Proposed Rules. Proposed rule; withdrawal

20,960 words·~95 min read·/register/2006/04/13/06-3489

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

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 93 [Docket No. 05-041-2] Importation of Cattle From Mexico AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: We are withdrawing a proposed rule that would have added San Luis, AZ, as a port through which cattle that have been infested with fever ticks or exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne diseases may be imported into the United States.

The proposed rule would also have removed provisions that limit the admission of cattle that have been infested with fever ticks or exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne diseases to the State of Texas and that prohibit the movement of such cattle into areas of Texas quarantined because of fever ticks. We are taking this action after considering the comments we received following the publication of the proposed rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Arnaldo Vaquer, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Center for Import and Export, Technical Trade Services Team, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;

(301)734-8364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals, birds, and poultry into the United States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. In section 93.426, paragraph

(a)states that all ruminants offered for entry into the United States from Mexico must be inspected at the port of entry and found to be free from communicable diseases and fever tick infestation and to not have been exposed to communicable diseases and fever tick infestation. Under section 93.427(b)(2), cattle that have been exposed to splenetic, southern, or tick fever, or that have been infested with or exposed to fever ticks, may be imported from Mexico for admission into the State of Texas, except that portion of the State quarantined because of fever ticks, either at one of the land border ports in Texas listed in section 93.403(c) of the regulations, or at the port of Santa Teresa, NM, provided that certain conditions are met. On November 9, 2005, we published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 67933-67935, Docket No. 05-041-1) a proposed rule to amend the regulations in 9 CFR part 93 to:

(1)Add San Luis, AZ, as a port through which cattle that have been infested with fever ticks or exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne diseases may be imported into the United States;

(2)remove provisions that limit the admission of cattle that have been infested with fever ticks or exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne diseases to the State of Texas; and

(3)remove provisions that prohibit the movement of such cattle into areas of Texas quarantined because of fever ticks. We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending on January 9, 2005. We received a total of 11 comments by that date. They were from representatives of the cattle industry, State agriculture and animal health departments, and private citizens. Three of the commenters supported the proposed rule. The remaining commenters were opposed to the proposed rule, citing concerns about importing Mexican cattle, maintaining and staffing the new port, or increasing the risk of spreading bovine piroplasmosis (another name for splenetic, southern, or tick fever) to domestic cattle within Texas or California. APHIS is further analyzing the animal health risks associated with the changes we proposed and is therefore withdrawing the November 9, 2005, proposed rule referenced above. The concerns and recommendations of all the commenters will be considered if any new proposed regulations regarding changes to the fever tick regulations are developed. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of April 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-5509 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 110 RIN 3150-AH89 Proposed Rule; Revision of NRC Form 7, Application for NRC Export/Import License, Amendment, or Renewal AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is proposing to amend its regulations that govern export and import of nuclear material and equipment concerning the use of NRC Form 7, “Application for NRC Export/Import License, Amendment, or Renewal.” Recently, the Commission revised NRC Form 7 to consolidate all license requests ( *i.e.* , applications for export, import, combined export/import, amendments and renewals) in one application form. Previously, NRC Form 7 was used only for applications for export of nuclear material and equipment. Import license applications, production or utilization facility export applications, and license amendment and renewal applications were filed by letter. As a result of the revision, these requests, previously made by letter, now would be made using NRC Form 7. The purpose of this proposed change is to amend the regulations that govern export and import of nuclear material and equipment to reflect that all license requests are to be made using NRC Form 7, as revised. DATES: The comment period for this proposed rule ends on May 15, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to ensure that comments received on or before this date will be considered. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number RIN 3150-AH89 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemaking submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: *SECY@nrc.gov* . If you do not receive a reply confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at

(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher

(301)415-5905; e-mail *CAG@nrc.gov* . Comments also can be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at

(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Public File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.gov/NRC/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *PDR@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brooke G. Smith, International Policy Analyst, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone

(301)415-2347, e-mail *bgs@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule of the same title published in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . Because the NRC believes that this action is not controversial, the NRC is using the direct final rule process for this rule. The direct final rule will become effective on June 27, 2006. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by May 15, 2006, the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action. In that event, the comments received in response to these amendments would then be considered as comments on the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in this **Federal Register** , and the comments will be addressed in a later final rule based on that proposed rule. Unless the modifications to the proposed rule are significant enough to require that it be republished as a proposed rule, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1)The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a)The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b)The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c)The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2)The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3)The comment causes the staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 110 Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Export, Import, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 110. PART 110—EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL 1. The authority citation for part 110 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 54, 57, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 109, 111, 126, 127, 128, 129, 134, 161, 170H., 181, 182, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2074, 2077, 2092-2095, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2139a, 2141, 2154-2158, 2160d., 2201, 2210h., 2231-2233, 2237, 2239); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 5, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Sections 110.1(b)(2) and 110.1(b)(3) also issued under Pub. L. 96-92, 93 Stat. 710 (22 U.S.C. 2403). Section 110.11 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152) and secs. 54c and 57d, 88 Stat. 473, 475 (42 U.S.C. 2074). Section 110.27 also issued under sec. 309(a), Pub. L. 99-440. Section 110.50(b)(3) also issued under sec. 123, 92 Stat. 142 (42 U.S.C. 2153). Section 110.51 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 110.52 also issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236). Sections 110.80-110.113 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552, 554. Sections 110.30-110.135 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Sections 110.2 and 110.42(a)(9) also issued under sec. 903, Pub. L. 102-496 (42 U.S.C. 2151 *et seq.* ). 2. In § 110.7, paragraphs

(b)and (c)(1) are revised to read as follows: § 110.7 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.

(b)The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in §§ 110.7a, 110.23, 110.26, 110.27, 110.32, 110.50, 110.52, and 110.53.

(c)* * *

(1)In §§ 110.19, 110.20, 110.21, 110.22, 110.23, 110.31,110.32, and 110.51, NRC Form 7 is approved under control number 3150-0027. 3. In § 110.31, paragraph

(c)is revised to read as follows: § 110.31 Application for a specific license.

(c)Applications for an export, import, combined export/import, amendment or renewal licenses under 10 CFR part 110 shall be filed on NRC Form 7. 4. In § 110.51, paragraph

(a)is revised to read as follows: § 110.51 Amendment and renewal of licenses.

(a)A licensee shall submit an application to renew a license or to amend a license on a completed NRC Form 7. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of March, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E6-5497 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24431; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-011-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 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 Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection for cracks and marks on the carbon blades of the ram air turbine (RAT), and replacement of the RAT with a new or serviceable RAT if necessary. This proposed AD results from a report of three chord-wise cracks on the aft side of one carbon blade of a certain RAT. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks and/or marks on the RAT carbon blades, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the carbon blade, and consequent loss of the RAT as a source of hydraulic and electrical power in an emergency. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-2141; 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-2006-24431; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-011-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The DGAC advises that, during routine maintenance inspections, three chord-wise cracks were found on the aft side of one carbon blade of the Sundstrand ram air turbine (RAT), part number (P/N) 762308. Investigations revealed that the carbon fibers of the carbon blades were installed in the incorrect position during manufacturing, which reduced the structural integrity of the blades and caused the cracks. Cracks and/or marks on the carbon blades of the RAT, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the carbon blade, and consequent loss of the RAT as a source of hydraulic and electrical power during an emergency. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-29-1124, dated November 23, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for a detailed inspection for cracks and marks on the carbon blades of the RAT, and replacement of the RAT with a new or serviceable RAT if necessary. 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-2005-212 on December 21, 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 inspection and replacement if necessary specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 34 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $2,720, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24431; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-011-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 15, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category; except those airplanes on which no modification/replacement of the RAT has been done since incorporating Airbus modification 27014 (installation of a Sundstrand ram air turbine (RAT), part number (P/N) 766352) or 28413 (reinstallation of the Dowty RAT) in production. Table 1.—Applicability Airbus model Equipped with

(1)A320 airplanes A Sundstrand RAT, P/N 762308, installed by incorporating Airbus modification 27189 in production.

