Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

Agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA
Action: Proposed rule
Citation: 71 FR (No. 64) · FR Doc. 06-3205 · RIN 0579-AB98 · Docket No. APHIS-2005-0103 · 7 CFR 301

Summary

We are proposing to amend our domestic quarantine regulations to establish a process by which a State or political subdivision of a State could request approval to impose prohibitions or restrictions on the movement in interstate commerce of specific articles that are in addition to the prohibitions and restrictions imposed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The Plant Protection Act provides that States or political subdivisions of States may make such special need requests, but there are currently no procedures in place for their submission or consideration. This action would establish a process by which States may make a special need request.

Dates

We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 5, 2006.

Supplementary Information

Background The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ) gives authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction of a plant pest or noxious weed into the United States, or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Under section 436 of the PPA (7 U.S.C. 7756), no State or political subdivision of a State may regulate the movement in interstate commerce of any article, means of conveyance, plant, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant product in order (1) to control a plant pest or noxious weed; (2) to eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed; or (3) to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed if the Secretary has issued a regulation or order to prevent the dissemination of the biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed within the United States. The only exceptions to this prohibition are when a State or political subdivision of a State imposes regulations which are consistent with and do not exceed the regulations or orders issued by the Secretary, or when the State or political subdivision of a State demonstrates to the Secretary, and the Secretary finds, that there is a special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment. Although the PPA provides that the Secretary may grant a request from a State or political subdivision of a State for a special need exception, APHIS has not issued criteria regarding the content, submission, and consideration of such requests. Therefore, in this document, we are proposing to amend our domestic quarantine notices in 7 CFR part 301 by adding a new “Subpart—Special Need Requests” (7 CFR 301.1 through 301.1-3) in which we would set out procedures for the submission and handling of special need requests. Proposed § 301.1 would detail the purpose and scope of the new subpart, and proposed § 301.1-1 would provide definitions for certain terms used in the subpart. Proposed § 301.1-2 would spell out the information that a State or a political subdivision of a State applying for a special need exception would have to provide, and proposed § 301.1-3 would explain the actions that APHIS would take following its receipt of a special need request. Purpose and Scope Section 301.1 of the proposed regulations would explain the purpose of the new subpart and how the subpart may be used in accordance with the PPA and the implementing regulations. Paragraph (a) would describe what a special need request is in the context of the PPA. Paragraph (b) would explain that the subpart contains instructions for the submission and consideration of special need requests under the PPA. Definitions Section 301.1-1 of the proposed regulations would contain eight standard definitions that are consistent with those used elsewhere in our regulations. We would define Administrator as the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or any person authorized to act for the Administrator; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture; and biological control organism as any enemy, antagonist, or competitor used to control a plant pest or noxious weed. We would also define interstate commerce as trade, traffic, or other commerce (A) from one State into or through any other State; or (B) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other territory or possession of the United States; move (moved, movement ) as shipped, offered to a common carrier for shipment, received for transportation or transported by a common carrier, or carried, transported, moved, or allowed to be moved; and noxious weed as any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health or the environment. In addition, we would define plant pest as any living stage of any insects, mites, nematodes, slugs, snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, fungi, other parasitic plants or reproductive parts thereof, viruses, or any organisms similar to or allied with any of the foregoing, or any infectious substances which can directly or indirectly injure or cause disease or damage in any plants or parts thereof or any processed, manufactured, or other products of plants; and State as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, or any State, territory, or possession of the United States. Submission of Requests Section 301.1-2 of the proposed regulations would describe the information that would have to be included in any request to the Administrator for a special need exception. As our contacts are at the State level, paragraph (a) would provide that a special need request generated by a political subdivision of a State would have to be submitted to APHIS through the State. Paragraph (a) would also state that all special need requests must be signed by the appropriate executive official or a plant protection official of the State and must contain the following information: • Data drawn from a scientifically sound detection survey, showing that the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest of concern does not exist in the State or political subdivision or, if already present in the State or political subdivision, the distribution of the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest of concern; • If the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest is not present in the State or political subdivision, a risk analysis or other scientific data showing that the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest could enter the State or political subdivision and become established; • Specific information showing that, if introduced into or allowed to spread within the State or political subdivision, the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest would harm or injure the environment, and/or cause economic harm to industries in the State or political subdivision, including direct information about what harm or injury would result from establishment of the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest in the State or political subdivision; • Specific information showing that the State or political subdivision has characteristics that make it particularly vulnerable to the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest, such as unique plants, diversity of flora, historical concerns, or any other special basis for the request for additional restrictions or prohibitions; and • Information detailing the proposed additional prohibitions or restrictions, and scientific data demonstrating that the proposed additional prohibitions or restrictions would be necessary and adequate, and that there is no less drastic action that is feasible and that would be adequate, to prevent the introduction and spread of the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest in the State or political subdivision. We believe that this specific information, which would be considered along with more general information available to APHIS, would be necessary for the Administrator to be able to determine whether to grant or deny a request for a special need exception. Paragraph (b) would provide an address for the submission of requests. Action on Special Need Requests Section 301.1-3 of the proposed regulations would explain the process APHIS would use following the receipt of a special need request. Paragraph (a) would provide that, upon receipt of a complete special need request submitted in accordance with § 301.1-2, we would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the special need request. This notice would provide a location where the public could view the request along with all materials submitted in support of the request. Paragraph (b) would state that, following the close of the comment period, we would publish another notice to advise the public of the Administrator's decision to either grant or deny the special need request. The Administrator's determination would be based upon his or her review and evaluation of the information submitted by the State or political subdivision in support of its request and would take into account any comments received. The Administrator's finding that the State or political subdivision has demonstrated, based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment, that there is a special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions would mean that the State or political subdivision would be authorized to impose specific prohibitions or restrictions that go beyond those identified in the regulations or orders issued by APHIS. APHIS would work with the State to ensure that the additional prohibitions or restrictions are within the scope of the special need exception granted by the Administrator. If the Administrator denied a special need request, the reasons for the denial would be communicated to the State or political subdivision and reported in a follow-up Federal Register notice. A State or political subdivision that has had its request denied would be given the opportunity to submit additional supporting information in order to request a reconsideration of its request. If the Administrator withdraws approval of a special need exception, the reasons for the withdrawal would be communicated to the State or political subdivision and reported in the Federal Register. Reasons for withdrawal of approval of a special need exception may include the availability of new scientific data or changes in APHIS regulations. