldn't need to be inspected for 12 years. We do agree that the inspection may be deferred for 12 years if the lower wing planks have been replaced with new lower wing planks. Since there is no actual definition for “reconditioned” in this case, we do not agree that the inspection may be deferred for 12 years if the lower wing planks have been “reconditioned.” However, under the provisions of paragraph
(h)of this supplemental NPRM, operators may request an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)if data are submitted to substantiate that such an AMOC would provide an acceptable level of safety. Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the Proposed AD On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). These changes are reflected in this supplemental NPRM. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Difference Between the CB and the Proposed AD Operators should note that, although the Gulfstream CB does not specify certain corrective actions for levels of corrosion, this proposed AD would require shortened repetitive intervals for the NDT inspections based on certain levels of corrosion, or replacement of the corroded component with a serviceable component. Although the CB specifies certain one-time inspections, this supplemental NPRM would require repetitive inspections, since the nature of the unsafe condition (corrosion and cracking) may occur after a one-time inspection. This difference has been coordinated with the manufacturer. Clarification of a Note in the CB The Gulfstream CB includes a note in the Accomplishment Instructions to contact a Gulfstream Field Service Representative if technical assistance is required in accomplishing the CB. We have included Note 1 in this proposed AD to clarify that any deviation from the instructions provided in the CB must be approved as an alternative method of compliance under paragraph
(h)of this AD. Costs of Compliance There are approximately 52 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 25 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately between 300 and 450 work hours per airplane, depending upon how many spot-welded skins have been replaced with bonded skin panels, to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $487,500 and $731,250, or between $19,500 and $29,250 per airplane. The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. 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 supplemental NPRM 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, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation:** Docket 96-NM-143-AD. *Applicability:* All Model G-159 airplanes, certificated in any category. *Compliance:* Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. To detect and correct corrosion and cracking of the spot-welded skins of the lower wing plank splices and certain structural assemblies, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following: Note 1: A note in the Accomplishment Instructions of the Gulfstream customer bulletin instructs operators to contact Gulfstream if any difficulty is encountered in accomplishing the customer bulletin. However, any deviation from the instructions provided in the service bulletin must be approved as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)under paragraph
(h)of this AD. Non-Destructive Testing Inspections of the Fuselage, Empennage, and Flight Controls
(a)Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a non-destructive test
(NDT)to detect corrosion of the skins of the elevators, ailerons, rudder and rudder trim tab, flaps, aft lower fuselage, and vertical and horizontal stabilizers; in accordance with Gulfstream GI Customer Bulletin
(CB)No. 337B, including Appendix A, dated August 17, 2005. The corrosion criteria must be determined by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Gulfstream Tool ST905-377 is also an acceptable method of determining the corrosion criteria.
(1)If no corrosion or cracking is detected, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months.
(2)If all corrosion is detected that meets the criteria of “light” or “mild” corrosion, repeat the NDT inspections of that component thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months.
(3)If any corrosion is detected that meets the criteria of “moderate” corrosion, repeat the NDT inspection of that component thereafter at intervals not to exceed 9 months.
(4)If any corrosion is detected that meets the criteria of “severe” corrosion, before further flight, replace the component with a serviceable component in accordance with the CB. Existing Repairs
(b)If any existing repairs are found during the inspections required by paragraph
(a)of this AD, before further flight, ensure that the repairs are in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA. Inspections of the Lower Wing Plank
(c)Except as provided in paragraph
(f)of this AD: Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, perform NDT inspections to detect corrosion and cracking of the lower wing plank splices in accordance with Gulfstream GI CB 337B, including Appendix A, dated August 17, 2005.
(1)If no corrosion or cracking is detected, repeat the NDT inspection at intervals not to exceed 18 months.