(2)A319 and A321 airplanes A Sundstrand RAT, P/N 762308, installed by incorporating Airbus modification 25364 in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-29-1075 in service. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of three chord-wise cracks on the aft side of one carbon blade of a certain RAT. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks and/or marks on the RAT carbon blades, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the carbon blade, and consequent loss of the RAT as a source of hydraulic and electrical power in an emergency. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection and Replacement

(f)Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracks and marks on the carbon blades of the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-29-1124, dated November 23, 2005. If any crack or mark is found to be outside the limits specified in the service bulletin, before further flight, replace the RAT with a new or serviceable RAT in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. 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.” Parts Installation

(g)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a Sundstrand RAT, P/N 762308, on any airplane, unless it has been inspected in accordance with paragraph

(f)of this AD and found to be within the limits specified in the referenced service bulletin. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(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.

(i)French airworthiness directive F-2005-212, issued December 21, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 4, 2006. Kevin M. Mullin, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-5476 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24439; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-039-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-145XR 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 EMBRAER Model EMB-145XR airplanes. This proposed AD would require modification of the flap system interface wiring. This proposed AD results from a finding that the aural and visual warnings, which should be activated when the flaps are set to 22 degrees during takeoff, were not enabled during the manufacture of certain Model EMB-145XR airplanes. We are proposing this AD to prevent overrunning the runway during takeoff. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-2125; 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-2006-24439; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-039-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 Departamento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain EMBRAER Model EMB-145XR airplanes. The Model EMB-145XR airplane is not certified to takeoff with the flaps set to 22 degrees; under this condition, aural and visual warnings should be activated to warn the flightcrew. However, the DAC advises that these aural and visual warnings were not enabled during the manufacture of certain airplanes. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an overrun of the runway during takeoff. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145-27-0113, dated December 6, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the flap system interface wiring. The modification includes the following steps: • Installing and connecting diodes CR0231 and CR0232 to splices SP4159, SP4160, and SP4161. • Disconnecting electrical wires W101-4176-24, W101-4178-24, and W101-4786-24 from electrical connectors J0739 and J0741, and rerouting and connecting them to splices SP4160, SP4159, and SP4161, respectively. • Routing electrical wires W101-5783-24, W101-5787-24, and W101-5789-24 and connecting them to electrical connectors J0739 and J0741. The DAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-02-01, dated February 24, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in Brazil and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 97 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 5 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $60 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $44,620, or $460 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2006-24439; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-039-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 15, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-145XR airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0113, dated December 6, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a finding that the aural and visual warnings, which should be activated when the flaps are set to 22 degrees during takeoff, were not enabled during the manufacture of certain Model EMB-145XR airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent overrunning the runway during takeoff. 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. Modification