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. This rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. For this rule, we have prepared an economic analysis. The economic analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis as required by Executive Order 12866, as well as an analysis of the potential economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities, as required under 5 U.S.C. 603. The economic analysis is set forth below. Introduction Under the Plant Protection Act, section 436 (7 U.S.C. 7756(b)(2)), States and political subdivisions of States may request restrictions and prohibitions that are in addition to restrictions and prohibitions imposed by our Federal regulations if there is a special need for a higher level of protection for that State or political subdivision. APHIS proposes to require that States and political subdivisions of States that wish to request additional restrictions or prohibitions on the interstate movement of articles into their jurisdictions provide the following information, and APHIS would evaluate the information to determine whether States or political subdivisions have adequately demonstrated a special need under the Plant Protection Act: • A State or political subdivision of a State that requests additional restrictions or prohibitions based on a special need must show that the pest of concern does not exist in the State. Therefore a request should include current data showing that a scientifically sound detection survey was performed in the State, and the pest was not found. • The pest should be a true concern for the State or political subdivision of a State, which would be documented with a pest risk assessment or other scientific data showing that the pest could enter the State and become established. • The pest should be of significant concern for the State or political subdivision of a State, in that it would harm or injure the environment, and/or cause economic harm to industries in the State. The request should contain direct information about what harm or injury would result from establishment of the pest in the State. • The State or political subdivision of a State should list characteristics that make it particularly vulnerable to the pest, such as unique plants, diversity of flora, historical concerns, or any other special basis for the request for additional restrictions or prohibitions. Expected Benefits The principal benefit for entities in a special need area would be the pest risk reduction attributable to the action. The risk of entry and establishment of a pest of concern both prior to and after the granting of a special need request would need to be estimated before the benefit of the reduced risk could be determined. It is unlikely that these risk levels would be measurable. Other possible benefits of a special need request would be easier to calculate. Reduced pest risk due to additional restrictions or prohibitions may mean that certain mitigation measures in the special need area would no longer be considered necessary. There may be less need for inspections, special permits, certain pesticide applications, special handling or packaging, or other safeguards practiced or required prior to the granting of the special need request. Costs forgone once the request has been granted would represent benefits of the action. Agricultural and other entities in a special need area may also benefit from the reduced availability of articles restricted or prohibited because of the special need request. Restricted supplies from sources outside the special need area could create increased market opportunities for suppliers within the area. If quantities normally purchased could not be provided by suppliers within the special need area (or from outside sources that do not present a pest risk), then suppliers likely would benefit from an increase in price. Expected Costs Costs would be incurred both in the special need area and in the area placed under additional restrictions or prohibitions. In each case, the size of the impact would depend upon the volume of supply affected by a special need request. As just described, prices in a special need area may increase if the available quantity of an article is reduced because of restrictions or prohibitions. But gains for suppliers within the special need area from price increases would come at the expense of the area's consumers, and overall there would be a net loss in social welfare. Losses may be incurred not only by end-users, but also by intermediary entities. Stores selling the restricted articles (nurseries, landscaping companies, grocery stores) may face declining demand, depending upon the response of consumers to the price increase, and reduced net revenues. For the area placed under additional restrictions or prohibitions because of a special need request, sales of affected articles may decline if other replacement markets are not found. Even if shipments to the special need area can be maintained, additional costs may be incurred. For example: • Growers may be required to have inspections conducted more frequently than APHIS would otherwise require (a cost that may be borne by the State or political subdivision). • Growers (or the State or political subdivision) may be required to pay for special phytosanitary certificates or permits. • Growers may incur costs related to additional risk mitigations, such as particular pesticide applications or treatments, netting, or special greenhouse equipment. • Additional inspections or restrictions may result in shipping delays. • Shipping companies may experience reduced business or may face additional costs related to container or sealing requirements of the special need request. Expected Net Effects The overriding benefit for an area granted a special need request would be the reduced risk of pest entry and establishment. Other, market-related benefits are likely to be outweighed by costs incurred in the special need area and in the area placed under additional restrictions or prohibitions. Costs, including those associated with additional risk mitigation requirements, may be borne by agricultural entities, the public sector, or, most likely, a combination of the two. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Objectives and legal basis. Section 436(b) of the Plant Protection Act requires that a State demonstrate to the Secretary that it has a special need for additional restrictions or prohibitions, that the Secretary agree that there is a special need, and that the additional restrictions and prohibitions requested by the State be based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment. The proposed rule would establish specific criteria by which a special need request from a State would be evaluated. Reason for the action. The desirability of specific criteria for evaluating special need requests has become apparent from requests received by the Agency from several States for additional restrictions or prohibitions on the interstate movement of articles that would be more restrictive than those imposed by the Phytophthora ramorum regulations in 7 CFR 301.92 through 301.92-11. Small entities that may be affected. Agricultural and other entities would not be affected by the proposed rule, per se, but rather by the special need requests that follow. The proposed rule would simply establish a process by which States may make a special need request and provide the Agency with a specific set of evaluation criteria. U.S. agricultural businesses are predominantly small entities. At all stages of economic activity—production, transportation, processing, and wholesale and retail sales—agricultural industries are generally composed of a large number of small firms and a small number of large firms (with the latter usually generating the major share of industry revenue). Given this prevailing pattern, any impacts that special need requests may have on agricultural businesses can be expected generally to affect a large if not substantial number of small entities. The number of affected small entities would vary by request, and would depend on the particular circumstances in the affected States or political subdivisions. Reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements. This proposed rule contains various recordkeeping and reporting requirements. These requirements are described in this document under the heading “Paperwork Reduction Act.” We expect that costs related to preparing a special need request would be borne by the public sector, but it is possible that agricultural industries (and therefore small entities) could incur indirect costs depending on arrangements for generating the required information. Also, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's definition of small entities includes small governmental jurisdictions, that is, “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Thus, it is possible that special need areas could correspond to or include small governmental jurisdictions. Of greater impact than costs associated with the preparation of a request will be the costs and benefits of complying with the additional restrictions or prohibitions, once a special need request is granted by the Agency. Types of benefits and costs that may result from a special need request are identified at the beginning of this document. Duplicating, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules. APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of the proposed rule with other Federal rules. Alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The proposed rule would establish a set of criteria for APHIS to use in evaluating special need requests submitted by special need areas. Alternatives to the proposed rule would be to either leave the regulations unchanged, or to require a different set of criteria than is proposed. Leaving the regulations unchanged would be unsatisfactory for the public and for APHIS. Granting of special need requests is currently not efficient due to the lack of an explicit set of criteria that States and political subdivisions know will be used to evaluate special need requests. Information contained in a special need request therefore may be either inadequate or superfluous. The proposed set of criteria would provide an unambiguous basis for the equitable evaluation of special need requests. APHIS considers the proposed set of criteria to be fully sufficient for evaluation purposes. We invite the public to comment on the proposed criteria; suggested changes should be supported by an explanation of why the changes should be considered. We would also appreciate any comments on expected impacts of special need requests for small entities, and on how the proposed rule could be modified to reduce expected costs or burdens for small entities consistent with its objectives. We reiterate that the proposed rule, in itself, would not affect small entities, but rather would influence future actions—granting of special need requests—that would affect small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2005-0103. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. APHIS-2005-0103, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule. In this document, we are proposing to amend the domestic quarantine notices in 7 CFR part 301 by adding a new “Subpart-Special Need Requests” (7 CFR 301.1 through 301.1-3) in which we would set out procedures for the submission and handling of special need requests. The request would have to contain specific information substantiating the request, including data showing the absence or distribution of the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest; a risk analysis or other scientific data showing that it could enter the State or political subdivision and become established; a description of its potential to cause environmental or economic harm and any factors that make the area particularly vulnerable to such harm; and information detailing the proposed additional prohibitions or restrictions. We are asking OMB to approve the use of these information collection activities in connection with our efforts to establish a process for special need requests. We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses). Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 160 hours per response. Respondents: State Governments. Estimated annual number of respondents: 10. Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1. Estimated annual number of responses: 10. Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,600 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477. List of Subjects in 7 CFR 301 Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 301 as follows: PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 301 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Section 301.75-15 also issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). 2. Part 301 would be amended by adding a new “Subpart—Special Need Requests,” §§ 301.1 through 301.1-3, to read as follows: Subpart—Special Need Requests Sec. 301.1 Purpose and scope. 301.1-1 Definitions. 301.1-2 Criteria for special need requests. 301.1-3 Action on special need requests. Subpart—Special Need Requests § 301.1 Purpose and scope. (a) Under section 436 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7756), a State or political subdivision of a State may not impose prohibitions or restrictions upon the movement in interstate commerce of articles, means of conveyance, plants, plant products, biological control organisms, plant pests, or noxious weeds if the Secretary has issued a regulation or order to prevent the dissemination of the biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed within the United States. The only exceptions to this are: (1) If the prohibitions or restrictions issued by the State or political subdivision of a State are consistent with and do not exceed the regulations or orders issued by the Secretary, or (2) If the State or political subdivision of a State demonstrates to the Secretary and the Secretary finds that there is a special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment. (b) The regulations in this subpart provide for the submission and consideration of special need requests when a State or a political subdivision of a State seeks to impose prohibitions or restrictions on the movement in interstate commerce of articles, means of conveyance, plants, plant products, biological control organisms, plant pests, or noxious weeds that are in addition to the prohibitions or restrictions imposed by this part or by a Federal Order. § 301.1-1 Definitions. The following definitions apply in this subpart: Administrator. The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or any person authorized to act for the Administrator. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) . The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Biological control organism . Any enemy, antagonist, or competitor used to control a plant pest or noxious weed. Interstate commerce . Trade, traffic, or other commerce: (1) From one State into or through any other State; or (2) Within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other territory or possession of the United States. Move (moved, movement) . Shipped, offered to a common carrier for shipment, received for transportation or transported by a common carrier, or carried, transported, moved or allowed to be moved. Noxious weed . Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health or the environment. Plant pest . Any living stage of any insects, mites, nematodes, slugs, snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, fungi, other parasitic plants or reproductive parts thereof, viruses, or any organisms similar to or allied with any of the foregoing, or any infectious substances which can directly or indirectly injure or cause disease or damage in any plants or parts thereof or any processed, manufactured, or other products of plants. State. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, or any State, territory, or possession of the United States. § 301.1-2 Criteria for special need requests. (a) A special need request, as described in § 301.1, may be generated by a State or a political subdivision of a State. If the request is generated by a political subdivision of a State, the request must be submitted to APHIS through the State. All special need requests must be signed by the executive official or a plant protection official of the State and must contain the following: (1) Data drawn from a scientifically sound detection survey, showing that the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest of concern does not exist in the State or political subdivision or, if already present in the State or political subdivision, the distribution of the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest of concern; (2) If the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest is not present in the State or political subdivision, a risk analysis or other scientific data showing that the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest could enter the State or political subdivision and become established; (3) Specific information showing that, if introduced into or allowed to spread within the State or political subdivision, the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest would harm or injure the environment and/or cause economic harm to industries in the State or political subdivision. The request should contain detailed information about what harm or injury would result from the introduction or dissemination of the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest in the State or political subdivision; (4) Specific information showing that the State or political subdivision has characteristics that make it particularly vulnerable to the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest, such as unique plants, diversity of flora, historical concerns, or any other special basis for the request for additional restrictions or prohibitions; and (5) Information detailing the proposed additional prohibitions or restrictions and scientific data demonstrating that the proposed additional prohibitions or restrictions are necessary and adequate, and that there is no less drastic action that is feasible and that would be adequate, to prevent the introduction or spread of the biological control organism, noxious weed, or plant pest in the State or political subdivision. (b) All special need requests must be submitted to [ Address to be added in final rule ]. § 301.1-3 Action on special need requests. (a) Upon receipt of a complete special need request submitted in accordance with § 301.1-2, APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register to inform the public of the special need request and to make the request and its supporting information available for review and comment for at least 60 days. (b) Following the close of the comment period, APHIS will publish another notice announcing the Administrator's decision to either grant or deny the special need request. The Administrator's determination will be based upon the evaluation of the information submitted by the State or political subdivision of a State in support of its request and would take into account any comments received. (1) If the Administrator grants the special need request, the State or political subdivision of a State will be authorized to impose only the specific prohibitions or restrictions identified in the request and approved by APHIS. APHIS will coordinate with the State, or with the State on behalf of the political subdivision of the State, to ensure that the additional prohibitions or restrictions are in accord with the special need exception granted by the Administrator. (2) If the Administrator denies the special need request, the State or political subdivision of a State will be notified in writing of the reason for the denial and may submit any additional information the State or political subdivision of a State may have in order to request a reconsideration. (c) If the Administrator determines that there is a need for the withdrawal of a special need exception, the reasons for the withdrawal would be communicated to the State or to the political subdivision of the State and APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register to inform the public of the withdrawal of the special need exception and to make the information supporting the withdrawal available for review and comment for at least 60 days. Reasons for withdrawal of approval of a special need exception may include, but are not limited to, the availability of new scientific data or changes in APHIS regulations. Following the close of the comment period, APHIS will publish another notice announcing the Administrator's decision to either withdraw or uphold the special need exception. The Administrator's determination will be based upon the evaluation of the information submitted in support of the withdrawal and would take into account any comments received. Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of March 2006. Jeremy Stump, Acting Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. [FR Doc. E6-4840 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24289; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-186-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 Series Airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes); and A310-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus airplanes identified above. This proposed AD would require improving the routing of certain electrical wire bundles in certain airplane zones, as applicable to the airplane model. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD 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. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24289; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-186-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( i.e. , type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4, A300-600, A310-200, and A310-300 series airplanes. The DGAC recommends improving the routing of certain electrical wire bundles in certain airplane zones to minimize the risk of explosion. 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. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued the service bulletins identified below. These service bulletins describe procedures for six different actions related to improving the routing of certain electrical wire bundles in certain airplane zones, as applicable to the airplane model. Each action is described in detail after the table. Airbus Service Bulletins Action Applicable to model— Described in service bulletin— Prior or concurrent action— A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes A300-28-0057, Revision 02, dated January 8, 2001 None. A300-600 series airplanes A300-28-6018, Revision 1, dated September 15, 1988 None. 2 A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes A300-28-0070, Revision 01, dated March 18, 1999 None. A300-600 series airplanes A300-28-6048, dated September 19, 1996 Do a visual inspection for damage (chafing and burn marks) of the protective conduits behind specified access doors, and replace or repair any damaged wires, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6010, Revision 1, dated September 17, 1986. A310-200 and -300 Series Airplanes A310-28-2112, dated September 19, 1996 Do a visual inspection for damage (chafing and burn marks) of the protective conduits behind specified access doors, and replace or repair any damaged wires, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2008, Revision 2, dated May 14, 1990. 3 A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes A300-24-0085, Revision 06, dated October 13, 2005 Do repetitive inspections of the wire looms on the wing trailing edge for improperly held wires in the clamps, repair any damaged wires, restore the electrical bundles to good condition, and replace the affected nylon clamps with metallic clamps that have white silicone lining, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0073, Revision 04, dated June 30, 1998. A300-600 series airplanes A300-24-6043, Revision 06, dated October 13, 2005 Do repetitive inspections of the wire looms on the wing trailing edge for improperly held wires in the clamps, repair any damaged wires, restore the electrical bundles to good condition, and replace the affected nylon clamps with metallic clamps that have white silicone lining, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6004, Revision 03, dated June 30, 1998. 4 A300-600 series airplanes A300-28-6056, dated February 18, 1998 None. 5 A300-600 series airplanes A300-24-6004, Revision 03, dated June 30, 1998 None. A310-200 and -300 Series Airplanes A310-24-2009, Revision 03, dated June 30, 1998 None. 6 A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes A300-24-0100, dated April 7, 2005 None. A300-600 series airplanes A300-24-6084, Revision 01, dated June 28, 2005 None. A310-200 and -300 Series Airplanes A310-24-2091, dated March 4, 2005 None. Action 1 —Install a heat-shrinkable sleeve along the complete length of the electrical supply bundle of the fuel pumps. These electrical supply bundles are located in metallic protective conduits in zones 571 and 671. Action 2 —Install a heat-shrinkable sleeve along the complete length of the electrical supply bundle of the fuel pumps. These electrical supply bundles are located in metallic protective conduits in zones 575 and 675. Action 3 —Modify the retaining and protection system for the electrical bundles located at the wing-to-fuselage junctions, under the flap control screw jack. The modification involves installing a modified blanking plate and its related hardware, inspecting the bundles for damaged wires, repairing the wires if necessary, installing protective tape, and adding clamping to the bundles in order to improve their fastening capability. For some airplane models, Action 5 or Action 6 is necessary before or concurrently with this action. Action 4 —Modify the electrical wiring of routes 1P and 2P (along the top panel of the shroud box and the rear spars of the wings) by extending the protective conduits up to the next support, and replace the two existing clamps on this support with new improved clamps. Action 5 —Do repetitive inspections of the wire looms on the wing trailing edge for improperly held wires in the clamps, repair any damaged wires, restore the electrical bundles to good condition, and replace the affected nylon clamps with metallic clamps that have white silicone lining. Action 6 —Replace the nylon clamps of the electrical routes in the hydraulic compartment and in the shroud box with new metallic clamps that have white silicone lining (for Model A310-200 and -300 series airplanes); or replace the nylon clamps and change the location of routes 1P and 2P to improve the retention of the wiring loom (for all other affected models). Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-112 R1, dated September 14, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Clarification of Inspection Terminology In this proposed AD, the “inspection” specified in Airbus Service Bulletins A300-24-0073, A300-24-0085, A300-24-6004, A300-24-6043, and A310-24-2009; and the “visual inspection” specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2008; are referred to as a “general visual inspection.” We have included the definition for a general visual inspection in a note in the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 169 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs For airplanes on which this action is required— Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Action 1, Install heat-shrinkable wrap (zones 571 and 671) 10 Operator Supplied $800. Action 2, Install heat-shrinkable wrap (zones 575 and 675) 16 to 37 $1,533 to $1,790 $2,813 to $4,750. Action 3, Modify the retaining and protection system 4 to 16 $836 to $1,056 $1,156 to $2,336. Action 4, Modify the electrical wiring of routes 1P and 2P 2 $720 $880. Action 5, Inspect the wire looms on the wing trailing edge 8 Operator Supplied $640. Action 6, Replace the nylon clamps of the electrical routes in the hydraulic compartment and in the shroud box 44 to 98 $100 to $5,700 $3.620 to $13,540. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is up to $3,877,874, or up to $22,946 per airplane. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with the applicable prior or concurrent requirements in this proposed AD. Estimated Costs—Prior or Concurrent Requirements Action— Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Inspect the wire looms on the wing trailing edge for improperly held wires, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6004 8 None $640. Inspect for damage of the protective conduits behind specified access doors in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6010 or A310-28-2008, as applicable 4 to 7 None $320 to $560. Inspect the wire looms on the wing trailing edge for improperly held wires in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0073 8 None $640. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2006-24289; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-186-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 4, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD 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. 