(2)If any corrosion or cracking is detected, before further flight, perform all applicable investigative actions and corrective actions in accordance with the customer bulletin. Repair Removal Threshold
(d)For repairs specified in Appendix A of Gulfstream GI CB 337B, dated August 17, 2005: Within 144 months after the date of the repair installation, remove the repaired component and replace it with a new or serviceable component, in accordance with Gulfstream GI CB 337B, including Appendix A, dated August 17, 2005. Prior Blending in the Riser Areas
(e)If, during the performance of the inspections required by paragraph
(c)or
(f)of this AD, the inspection reveals that prior blending has been performed on the riser areas: Before further flight, perform an eddy current or fluorescent penetrant inspection, as applicable, to evaluate the blending, and accomplish appropriate corrective actions, in accordance with Gulfstream GI CB 337B, including Appendix A, dated August 17, 2005. If any blend-out is outside the limits specified in the CB, before further flight, repair in a manner approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO. For Airplanes With New Lower Wing Planks
(f)For airplanes with new lower wing planks, as defined by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD: Within 144 months after replacement of the lower wing planks with new lower wing planks, or within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform all of the actions, including any other related investigative actions and corrective actions, specified in paragraph
(c)of this AD. Reporting Requirement
(g)Within 30 days of performing the inspections required by this AD: Submit a report of inspection findings (both positive and negative) to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation; Attention: Technical Operations—Mail Station D-10, P. O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31402-0080. Information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Alternative Methods of Compliance (h)(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4050 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24173; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-262-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777 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 Model 777 airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the first bonding jumper aft of the bulkhead fitting to detect damage or failure and to determine the mechanical integrity of its electrical bonding path, and repair if necessary; measuring the bonding resistance between the fitting for the fuel feed tube and the front spar in the left and right main fuel tanks, and repairing the bonding if necessary; and applying additional sealant to completely cover the bulkhead fittings inside the fuel tanks. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent arcing or sparking during a lightning strike at the interface between the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube and the front spar inside the fuel tank. This arcing or sparking could provide a potential ignition source inside the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 5, 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: John L. Vann, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)917-6513; 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-2006-24173; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-262-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 examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( *i.e.* , type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. We have received a report indicating that, on certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes, the sealant at the fitting for the fuel feed tube at the front spar bulkhead may be insufficient to protect against a spark between the bulkhead fitting and the spar in the event of a lightning strike. In SFAR 88-related testing, the manufacturer determined that a lightning strike can cause a spark even if the fitting is bonded. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a potential ignition source inside the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The affected area on certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes is similar in design to that on the affected Boeing Model 777 airplanes. Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0044, Revision 1, dated December 20, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for: • Doing a general visual inspection of the first bonding jumper aft of the bulkhead fitting to detect damage or failure and to determine the mechanical integrity of its electrical bonding path. • Measuring the bonding resistance between the fitting for the fuel feed tube and the front spar in the left main fuel tank, and repairing the bonding if it exceeds certain limits defined in the service bulletin. • Applying additional sealant to completely cover the bulkhead fitting inside the fuel tank. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. 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 “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin Although the service bulletin does not give repair instructions if any damage or failure is found during the general visual inspection, or if the mechanical integrity of the bonding path is compromised, this proposed AD would require doing the repair according to a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Chapter 28-00-00 of the Boeing 777 Aircraft Maintenance Manual is one approved method. Costs of Compliance There are about 497 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 131 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 8 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $83,840, or $640 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): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24173; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-262-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 5, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0044, Revision 1, dated December 20, 2005. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing or sparking during a lightning strike at the interface between the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube and the front spar inside the fuel tank. This arcing or sparking could provide a potential ignition source inside the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss 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. Inspection and Corrective Actions
(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD for the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube for the left and right main fuel tanks. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0044, Revision 1, dated December 20, 2005.
(1)Do a general visual inspection of the first bonding jumper aft of the bulkhead fitting to detect damage or failure and to determine the mechanical integrity of its electrical bonding path. If any damage or failure is found during this inspection or if the mechanical integrity of the bonding path is compromised: Before further flight, repair according to a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Chapter 28-00-00 of the Boeing 777 Aircraft Maintenance Manual is one approved method.
(2)Measure the bonding resistance between the fitting for the fuel feed tube and the front spar in the left main fuel tank. If the bonding resistance exceeds 0.001 ohm: Before further flight, repair the bonding in accordance with the service bulletin.