(f)Within 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the flap system interface wiring, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0113, dated December 6, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(h)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-02-01, dated February 24, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 5, 2006. Kevin M. Mullin, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-5474 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24430; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-048-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, and DC-9-34F Airplanes; and Model DC-9-40 and DC-9-50 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 transport category airplanes, identified above. This proposed AD would require installing a bonding jumper from the boost pump volute to the fuel tank structure, and related investigative/corrective actions. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent point-contact arcing or filament heating in the fuel tank, which, in the event of a short or ground fault inside the fuel tank, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5262; fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24430; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-048-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( *i.e.* , type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. We have received a report indicating that, on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 airplanes with a 580-gallon forward auxiliary fuel tank, the volute of the fuel boost pump is bonded to the inlet basket assembly but not to the tank structure. At the pump run-out fuel level, the pump, which receives 155VAC power, is uncovered and there is fuel vapor in the area. Installing a new bonding jumper will minimize the possibilities of point-contact arcing or filament heating in the fuel tank which, in the event of a short or ground fault condition, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-214, dated December 16, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing a bonding jumper from the boost pump volute to the fuel tank structure. The installation includes the related investigative and corrective actions of testing the bonding between the jumper and the pump mounting lug, between the clip and the lower stanchion support stud, and between the jumper and the clip, to verify that the resistance is less than 2.5 milliohms; and reworking, if necessary, until the resistance is less than 2.5 milliohms. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin Although the service bulletin recommends doing the installation at the next scheduled fuel tank entry, but not to exceed 10 years, we have determined that interval would not address the identified unsafe condition soon enough to ensure an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to do the installation. In light of all of these factors, we find that a compliance time of 60 months represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing. Costs of Compliance There are about 250 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 152 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 9 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $2,385 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $471,960, or $3,105 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24430; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-048-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 30, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, DC-9-41, and DC-9-51 airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-214, dated December 16, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent point-contact arcing or filament heating in the fuel tank, which, in the event of a short or ground fault inside the fuel tank, could result in a fuel tank explosion 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. Installation

(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install a bonding jumper from the boost pump volute to the fuel tank structure, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight; by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28-214, dated December 16, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 4, 2006. Kevin M. Mullin, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 9 [FR Doc. E6-5472 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24440; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-058-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-145XR 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 EMBRAER Model EMB-145XR airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacement of certain segments of the passenger seat tracks with new, improved seat tracks. This proposed AD results from instances where the shear plungers of the passenger seat legs were not adequately fastened. We are proposing this AD to prevent inadequate fastening of the seat leg shear plungers, which could result in failure of the passenger seat tracks during emergency landing conditions and consequent injury to passengers. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-2125. 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-2006-24440; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-058-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 Departamento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain EMBRAER Model EMB-145XR airplanes. The DAC advises that the shear plungers of the passenger seat legs are not adequately fastened as required. The incorrect longitudinal machined section of certain seat track segments caused the inadequate fastening of the shear plungers. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the passenger seat tracks during emergency landing conditions and consequent injury to passengers. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145-53-0059, dated July 1, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the internal and external passenger seat tracks with new, improved seat tracks at the following fuselage locations: between x=7,563.4 and x=10,738.4, between x=11,500.4 and x=13,100.7, between x=13862.6 and x=15,604.7, and between x=16,402.6 and x=19,577.6. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-01-01, dated February 2, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in Brazil and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Brazilian Airworthiness Directive.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and Brazilian Airworthiness Directive Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-01-01, dated February 2, 2006, is applicable to “all Embraer ERJ-145XR ( ) aircraft models in operation.” However, this does not agree with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0059, dated July 1, 2005, which states that only certain EMB-145XR airplanes are affected and identifies them by serial number. This proposed AD would be applicable only to the airplanes listed in the service bulletin. This difference has been coordinated with the DAC. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 97 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 10 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $82 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $85,554, or $882 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2006-24440; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-058-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 15, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-145XR airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0059, dated July 1, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from instances where the shear plungers of the passenger seat legs were not adequately fastened. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadequate fastening of the seat leg shear plungers, which could result in failure of the passenger seat tracks during emergency landing conditions and consequent injury to passengers. 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. Replacement of Passenger Seat Tracks