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. Action 1—Install Heat-Shrinkable Sleeve, Zones 571 and 671 (f) For all airplanes identified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD: Within 26 months after the effective date of this AD, install a heat-shrinkable sleeve along the complete length of the electrical supply bundles for the fuel pumps. These electrical supply bundles are located in metallic protective conduits in zones 571 and 671. (1) For Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes: Do the action specified in paragraph (f) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0057, Revision 02, dated January 8, 2001. (2) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, A300 B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; except those on which Airbus Modification 6803 has been done: Do the action specified in paragraph (f) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6018, Revision 1, dated September 15, 1988. Action 2—Install Heat-Shrinkable Sleeve, Zones 575 and 675 (g) For all airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Within 26 months after the effective date of this AD, install a heat-shrinkable sleeve along the complete length of the electrical supply bundles for the fuel pumps. These electrical supply bundles are located in metallic protective conduits in zones 575 and 675. For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this AD: Prior to or concurrently with this installation, do a general visual inspection for damage of the protective conduits behind specified access doors, and do any applicable corrective action before further flight; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6010, Revision 1, dated September 17, 1986; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2008, Revision 2, dated May 14, 1990; as applicable. (1) For Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0070, Revision 01, dated March 18, 1999. (2) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, A300 B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; except those on which Airbus Modification 10505 has been done: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6048, dated September 19, 1996. (3) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, except those on which Airbus Modification 10505 has been done: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-38-2112, dated September 19, 1996. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Action 3—Modify the Retaining and Protection System (h) For all airplanes identified in paragraphs (h)(1), and (h)(2) of this AD: Within 26 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the retaining and protection system for the electrical bundles located at the wing-to-fuselage junction, under the flap control screw jack. Prior to or concurrently with this action for airplanes identified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Do a general visual inspection for improperly held wires of the wire looms on the wing trailing edge, restore the electrical bundles to good condition, and replace the affected nylon clamps with metallic clamps that have white silicone lining; and do any applicable corrective action before further flight; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0073, Revision 04, dated June 30, 1998; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6004, Revision 03, dated June 30, 1998; as applicable. (1) For Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0085, Revision 06, dated October 13, 2005. (2) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, A300 B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, except those on which Airbus Modification 11276 has been done: Do the action specified in paragraph (h) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6043, Revision 06, dated October 13, 2005. Action 4—Modify the Electrical Wiring of Routes 1P and 2P (i) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, A300 B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; except those on which Airbus Modification 11741 has been done: Within 26 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the electrical wiring of routes 1P and 2P (along the top panel of the shroud box and the rear spars of the wings) by extending the protective conduits up to the next support, and replace the two existing clamps on this support with new improved clamps. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6056, dated February 18, 1998. Action 5—Inspect the Wire Looms (j) For all airplanes identified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the wire looms on the wing trailing edge for improperly held wires in the clamps, restore the electrical bundles to good condition, and replace the affected nylon clamps with metallic clamps that have an elastometer lining. Do any applicable corrective action before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months until all clamps have been replaced. (1) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; except those on which Airbus Modification 6478 has been done: Do the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6004, Revision 03, dated June 30, 1998. (2) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, except those on which Airbus Modification 478 has been done: Do the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2009, Revision 03, dated June 30, 1998. Action 6—Improve the Quality of the Electrical Routes (k) For all airplanes identified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD: Within 26 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the nylon clamps of the electrical routes in the hydraulic compartment and in the shroud box with new metallic clamps that have white silicone lining (for airplanes identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD); or replace the nylon clamps and change the location of routes 1P and 2P to improve the retention of the wiring loom (for airplanes identified in paragraphs (k)(2) and (k)(3) of this AD). (1) For Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; except those on which Airbus Modification 11763 has been done: Do the action specified in paragraph (k) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0100, dated April 7, 2005. (2) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; except those on which Airbus Modifications 11763 and 12995 have been done: Do the action specified in paragraph (k) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6084, Revision 01, dated June 28, 2005. (3) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, except those on which Airbus Modification 11763 has been done: Do the action specified in paragraph (k) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2091, dated March 4, 2005. Parts Installation (l) After the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane plate assemblies with part numbers A5351088000000 or A5351088000100 unless they have been modified in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD. Actions Accomplished According to Previous Revisions of Service Bulletins (m) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirement in this AD. Table 1.—Previous Revisions of Service Bulletins Airbus service bulletin Revision level Date A300-28-0070 Original September 19, 1996. A300-24-0073 3 February 24, 1995. A300-24-0085 Original December 12, 1994. A300-24-0085 03 January 17, 1996. A300-24-0085 04 July 23, 1996. A300-24-0085 05 March 6, 2001. A300-28-057 1 September 15, 1988. A300-24-073 Original June 9, 1986. A300-24-073 1 January 28, 1988. A300-24-073 2 September 10, 1990. A300-24-6004 1 January 28, 1988. A300-24-6004 2 February 24, 1995. A300-28-6018 Original June 21, 1988. A300-24-6043 Original December 12, 1994. A300-24-6043 01 February 7, 1995. A300-24-6043 02 May 10, 1995. A300-24-6043 03 January 17, 1996. A300-24-6043 04 March 6, 2001. A300-24-6043 05 August 30, 2001. A300-24-6084 Original March 4, 2005. A310-24-2009 Original May 31, 1985. A310-24-2009 1 January 28, 1988. A310-24-2009 2 February 24, 1995. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (n)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (o) French airworthiness directive F-2005-112 R1, dated September 14, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 24, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4825 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-20689; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-197-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required, for certain airplanes, reworking the spar bonding path and reapplying sealant; and, for certain other airplanes, testing the electrical bond between the engine fuel feed hose and the wing front spar and, if applicable, reworking the spar bonding path and reapplying sealant. The original NPRM also would have required, for all airplanes, an inspection to ensure the electrical bonding jumper is installed between the engine fuel feed tube and the adjacent wing station. The original NPRM resulted from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This action revises the original NPRM by requiring operators that may have installed an incorrect O-ring to install the correct part and do a re-test. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent arcing or sparking at the interface between the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube and the front spar during a lightning strike, which could provide a possible ignition source for the fuel vapor inside the fuel tank and result in a fuel tank explosion. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by May 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • 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 service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Thorson, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6508; fax (425) 917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2005-20689; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-197-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, 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 supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level in the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD (the “original NPRM”) for certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14594). The original NPRM proposed to require, for certain airplanes, reworking the spar bonding path and reapplying sealant; and, for certain other airplanes, testing the electrical bond between the engine fuel feed hose and the wing front spar and, if applicable, reworking the spar bonding path and reapplying sealant. The original NPRM also proposed to require, for all airplanes, an inspection to ensure the electrical bonding jumper is installed between the engine fuel feed hose and the adjacent wing station. Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, the manufacturer informed us that a part number (P/N) for an O-ring installation was identified incorrectly in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0076 and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, both dated August 27, 2004. These service bulletins were referenced as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions in the original NPRM. This supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) will propose to require compliance with Revision 1 of the service bulletins, which cite the O-ring's P/N correctly. For Group 1 airplanes on which the installation was done in accordance with the original issue of the service bulletins, and for Group 2 airplanes that failed the bonding resistance test done in accordance with the original NPRM, this SNPRM will propose to require installing an O-ring with the correct P/N and doing a re-test. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005. The service bulletins describe procedures that are essentially the same as those described in the original NPRM, except the service bulletins, Revision 1, identify the correct part number for the O-ring. However, the service bulletins describe additional work for airplanes that incorporated the initial releases of the service bulletins. The additional work includes disassembling the coupling for the engine fuel feed tube at the front spar (left and right wings), and replacing the O-ring that has the incorrect P/N with a new O-ring with the correct P/N. The additional work also includes doing a leak test of the re-assembled coupling. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Comments We have considered the following comments about the original NPRM. Request To Extend Compliance Time The Air Transport Association (ATA), Continental Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Airlines, U.S. Airways, and American Airlines request that we extend the proposed compliance time for doing the bonding resistance test and for inspecting the electrical bonding jumper. The commenters request that we extend the compliance time from 48 months to either 60 months or 72 months. The commenters request the extension to all of the AD actions to be scheduled to coincide with heavy maintenance intervals when other activities that require entering the fuel tank are also scheduled. The commenters state that extending the compliance time would minimize the number of fuel tank entries and also minimize the manpower requirements for draining the tank and doing entry procedures. Several commenters note that AD 2004-10-06, amendment 39-13636 (69 FR 28046, May 18, 2004), which is a similar AD for hydraulic tube bonding in the fuel tank for lightning protection, has a compliance time of 60 months, which provides an adequate level of safety. One commenter notes that there have been no large-jet transport accidents related to lightning strikes or bonding-related hazards since 1977, when the FAA strengthened certification standards for bonding. The same commenter notes that there have been no lightning-induced fuel tank events on Boeing Model 757 airplanes. We partially agree with the commenters. We agree with extending the compliance time to 60 months because we have assessed these specific actions on other Boeing airplane models and we have evaluated similar ADs such as AD 2004-10-06, and AD 2005-04-01, amendment 39-13973 (70 FR 7841, February 16, 2005). In addition, we find that extending the compliance time will not adversely affect safety. The manufacturer supports extending the compliance time to 60 months, and Revision 1 of Boeing Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077 include this revised time. We do not agree with extending the compliance time to 72 months. The commenters that request this extension do not provide a technical justification; however, operators may request an alternate method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures in paragraph letter (l) of this proposed AD. Request To State that Bonding Jumper Is Attached to a Fuel Tube The Boeing Company requests that we revise three sections of the proposed AD in order to correctly identify that the bonding jumper is attached to a fuel tube mating with a fuel hose end fitting, and not with the fuel hose. Boeing states that this change will clarify that the electrical bonding jumper is installed between the engine fuel feed tube and the adjacent wing section. We agree. The suggested wording will clarify the proposed AD. We have changed the “Summary” section and paragraph (i) of the proposed AD as requested. However, we have not changed the “Relevant Service Information” section because that section of the SNPRM does not contain the same information as the same section of the original NPRM. Request To Correct Discrepancies in Service Bulletins Continental Airlines states that the Work Instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077, both dated August 27, 2004, have discrepancies that prevent accomplishing certain proposed actions. Specifically, the following items are not included in the alert service bulletins: Removal and installation instructions for the forward flap track fairing; a statement that a special tool is required for removing and reinstalling the forward fitting of the fuel feedline; and a note to clarify that leak tests of the fuel system are required following rework. Continental states that alternative rework instructions would have to be approved as AMOCs for each airplane to comply successfully with the requirements of the proposed AD. We partially agree. We agree that a note that leak tests of the fuel system are necessary following rework would clarify the service bulletin; Boeing has added this note to Revision 1 of Boeing Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077. Also, Boeing verified that a special tool is not necessary because a standard “crow's foot” tool is readily available that is sufficient to complete the task. In addition, the instructions for removing and reinstalling the forward fitting are already included in the service bulletins by reference to the applicable airplane maintenance manuals (AMM). Boeing can answer additional questions if the commenter requires further information. We disagree that it is necessary for us to mandate the changes proposed by Continental because these changes have to do with the content of the service bulletins rather than the content of this proposed AD, and they do not affect the AD action. No changes to the proposed AD are necessary. Request To Revise Cost Estimate The ATA, American Airlines, and Delta Airlines request that we revise the hours estimated to complete the proposed actions. The commenters state that the estimates do not accurately reflect the operations required for defueling, access, and other prerequisites for the proposed actions. We disagree. The cost estimate discussed in AD rulemaking actions represents 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. However, Boeing updated the work-hour estimates for the bonding test and sealant application, and for the bonding test, hose fitting and spar bonding rework, and sealant application. These changes are reflected in the Cost Estimate table below. In addition, after the original NPRM was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The costs of compliance, below, reflect this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. Request To Remove Rework Requirement for Certain Conditions Delta Airlines states that, for certain airplanes, Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077 require removing, cleaning, and re-installing the fuel feedline fitting to ensure an adequate bond is present for lightning protection. Delta requests that we revise the proposed AD to require reworking the fitting only if a preliminary resistance measurement fails. Delta states that the proposed AD does not take into account installations that may have been completed per the revised AMM procedures, which are consistent with the service information. We disagree. The resistance measurement by itself does not ensure that an adequate bond is present for lightning protection. The only way to ensure the presence of an adequate bond capable of carrying the heavy electrical currents that are caused by an attached lightning strike is by a rigorous cleaning and assembly process, with an electrical bonding check as a final measure to ensure proper assembly. However, interested parties may submit an AMOC in accordance with the procedures in paragraph letter (l) of this proposed AD, if they can substantiate the following: That an airplane has a fuel feedline fitting that is installed in accordance with a procedure equivalent to the service bulletins referenced in the proposed AD; and that the current resistance measurement is within the value required by the service bulletins. No changes to the proposed AD are necessary. Request To Revise “Discussion” Section The Boeing Company requests that we revise the “Discussion” section to be similar to that provided in NPRM Docket No. FAA-2004-19680 (69 FR 68272, November 24, 2004). Boeing states that the issue addressed in this proposed AD is similar to that in NPRM Docket No. FAA-2004-19680 in that it was identified before the SFAR 88 safety assessment. Boeing states that the “Discussion” section does not reflect this fact. We disagree. Although the issue was identified before the Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83) safety assessment, the non-compliance was identified and included in the Boeing 757 SFAR 88 Safety Analysis documents. This non-compliance was tracked administratively and identified as an unsafe condition requiring AD action through the SFAR 88 process. Therefore, it is considered an SFAR 88-related AD. No changes to the proposed AD are necessary. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the SNPRM 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 SNPRM. Difference Between the SNPRM and the Service Bulletins Although the referenced service bulletins would allow an operator's equivalent procedures to be used for aircraft maintenance manuals (AMM) referenced in the service bulletins, this proposed AD would require you to use the referenced AMMs except as provided in paragraph (k) of this SNPRM. Clarification of AMOC Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,040 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 700 airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is estimated to be $80 per work hour. Parts would be supplied from operator stock. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action/airplanes affected Work hours Cost per airplane Hose fitting and spar bonding rework and sealant application (Group 1 airplanes) 11 $880 Bonding test and sealant application (Group 2 airplanes that pass bonding test) 12 960 Bonding test, hose fitting and spar bonding rework and sealant application (Group 2 airplanes that fail bonding test) 18 1,440 Replace O-ring for airplanes that incorporated original release of the service bulletins 3 240 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, 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-2005-20689; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-197-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 1, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB, series airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005; and Model 757-300 series airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD resulted from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing or sparking at the interface between the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube and the front spar during a lightning strike, which could provide a possible ignition source for the fuel vapor inside the fuel tank and result in a fuel tank explosion. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Bulletin References (f) The term “service bulletin(s),” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as applicable. (1) For Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes: Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005. (2) For Model 757-300 series airplanes: Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005. Hose Fitting and Spar Bonding Rework and Sealant Application (g) For Group 1 airplanes as identified in the service bulletins: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, rework the spar bonding path between the end fitting of the fuel feed hose and the front spar, and apply sealant to the hose fitting on the forward and aft side of the front spar and to the fitting and tube coupling on both sides of the dry bay wall, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Bonding Resistance Test (h) For Group 2 airplanes as identified in the service bulletins: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do a bonding resistance test between the fuel feed hose and the front spars of the left and right wings, in accordance with the service bulletins. (1) If the test meets required resistance limits, before further flight, apply sealant to the end fitting of the fuel feed hose on the aft side of the front spar and to the fitting and tube coupling on both sides of the dry bay wall, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. (2) If the test does not meet required resistance limits, before further flight, remove any existing sealant at the front spar; rework the spar bonding path between the end fitting of the fuel feed hose and the front spar to meet bonding resistance test requirements; and apply sealant to the end fitting of the fuel feed hose on the forward and aft sides of the front spar, and to the fitting and tube coupling on both sides of the dry bay wall, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Inspection of Electrical Bonding Jumper (i) For all airplanes as identified in the service bulletins: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a general visual inspection and applicable corrective actions to ensure that an electrical bonding jumper is installed between the engine fuel feed tube and the adjacent wing station 285.65 rib in the left and right wing fuel tanks, in accordance with the service bulletins. Replacement of O-Ring and Test (j) For airplanes on which the actions in paragraphs (g) or (h)(2) of this AD were done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, dated August 27, 2004; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, dated August 27, 2004; as applicable: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the O-ring, part number (P/N) MS29513-330 with a new O-ring, P/N MS29513-328, and do a leak test before further flight after reassembly. Do all actions in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. Exception to Accomplishment Instructions in Service Bulletins (k) Although Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1, and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, Revision 1, both dated October 20, 2005, permit operator's equivalent procedures (OEP), this AD would require you to use the referenced Airplane Maintenance Manuals, except that operators may use their own FAA-approved OEPs to drain the left and right engine fuel tubes, to drain and ventilate the fuel tanks, and to enter the fuel tanks. Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Original Issues of Service Bulletins (l) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, both dated August 24, 2004, are acceptable for compliance only with the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 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 24, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4827 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24290; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-243-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the fluorescent light tube assemblies of the cabin, lavatory, and sidewall, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide for optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD results from reports of overheating due to arcing between the fluorescent tube pins and the lamp holder contacts. The tubes had not been properly seated during installation. We are proposing this AD to prevent fumes, traces of visible smoke, and fire at the fluorescent light tube assembly. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 4, 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 Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Wagner, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7306; fax (516) 794-5531. 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-2006-24290; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-243-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, advised us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. TCCA advises that numerous service difficulty reports have indicated damage to fluorescent lamp holders in the cabin, lavatory, and sidewall due to overheating. The overheating can result from arcing between the fluorescent tube pins and the lamp holder contacts if the tube is not properly seated during installation. This condition, if not corrected, could result in fumes, traces of visible smoke, and fire at the fluorescent light tube assembly. Relevant Service Information The manufacturer has revised certain procedures for inspecting certain fluorescent tube assemblies. These procedures for detailed visual inspections are described in the temporary revisions (TRs) to the de Havilland DASH-8 Maintenance Program Manual, as identified in the following table. de Havilland Maintenance Program Manual TRs Area DHC-8 series Task No. TR Date PSM No. Cabin 100 3320/01 MRB-146 August 31, 2004 1-8-7 200 3320/01 MRB 2-24 August 31, 2004 1-82-7 300 3320/01 MRB 3-155 August 31, 2004 1-83-7 Lavatory 100 3320/03 MRB-147 May 3, 2005 1-8-7 200 3320/03 MRB 2-25 May 3, 2005 1-82-7 300 3320/03 MRB 3-156 May 3, 2005 1-83-7 Sidewall 100 3320/02 MRB-147 May 3, 2005 1-8-7 200 3320/02 MRB 2-25 May 3, 2005 1-82-7 300 3320/02 MRB 3-156 May 3, 2005 1-83-7 Bombardier has issued Service Bulletins 8-33-52, dated April, 15, 2005, and 8-33-51, Revision ‘A,’ dated April 20, 2005. The service bulletins describe procedures for replacing certain ballasts with new “Arc Protection” ballasts. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. TCCA mandated the inspections specified in the TRs, and prohibited future replacement of an existing ballast except in accordance with the service bulletins. TCCA issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2004-26R1, dated September 28, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require repetitive inspections to detect signs of arcing in the fluorescent light tube assemblies of the cabin, lavatory, and sidewall, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide for optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Differences Between Service Information/Canadian Airworthiness Directive The following differences apply to this proposed AD: 1. The Canadian airworthiness directive does not specify intervals for repeating the inspections. Instead, it requires incorporating the TRs previously identified into the applicable Maintenance Review Board (MRB) document, which contains the repetitive intervals for the inspections. TCCA requires operators in Canada to use the information—including the repetitive intervals—in the latest revision of the MRB. However, since the MRB is not mandatory in the U.S., this proposed AD would require that operators repeat the inspections. 