(3)Apply additional sealant to completely cover the bulkhead fitting inside the fuel tank. Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Revision of Service Bulletin
(g)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service bulletin 777-28-0044, dated February 3, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 10, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4051 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 31 CFR Part 103 RIN 1506-AA84 Proposed Amendments to Bank Secrecy Act Regulations Regarding Casino Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the Bank Secrecy Act regulations relating to currency transaction reporting by casinos. Specifically, we are proposing to exclude, as reportable transactions in currency, jackpots from slot machines and video lottery terminals. We are also proposing to exclude certain transactions between casinos and currency dealers or exchangers and casinos and check cashers as reportable transactions in currency. Finally, we are proposing several other amendments that would update or clarify the “cash in” and “cash out” examples of transactions that are set forth in our currency transaction reporting regulations. DATES: Written comments on all aspects of the proposal are welcome and may be submitted on or before May 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)1506-AA84, by any of the following methods: • Federal E-rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Include 1506-AA84 in the submission. • E-mail: *regcomments@fincen. treas.gov* . Include 1506-AA84 in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Include 1506-AA84 in the body of the text. *Instructions:* Electronic comments are preferred because paper mail in the Washington, DC, area may be delayed. Please submit comments by one method only. Any submissions received must include the agency name and the RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fincen.gov* , including any personal information provided. Comments may be inspected in the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network reading room between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. in Washington, DC. Persons wishing to inspect the comments submitted must request an appointment by telephone at
(202)354-6400 (not a toll-free number). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Policy and Programs Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,
(800)949-2732 (toll-free number) or
(202)354-6400 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory Background The Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is the delegated administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act. 1 The Act authorizes the Director to issue regulations to require all financial institutions defined as such in the Act to maintain or file certain reports or records that have been determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings, or in the conduct of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism, and to implement anti-money laundering programs and compliance procedures. 2 1 The statute generally referred to as the “Bank Secrecy Act,” Titles I and II of Public Law 91-508, as amended, is codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332. 2 Language expanding the scope of the Bank Secrecy Act to intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against international terrorism was added by section 358 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (“USA PATRIOT”) Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 (October 26, 2001). In pertinent part, regulations implementing Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act appear at 31 CFR part 103. Casinos are cash-intensive businesses that offer a broad array of financial services. These services include customer deposit or credit accounts, facilities for transmitting and receiving funds transfers directly from other financial institutions, and check cashing and currency exchange services. Consequently, these services offered by casinos are similar to and may serve as substitutes for services ordinarily provided by depository institutions and certain non-bank financial institutions. As such, casinos are vulnerable to abuse by money launderers, terrorist financiers, and tax evaders. In general, state-licensed casinos were made subject to the Bank Secrecy Act by regulation in 1985. 3 The 1985 rulemaking was based on the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to designate as financial institutions for Bank Secrecy Act purposes:
(i)Businesses that engage in activities that are “similar to, related to, or a substitute for” the activities of covered businesses listed in the Bank Secrecy Act and
(ii)other businesses “whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters.” 4 Congress later explicitly added casinos and other gaming establishments to the list of financial institutions regulated pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act. 5 3 *See* 50 FR 5065 (February 6, 1985). Casinos whose gross annual gaming revenue did not exceed $1 million were, and continue to be, excluded from Bank Secrecy Act requirements otherwise applicable to casinos and card clubs. 4 *See* 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)(Y) and (Z). 5 *See* section 409 of the Money Laundering Suppression Act of 1994, Title IV of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-325. The current statutory specification reads:
(2)Financial institution means— * * * * *
(X)A casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment with an annual gaming revenue of more than $1,000,000 which—
(i)Is licensed as a casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment under the laws of any State or any political subdivision of any State; or