(f)Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace segments of the internal and external passenger seat tracks with new, improved seat tracks, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0059, dated July 1, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(h)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-01-01, dated February 2, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 5, 2006. Kevin M. Mullin, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-5470 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24432; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-227-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspection of the elevator tab inboard hinge support structure to detect fatigue cracking and corrective action if necessary. That AD also provides an optional terminating action. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability and would require new repetitive inspections. For airplanes having elevators with laminated rear spars, this proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for interlaminar corrosion, delamination, or disbonding in the rear spar, repetitive inspections for cracking in the spar web, and repair including related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. For airplanes having elevators with solid rear spars, this proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking in the spar web and repair including related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of cracks in the elevator rear spar web at the tab hinge bracket locations. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking, corrosion, interlaminar corrosion, delamination, and disbonding in the elevator rear spar, which may reduce elevator stiffness and lead to in-flight vibration. In-flight vibration may lead to elevator and horizontal stabilizer damage and reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: *Go to http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)917-6440; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-24432; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-227-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 can 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 On June 7, 1989, we issued AD 76-11-05 R1, amendment 39-6234 (54 FR 25709, June 19, 1989), for certain Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections of the elevator tab inboard hinge support structure to detect fatigue cracking and corrective action if necessary. That AD also provides an optional terminating action. That AD resulted from the determination that additional airplanes were manufactured to the same design as airplanes identified in AD 76-11-05 and are subject to the same failure. We issued that AD to detect fatigue cracking, which could result in vibration and possible flutter. Other Relevant Rulemaking On January 16, 1990, we issued AD 90-06-02, amendment 39-6489 (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, which would require incorporation of certain structural modifications. That AD refers to Boeing Document D6-38505, Revision C, dated December 11, 1989, “Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural Modification Program—Model 737-100/-200/-200C,” which references Boeing Service Bulletins 737-55A1020 and 737-55-1022 for certain modifications. We issued that AD to prevent structural failure. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 76-11-05 R1, we have received reports of cracks in the elevator rear spar web at the tab hinge bracket locations, on Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. These airplanes had 6,100 to 56,000 total flight hours and 2,400 to 66,000 total flight cycles. Some airplanes had modifications and repairs done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletins 737-55A1020 and 737-55-1022. Accomplishing the actions specified in Section III, Part II, including installation of the bolt retainer clips, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1020, Revision 1, dated August 20, 1976; Revision 2, dated February 11, 1977; or Revision 3, dated December 22, 1988; or the preventive modification specified in Section III, Part II of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1022, dated April 15, 1977; are terminating action for AD 76-11-05 R1 and required modifications for AD 90-06-02, amendment 39-6489. Because cracking has continued to occur, the actions described in Boeing Service Bulletins 737-55A1020 and 737-55-1022 do not eliminate the need for repetitive inspections for cracking. Analysis shows that the cracks in the elevator rear spar web are caused by deflection stresses. Excessive web cracking at multiple locations will reduce the elevator support stiffness. The reduced stiffness will lead to in-flight vibrations and consequent damage to the elevator and horizontal stabilizer. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078, dated October 27, 2005, which replaces Boeing Service Bulletins 737-55A1020 and 737-55-1022. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078 is referenced as the appropriate source of service information for doing the actions in this proposed AD. Appendix A of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078 describes procedures for determining the elevator configuration number or elevator group number of the rear spar. The number indicates if elevators have laminated rear spars or solid rear spars, as well as other configuration differences. For airplanes having elevators with laminated rear spars, the alert service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for cracking at hinge bracket locations and for interlaminar corrosion of the rear spar as specified in Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions. For airplanes having elevators with laminated rear spars, the alert service bulletin also describes procedures for repetitive detailed and special detailed inspections for interlaminar corrosion, delamination, and disbonding of the rear spar as specified in Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions. For airplanes having elevators with solid rear spars, the alert service bulletin describes procedures to do repetitive detailed inspections for cracking at the hinge bracket locations in the spar web as specified in Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions. For all airplanes, if no cracking or interlaminar corrosion is found during any inspection, the alert service bulletin specifies to install a hinge bolt retainer clip if necessary. For all airplanes, if any interlaminar corrosion or cracking is found during any inspection, the alert service bulletin specifies to do applicable repairs including related investigative actions and corrective actions as specified in Parts IV through VIII (Interim Repair Options A through D) and Part IX (Time-limited Repair) of the Accomplishment Instructions. Appendix C of the alert service bulletin describes how to determine which interim repair option and time-limited repair can be used. The service bulletin describes the repairs, including related investigative and corrective actions, as