2. The Canadian airworthiness directive requires the initial inspection at the earlier of the next C-check or within 36 months. But maintenance schedules vary among operators, so a compliance time specified as the next C-check would not ensure that the airplane would be inspected in a timely manner. We have been advised that the average C-check interval is 5,000 flight hours; therefore, this proposed AD would require the initial inspection within the earlier of 36 months or 5,000 flight hours. 3. This proposed AD would allow the repetitive inspections to be terminated if all ballasts installed on the airplane are “Arc Protection” ballasts. Although this provision is not specifically stated in the Canadian airworthiness directive, TCCA's intent was to consider total ballast replacement as terminating action for the repetitive inspections. 4. The service bulletins do not provide for corrective action for signs of arcing. This proposed AD would require repairing those conditions before further flight using a method approved by the FAA or TCCA (or its delegated agent). In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that a repair approved by the FAA or TCCA would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD. Chapter 33-20-00, Section D, of the Airplane Maintenance Manual is one approved method. 5. The TRs specify “detailed visual inspections” of the fluorescent light tube assemblies of the cabin, lavatory, and sidewall. We have determined that the procedures in the TRs should be described as a “detailed inspections.” Note 1 in this proposed AD defines this type of inspection. These differences have been coordinated with TCCA. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. This proposed AD would affect about 121 U.S.-registered airplanes. Estimated Costs, per Inspection Cycle Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Inspection, per inspection cycle 6 maximum $80 None Up to $480. Ballast replacement (optional) 2, per ballast 1 80 $486, per ballast Up to $41,990. 1 Number of Ballasts per Airplane Area Airplane model Number of ballasts Lavatory DHC-8-100 and -200 1 DHC-8-300 1 Sidewall DHC-8-100 and -200 19 DHC-8-300 30 Cabin DHC-8-100 and -200 21 DHC-8-300 33 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): Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2006-24290; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-243-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 4, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 407 inclusive, 409 through 412 inclusive, and 414 through 433 inclusive; excluding those with Hunting interiors. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from reports of overheating due to arcing between the fluorescent tube pins and the lamp holder contacts. The tubes had not been properly seated during installation. We are issuing this AD to prevent fumes, traces of visible smoke, and fire at the fluorescent light tube assembly. 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 (f) Within 5,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform detailed inspections to detect signs of arcing of the fluorescent tube assemblies of the cabin, sidewalls, and lavatory, in accordance with the applicable temporary revision (TR) of the maintenance program manual (MPM) identified in Table 1 of this AD. If any sign of arcing is found, repair before further flight using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent). Chapter 33-20-00, Section D, of the Airplane Maintenance Manual is one approved method. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight hours, until all Ballast part numbers BA08006-1 or BA08006-28-1 have been replaced in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD. Table 1.—TRs Inspect the fluorescent tube assemblies of the— In accordance with Task No.— of de Havilland TR— To the de Havilland DASH 8 series— For model— Cabin 3320/01 MRB 2-24, dated August 31, 2004 200 MPM PSM 1-82-7 DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes. 3320/01 MRB 3-155, dated August 31, 2004 300 MPM PSM 1-83-7 DHC-8-301, -311, -314, and -315 airplanes. 3320/01 MRB-146, dated August 31, 2004 100 MPM PSM 1-8-7 DHC-8-102, -103, -106 airplanes. Lavatory 3320/03 MRB -147, dated May 3, 2005 100 MPM PSM 1-8-7 DHC-8-102, -103, -106 airplanes. 3320/03 MRB 2-25, dated May 3, 2005 200 MPM PSM 1-82-7 DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes. 3320/03 MRB 3-156, dated May 3, 2005 300 MPM PSM 1-83-7 DHC-8-301, -311, -314, and -315 airplanes. Sidewall 3320/02 MRB 2-25, dated May 3, 2005 200 MPM PSM 1-82-7 DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes. 3320/02 MRB 3-156, dated May 3, 2003 300 MPM PSM 1-83-7 DHC-8-301, -311, -314, and -315 airplanes. 3320/02 MRB -147, dated May 3, 2003 100 MPM PSM 1-8-7 DHC-8-102, -103, -106 airplanes. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Terminating Action (g) The repetitive inspections required by this AD may be terminated if all ballasts installed on the airplane have part number (P/N) BR9000-21, installed in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-51, Revision ‘A,' dated April 20, 2005 (to replace ballast P/N BA08006-1), or 8-33-52, dated April 15, 2005 (to replace ballast P/N BA08006-28-1). Ballasts installed before the effective date of this AD are also acceptable if done in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-51, dated August 16, 2002. Parts Installation (h) As of the effective date of this AD: No person may install a ballast P/N BA08006-1 or BA08006-28-1 on any airplane. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (j) Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2004-26R1, dated September 28, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 24, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4841 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 18 [FRL-8053-4] RIN 2030-AA91 Environmental Protection Research Fellowships and Special Research Consultants for Environmental Protection AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action on the implementation of the EPA's statutory authority in Title II of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-54) that will allow the EPA to establish fellowships in environmental protection research, appoint fellows to conduct this research, and appoint special research consultants to advise on environmental protection research. Under an administrative provision of Public Law 109-54, the Administrator may, after consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, make up to five (5) appointments in any fiscal year from 2006 to 2011 for the Office of Research and Development. Appointees under this authority shall be employees of the EPA and will engage in activities related to scientific and engineering research that support EPA's mission to protect the environment and human health. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of the Federal Register , we are approving implementation of the EPA's statutory authority (to establish fellowships in environmental protection research and appoint fellows to conduct this research and appoint special research consultants to advise on environmental protection research) in Title II of the Interior, Environmental and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-54) with 42 U.S.C. 209 as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this approval in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, no further action on this proposed rule will be taken. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by May 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OARM-2006-0249, by one of the following methods: • Federal Docket Management System (FDMS): http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: John O'Brien, Office of Human Resources/Office of Administration and Resources Management, Mail Code: 3631M, Room 1136-EPA-East, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail address: obrien.johnt@epa.gov. • Hand Delivery: Office of Environmental Information Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2006-0249. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through FDMS or e-mail. FDMS is an “anonymous access” system. This means that the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the EPA without going through FDMS, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. The EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your electronic comment with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov . Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e. , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in FDMS or in hard copy at the Office of Environmental Information Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is (202) 566-1752. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please contact John O'Brien at (202) 564-7876, Office of Human Resources/Office of Administration and Resources Management, Mail Code 3631M, Room 1136 EPA-East, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail address: obrien.johnt@epa.gov . You may also contact William Ocampo at (202) 564-0987 or Robert Stevens at (202) 564-5703, Office of Research and Development, Mail Code 8102R, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail addresses: ocampo.william@epa.gov and stevens.robert@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns the EPA's authority under 42 U.S.C. 209 to (1) establish fellowships in environmental protection research and appoint fellows to conduct this research and (2) appoint environmental protection special consultants to advise on environmental protection research. The provisions proposed here are identical to those contained in the Direct Final Rule located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. Please refer to the preamble and regulatory text of the direct final action for further information and the actual text of the revisions. Additionally, all information regarding Statutory and Executive Orders for this proposed rule can be found in the Statutory and Executive Order Review section of the direct final action. Dated: March 27, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. 06-3205 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am]