(ii)Is an Indian gaming operation conducted under or pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act other than an operation which is limited to class I gaming (as defined in section 4(6) of such Act); * * * 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)(X). Casinos authorized to conduct business under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act became subject to the Bank Secrecy Act by regulation in 1996, 6 and card clubs became subject to the Bank Secrecy Act by regulation in 1998. 7 6 *See* 61 FR 7054 (February 23, 1996). 7 *See* 63 FR 1919 (January 13, 1998). Card clubs generally are subject to the same rules as casinos, unless a different treatment for card clubs is explicitly stated in 31 CFR Part 103. Therefore, for purposes of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and unless the context indicates otherwise, the term “casino” refers to both casinos and to card clubs. B. Casino Currency Transaction Reporting Requirements Regulations under the Bank Secrecy Act define a “transaction in currency” as any transaction “involving the physical transfer of currency from one person to another.” 8 Casinos must report each transaction in currency involving cash in or cash out of more than $10,000, 9 and are required to aggregate transactions in currency (treat the transactions as a single transaction) if the casino has knowledge that the transactions are conducted by or on behalf of the same person and result in cash in or cash out of more than $10,000 during any gaming day. 10 The rule requiring casinos to report transactions in currency also lists examples of transactions in currency involving cash in and cash out. 11 8 *See* 31 CFR 103.11(ii)(2). 9 *See* 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2). 10 *See* 31 CFR 103.22(c)(3). 11 *See* 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(i) and (ii). Casinos must report transactions in currency by filing Currency Transaction Reports on FinCEN Form 103 (“Currency Transaction Report by Casinos”). A casino must record identifying information on the Currency Transaction Report, verify identifying information, and indicate a description of the transaction(s). 12 In addition, a casino must file the completed form within 15 days following the date of the reportable transaction and retain a copy of the Currency Transaction Report for a period of five years from the date of filing. 13 12 *See* 31 CFR 103.27(d) and 103.28. 13 *See* 31 CFR 103.27(a)(1) and (3). II. Proposed Amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations We are proposing to amend certain regulations under the Bank Secrecy Act that require casinos to report transactions in currency of more than $10,000. In response to requests from the gaming industry, we are proposing to exclude jackpots from slot machines and video lottery terminals as reportable transactions in currency. We also are proposing to exclude certain transactions between
(i)casinos and currency dealers or exchangers and
(ii)casinos and check cashers from the requirement to report transactions in currency. Finally, we are proposing other technical and clarifying amendments to the illustrative list of cash in and cash out transactions in the rules. Jackpots from slot machines and video lottery terminals account for a significant portion of Currency Transaction Reports filed by casinos. Absent fraud or abuse of the slot machine or video lottery terminal, a customer who wins more than $10,000 in jackpots at a slot machine or video lottery terminal generally will have won those funds solely because of the workings of the random number generator in the slot machine or in a central computer that is networked with the video lottery terminal. Accordingly, the jackpots are not likely to form part of a scheme to launder funds through the casino. Further, because casinos are required to file federal income tax forms with the Internal Revenue Service on jackpots of $1,200 or more, jackpots from slot machines and video lottery terminals are not likely to form part of a scheme to evade taxes. We believe that jackpots from slot machines and video lottery terminals do not pose a significant risk for money laundering, terrorist financing, or tax evasion. Consequently, Currency Transaction Reports filed with respect to the jackpots do not have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory matters. Therefore, we are proposing to eliminate the requirement that casinos file Currency Transaction Reports for jackpots in excess of $10,000 from slot machines or video lottery terminals. In addition, we believe that transactions in currency between casinos and currency dealers or exchangers and check cashers are often routine casino business transactions. To illustrate, a check cashing company may operate on the premises of a casino. The check cashing company may cash checks for customers of the casino. Typically, the check cashing company writes a business check to the casino and in return receives currency from the casino cage to run the check cashing operation. As another illustration, a casino may enter into a contractual agreement with a commercial currency dealer or exchanger to have that business acquire excess foreign currency and foreign coins that a casino has accumulated from exchanges with its customers. In return, a casino generally receives a cashier's check or a business check from the dealer for the currency exchanged minus a commission for the service. At present, both types of transactions qualify as “transactions in currency” such that, if the transactions meet the $10,000 threshold set forth in the rule, a casino would be required to file one or more Currency Transaction Reports. We believe these business transactions should not be subject to the reporting requirements of 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2). Further, requiring a casino to file Currency Transaction Reports with respect to these transactions would be duplicative of those filed by currency dealers or exchangers, or check cashers, which are themselves subject to the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act and to the requirement to file Currency Transaction Reports. 