follows: • Part IV—Option A Interim Repair—Spar Splice: The spar splice repair consists of removal of a cracked segment or segments of the elevator rear spar and installation of a new replacement spar segment or segments. The repair includes inspecting holes for signs of loose or damaged fasteners, repair if necessary, and contacting the manufacturer for certain repair instructions. The repair also includes making sure balancing requirements are met for the elevator and the tab after the corrective actions are done. • Parts V and VI—Option B or D Interim Repair—Spar Replacement Without Replacement of Thin Tee Clips with Thick Tee Clips (for certain elevator configurations): The Option B or D spar replacements consist of removal of the hinge brackets and rear spar ribs from the spar, removal of the existing spar, installation of a new replacement spar, and reinstallation of the hinge brackets and rear spar ribs to the new spar. These spar replacement options include inspecting holes for signs of loose or damaged fasteners, repair if necessary, and contacting the manufacturer for certain repair instructions. These spar replacement options also include making sure balancing requirements are met for the elevator and the tab after the corrective actions are done. • Parts VII and VIII—Option C Interim Repair—Spar Replacement With Replacement of Thin Tee Clips with Thick Tee Clips (for certain elevator configurations): The Option C spar replacement consists of removal of the hinge brackets, rear spar ribs, and thin tee clips from the spar, removal of the existing spar, installation of a new replacement spar and thick tee clips, and reinstallation of the hinge brackets and rear spar ribs to the new spar. This replacement option includes inspecting holes for signs of loose or damaged fasteners, repairing if necessary, and contacting the manufacturer for certain repair instructions. This replacement option also includes making sure balancing requirements are met for the elevator and tab after the corrective actions are done. • Part IX—Time-limited Repair: The repair consists of installation of repair components and an eddy current inspection for crack containment at the stop-drilled hole. The repair instructions include contacting the manufacturer if any crack is outside the limit specified in the alert service bulletin. The repair also includes making sure balancing requirements are met for the elevator and tab after the corrective actions are done. If the time-limited repair is done, the alert service bulletin specifies that the Option A or D interim repair must done within 24 months, 2,000 flight hours, or 1,500 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the time-limited repair is done. The alert service bulletin specifies the following compliance times for doing the inspections in paragraph 1.E. Compliance and Appendix B of the alert service bulletin: • Part I Initial Inspection: Within 1,000 flight hours or 750 flight cycles after the release date of the alert service bulletin, whichever occurs first; or within 2,000 flight hours or 1,500 flight cycles after the release date of the alert service bulletin, whichever occurs first; depending on elevator group number/configuration number. • Part I Repetitive Inspections: At intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours or 750 flight cycles, whichever occurs first; or at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours or 1,500 flight cycles, whichever occurs first; depending on elevator group number/configuration number. • Part II Initial Inspection: Within 1,000 flight hours or 750 flight cycles after the release date of the alert service bulletin, whichever occurs first; or 2,000 flight hours or 1,500 flight cycles after the release date of the alert service bulletin, whichever occurs first; or 24,000 flight hours or 18,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, on the elevator since new or since the modification specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1022 has been done, provided it can be positively determined from the operator's records; depending on elevator group number/configuration number. • Part II Repetitive Inspections: At intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 4,500 flight cycles, whichever occurs first; or at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours or 750 flight cycles, whichever occurs first; depending on elevator group number/configuration number. For certain elevators, accomplishing any Option C or Option D interim repairs defers the accomplishment of the next Part II inspection to within 24,000 flight hours or 18,000 flight cycles since the repair. • Part III Initial Inspection: Within 1,000 flight hours or 750 flight cycles, whichever occurs first; or within 2,000 flight hours or 1,500 flight cycles, whichever occurs first; depending on elevator group number/configuration number. • Part III Repetitive Inspections: At intervals not to exceed 8,000 flight hours or 6,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Alert Service Bulletin.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Alert Service Bulletin The alert service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Where Table B.4 in Appendix B of the alert service bulletin specifies a compliance time in flight hours or flight cycles, this proposed AD would require the actions specified in Table B.4 be done at the earlier of the compliance times in flight hours or flight cycles. Clarification of Inspection and Corrective Action Operators should note that step 3. of Part III of the alert service bulletin specifies to do a special detailed inspection for spar interlaminar corrosion as given in Figure 3. Figure 3 specifies to do a detailed inspection for corrosion and disbonding and a special detailed inspection for interlaminar corrosion and delamination. Thus, in Part III of the alert service bulletin, operators must inspect for interlaminar corrosion, delamination, and disbonding. Operators should note that Figure 3 of the alert service bulletin also specifies that a spar should be rejected if interlaminar corrosion, delamination, or disbonding is found. However, step 3.a. of Part III of the alert service bulletin only specifies that if interlaminar corrosion is found, spar replacement is required in accordance with Appendix C; step 3.C. of Appendix C of the alert service bulletin specifies that for laminated spars that have interlaminar corrosion, only repair options B, C, and D are permitted. Step 3.a. of Part III of the alert service bulletin and step 3.C. of Appendix C of the alert service bulletin do not specify what to do if delamination or disbonding is found. Step 3.a. of Part III of the alert service bulletin should have specified that spar replacement is required if interlaminar corrosion, delamination, or disbonding is found. Step 3.C. of Appendix C of the alert service bulletin should have specified that for laminated spars that have interlaminar corrosion, delamination, or disbonding, only repair options B, C, and D are permitted. We have included this clarification in paragraph