14 Duplicate filings with respect to the same transaction do not provide a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters. 14 *See* 31 CFR 103.22(b)(1). III. Section-by-Section Analysis A. Jackpots From Slot Machines and Video Lottery Terminals—103.22(b)(2)(ii) and 103.22(b)(2)(iii) For the reasons described above, we are proposing to amend 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(E) by deleting the reference to slot jackpots from the list of reportable cash out transactions in currency. We also are proposing to add a new paragraph, 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(iii)(B), that would explicitly exclude such transactions as “payments on bets” for purposes of casino currency transaction reporting. B. Currency Dealer or Exchanger, or Check Casher Transactions—103.22(b)(2)(iii)(A) We are proposing to amend 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2) to add a new paragraph (iii)(A) that would exclude from the list of reportable cash in or cash out transactions in currency, certain transactions in currency conducted between a casino and currency dealers or exchangers, or check cashers, as defined in 31 CFR 103.11(uu)(1) and (2), respectively. As described above, currently, our regulations require a casino to file a Currency Transaction Report for cash in or cash out transactions in excess of $10,000 conducted between casinos and currency dealers or exchangers and casinos and check cashers. 15 Also, as discussed above, this proposed amendment would eliminate duplicative filings. 16 We believe that as long as these currency transactions are conducted pursuant to a contractual or other arrangement with a casino covering those services in §§ 103.22(b)(2)(i)(H), 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(G), and 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(H), these currency transactions should not be subject to currency transaction reporting requirements applicable to casinos. 15 Since July 1997, there has been an “Exceptions” provision under the “General Instructions” section of the Currency Transaction Report by Casinos form for a casino's transactions with currency dealers or exchangers, or check cashers. This exception provision from such casino reporting on FinCEN Form 103 (Rev. November 2003) would be revised to reflect the language of this amendment once a final rule is issued. 16 This proposed amendment does not relieve a currency dealer or exchanger, or a check casher, from complying with the reporting of currency transactions in excess of $10,000 conducted with a casino. *See* 31 CFR 103.22(b)(1). C. Other Amendments A summary of other technical amendments follows. 1. *Gaming instruments—103.22(b)(2)(i)(A).* We are proposing to amend 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(i)(A) by deleting the term “plaques” and substituting the phrase “other gaming instruments” for cash in transactions. The term “plaque” only applies to a high value chip. In contrast, a gaming instrument would include any casino-issued financial product that is used to facilitate a gaming transaction ( *e.g.* , high dollar denomination plaques used in playing baccarat games, and stored value cards containing funds or monetary value), including those associated with a particular customer. 2. *Money plays as bets of currency—103.22(b)(2)(i)(E).* We are proposing to amend 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(i)(E) to include money plays as “bets of currency” and thus reportable cash in transactions for purposes of our currency reporting requirements for casinos. Under 31 CFR 103.11(ii)(2), a “transaction in currency” includes any transaction involving the physical transfer of currency to a casino. A “bet of currency” is listed as an example of a transaction in currency involving cash in. 17 Therefore, a wager of currency on table game play represents a “bet of currency”—and a transaction in currency involving cash in—regardless of whether the customer wins or loses the wager. 17 *See* 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(i)(E). 3. Bills inserted into electronic gaming devices—103.22(b)(2)(i)(I). We are proposing to add a new paragraph, 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(i)(I), to include “bills inserted into electronic gaming devices” as a type of cash in transaction. The insertion of currency into a slot machine or a video lottery terminal (which are electronic gaming devices), regardless of whether a customer wagers the currency, involves the physical transfer of currency to a casino. 18 18 *See* 31 CFR 103.11(ii)(2). In the absence of a wager, the transaction is analogous to the purchase of a token or chip with currency, as the customer exchanges currency for a:
(i)Token to wager at a slot machine or video lottery terminal, or
(ii)chip to wager at a table game. The purchase of a token (or chip) with currency is a transaction in currency involving cash in. 19 Likewise, the insertion of currency into a slot machine or video lottery terminal is a transaction in currency, even in the absence of a wager. 20 19 *See* 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(i)(A). 20 *See* 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(i)(E). 4. *Tickets and other gaming instruments—103.22(b)(2)(ii)(A).* We are proposing to amend 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(A) to delete the phrase “and plaques” and insert the phrase “tickets, and other gaming instruments” for cash out transactions. The proposed amendment replaces the term “plaque,” which only applies to a high value chip, with terminology that is more current and commonly used with respect to the latest gaming technology. A ticket is a document issued by a slot machine, video lottery terminal, or a pari-mutuel clerk to a customer as a record of the wagering transaction and/or substitute for currency. 21 A customer can use a ticket at a machine or terminal that accepts tickets or cash a ticket out at a cage, slot booth, a redemption kiosk, or a pari-mutuel window at the gaming establishment. As described previously, a gaming instrument would encompass any casino-issued financial product that is used to facilitate a gaming transaction ( *e.g.* , high dollar denomination plaques used in playing baccarat games, and stored value cards containing funds or monetary value). 21 Tickets are voucher slips printed with the name and the address of the gaming establishment, the stated monetary value of the ticket, date and time, machine number ( *e.g.* , asset or location), an 18-digit ticket number, and a unique bar code. Tickets are a casino bearer “IOU” instrument. Slot machines or video lottery terminals that print tickets are commonly known as “ticket in/ticket out” or “TITO” machines. 5. *Payments based on receipt of funds through wire transfers—103.22(b)(2)(ii)(F).* We are proposing to amend 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(F) pertaining to payments in currency by a casino to a customer based on receipt of funds through a wire transfer to delete the reference to credit to a customer. Some casinos have been confused by the reference to credit for this type of cash out transaction. Since this reference is unnecessary, it will be removed. 6. *Travel and complimentary expenses and gaming incentives—103.22(b)(2)(ii)(I).* We are proposing to amend 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(I) to clarify the types of reportable cash out transactions under this provision. Specifically, we are proposing to replace the word “entertainment” with the term “complimentary” 22 for expenses, and to add the phrase “gaming incentives” which would mean that travel and complimentary expenses and gaming incentives would be reportable as currency transactions. 22 Although, complimentary (also referred to as “comps”) items typically are goods or services that a casino gives to a customer, at reduced or no cost, based on significant play, they can also be in the form of currency. 7. *Tournaments, contests or promotions—103.22(b)(2)(ii)(J).* We are proposing to add a new paragraph, 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(J), to add payments for tournament, contest, or other promotions as types of cash out transactions. IV. Submission of Comments We invite comments on all aspects of this notice of proposed rulemaking, and specifically invite comments on what impact a casino exemption from currency transaction reporting for jackpots from slot machines or video lottery terminals reported would have for law enforcement. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying, and no material in any such comments, including the name of any person submitting comments, will be recognized as confidential. Accordingly, material not intended to be disclosed to the public should not be submitted. V. Executive Order 12866 The Department of the Treasury has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since the regulatory reporting threshold excludes casinos whose gross annual gaming revenues do not exceed $1 million. For larger casinos, the requirements of the proposed amendments to 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(i)(E) and 103.22(b)(2)(i)(I) may be satisfied, in large part, by using existing business practices and records. For example, many casinos already obtain a great deal of data about their customers' transactions from information routinely collected from casino-established player rating and slot club accounts. This existing data can assist casinos in making decisions about whether a transaction is reportable as a currency transaction. VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Statement Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Act), requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in any expenditure by state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. We have determined that we are not required to prepare a written statement under section 202, and have concluded that, on balance, this proposed rule provides the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative to achieve the stated objectives associated with the same. List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 103 Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Banks and banking, Currency, Gambling, Indian gaming, Investigations, Law enforcement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority and Issuance For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 103 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 103—FINANCIAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING OF CURRENCY AND FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332; title III, secs. 311, 312, 313, 314, 319, 326, 352, Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307. Section 103.22 is amended by: A. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A), (E), (G), and (H), and adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(i)(I); B. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A), (E), (F), (H), and (I), and adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(J); and C. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(iii). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 103.22 Reports of transactions in currency.
(b)* * *
(2)* * *
(i)* * *
(A)Purchases of chips, tokens, and other gaming instruments;
(E)Bets of currency, including money plays;
(G)Purchases of a casino's check;
(H)Exchanges of currency for currency, including foreign currency; and
(I)Bills inserted into electronic gaming devices.
(ii)* * *
(A)Redemptions of chips, tokens, tickets, and other gaming instruments;
(E)Payments on bets;
(F)Payments by a casino to a customer based on receipt of funds through wire transfers;
(H)Exchanges of currency for currency, including foreign currency;
(I)Travel and complementary expenses and gaming incentives; and
(J)Payment for tournament, contests and other promotions.
(iii)Other provisions of this part notwithstanding, a transaction in currency or currency transaction for purposes of §§ 102.22(b)(2) and (c)(3) shall not include:
(A)Transactions between a casino and a currency dealer or exchanger, or between a casino and a check casher, as those terms are defined in § 103.11(uu), so long as such transactions are conducted pursuant to a contractual or other arrangement with a casino covering the financial services in §§ 103.22(b)(2)(i)(H), 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(G), and 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(H); and
(B)Jackpots from slot machines or video lottery terminals. Dated: March 14, 2006. Robert W. Werner, Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. [FR Doc. E6-4072 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4820-03-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD13-06-007] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation: Annual Dragon Boat Races, Portland, OR AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent special local regulation for the Dragon Boat Races held annually the second Saturday and Sunday of June on the waters of the Willamette River, Portland, Oregon. These special local regulations limit the movement of non-participating vessels in the regulated race area. This proposed rule is needed to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to U.S. Coast Guard Sector Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave, Portland, Oregon 97217. Waterways Management maintains the public docket [CGD13-06-007] for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Portland between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MST1 Charity Keuter, c/o Captain of the Port Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave, Portland, OR 97217-3992, phone
(503)240-9311. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD13-06-007), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if your comments reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to U.S. Coast Guard Sector Portland at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose This event may result in a number of recreational vessels congregating near the boat races. The regulated area is needed to protect event participants. Dragon Boats have very little freeboard and are susceptible to swamping. Accordingly, regulatory action is needed in order to provide for the safety of spectators and participants during the event. Discussion of Proposed Rule This rule would control vessel movements from entering the race event area. This regulated area will assist in minimizing the inherent danger associated with these races. In the event that one of the dragon boats should capsize due to excess speed from river traffic, emergency assistance must have immediate access to the craft. The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to promote the safety of personnel, vessels, and facilities in the area. Due to these concerns, public safety requires these regulations to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters. The Coast Guard proposes to create this regulation by revising § 100.1302, rather than create a new section in the *Code of Federal Regulations* because the annual Clarkston, Washington, Limited Hydroplane Races that currently exist in that section, is no longer an event which occurs with any regularity. Those races have not been conducted for at least five years and the sponsor has stated that they will no longer occur. The Dragon Boat Races in Portland, Oregon, however, is an event that that takes place annually and would benefit from a permanent rule. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by the proposed regulation will encompass a small portion of the river for eighteen hours over two days. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of the Willamette River from 8 a.m.
(PDT)to 5 p.m.
(PDT)on June 10th and 11th, 2006 and hereafter annually on the second Saturday and Sunday in June. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulated area will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only 18 hours and vessel traffic will be allowed to safely pass through the area with a “no wake” zone enforced. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Petty Officer Charity Keuter at
(503)240-9301. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Revise § 100.1302 to read as follows: § 100.1302 Special Local Regulation, Annual Dragon Boat Races, Portland, Oregon.
(a)*Regulated Area.* All waters of the Willamette River shore to shore, bordered on the north by the Hawthorne Bridge, and on the south by the Marquam Bridge.
(b)*Enforcement Period.* The event is a two day event which will be enforced annually from 8 a.m.
(PDT)to 5 p.m.
(PDT)on the second Saturday and Sunday of June. In 2006, this regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Saturday, June 10th and Sunday June 11th.
(c)*Special Local Regulation.*
(1)Non participant vessels are prohibited from entering the race area unless authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(2)All persons or vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or not part of the regatta patrol are considered spectators. Spectator vessels must be moored to a waterfront facility in a way that will not interfere with the progress of the event or have permission to enter the area from the Mor Coast Guard patrol commander. Spectators must proceed at a safe speed as not to cause a wake. This requirement will be strictly enforced to preserve the safety of both life and property.
(3)A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the Patrol Commander shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the patrol vessel. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(4)The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may be assisted by other Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. Dated: February 28, 2006. R.R. Houck, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-4017 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 41 CFR Part 60-2 RIN 1215-AB53 Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors; Equal Opportunity Survey; Correction AGENCY: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction; and extension of comment period. SUMMARY: On January 20, 2006, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM (71 FR 3373) proposes to amend the regulations implementing Executive Order 11246 by removing the current requirement for nonconstruction federal contractors to file the Equal Opportunity Survey (“EO Survey NPRM”). This document corrects the e-mail address for submitting comments on the EO Survey NPRM. Further, to ensure that all public comments are received, this document extends the comment period for the proposed rule for seven
(7)days. Respondents who sent comments to the earlier e-mail address are encouraged to contact the person named below to find out if their comments were received and re-submit them to the e-mail address below if necessary. DATES: The comment period for the EO Survey NPRM published January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3373) is extended to March 28, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James C. Pierce, Acting Director, Division of Policy, Planning, and Program Development, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N3422, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:
(202)693-0102 (voice) or
(202)693-1337 (TTY). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction Due to an upgrade in the computer system, the original e-mail address published in the proposed rule is not currently functioning and is not receiving e-mail comments. Accordingly, in FR Doc. 06-646 appearing on page 3373, in the **Federal Register** of Friday, January 20, 2006, the e-mail address shown, “ *ofccp-mail@dol.esa.gov* ,” is corrected to read “ *OFCCP-Public@dol.gov* .” Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of March, 2006. Victoria A. Lipnic, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards. Charles E. James, Sr., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Federal Contract Compliance. [FR Doc. 06-2770 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 30
Traces to 30 documents
U.S. Code
58 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 72
  • 68 Stat. 929
  • 83 Stat. 444
  • Pub. L. 86-373
  • 73 Stat. 688
  • 88 Stat. 1242
  • Pub. L. 95-601
  • 92 Stat. 2951
  • Pub. L. 102-486
  • 106 Stat. 3123
  • Pub. L. 91-190
  • 83 Stat. 853
  • Pub. L. 97-425
  • 96 Stat. 2229
  • Pub. L. 100-203
  • 101 Stat. 1330
  • 112 Stat. 2750
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 119 Stat. 806
  • 68 Stat. 955
  • 96 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2202
  • 98 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2252
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 31 CFR 103
  • Pub. L. 91-508
  • 12 USC 1951-1959
  • 31 USC 5311-5314
  • Pub. L. 107-56
  • Pub. L. 103-325
  • 31 CFR 103.11(ii)(2)
  • 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)
  • 31 CFR 103.22(c)(3)
  • 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(i)
  • 31 CFR 103.27(d)
  • 31 CFR 103.27(a)(1)
  • 31 CFR 103.22(b)(1)
  • 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(E)
  • 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2)(iii)(B)
+ 18 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 2071
U.S.C.§ 2021
U.S.C.§ 5841
U.S.C.§ 5851
U.S.C.§ 4332
U.S.C.§ 10151
U.S.C.§ 3504
U.S.C.§ 2014
Cite10 CFR 72
Stat.68 Stat. 929
Stat.83 Stat. 444
Cites 88 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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