(o)of this proposed AD. Explanation of Change to Applicability We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Correction of Typographical Error for Service Bulletin Date AD 76-11-05 R1 referred to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1022, Section III, Part II, dated April 15, 1987. However, the service bulletin is dated April 15, 1977. We have fixed this typographical in the service bulletin reference in this proposed AD. Change to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 76-11-05 R1. Since AD 76-11-05 R1 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 76-11-05 R1 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph B paragraph (f). Paragraph C paragraph (g). Paragraph D paragraph (h). Costs of Compliance There are about 1,355 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection, per inspection cycle 10-100 $80 $800-$8,000, per inspection cycle 230 $184,000-$1,840,000, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-6234 (54 FR 25709, June 19, 1989) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24432; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-227-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 30, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 76-11-05 R1. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078, dated October 27, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of cracks in the elevator rear spar web at the tab hinge bracket locations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking, corrosion, interlaminar corrosion, delamination, and disbonding in the elevator rear spar, which may reduce elevator stiffness and lead to in-flight vibration. In-flight vibration may lead to elevator and horizontal stabilizer damage and reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 76-11-05 R1

(f)For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, line number 001 through 491 inclusive: Within the next 300 hours time-in-service after July 24, 1989 (the effective date of AD 76-11-05 R1), unless accomplished within the last 700 hours time-in-service, and at intervals thereafter not to exceed 1,000 hours time-in-service, conduct the inspection required by paragraph

(g)of this AD. Accomplishing the initial inspections specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(g)For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, line number 001 through 491 inclusive: At the times specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD, inspect for excessive deflection of the elevator tab, right and left hand, in accordance with the inspection procedures specified in Section III, Part I, paragraphs C. and D., of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1020, Revision 1, dated August 20, 1976; Revision 2, dated February 11, 1977; or Revision 3, dated December 22, 1988. If the elevator tab-to-elevator relative deflection exceeds 1/10 inch, prior to further flight, modify the elevator in accordance with paragraph

(h)of this AD. Accomplishing the initial inspections specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h)For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, line number 001 through 491 inclusive: Installation of one of the modifications specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1020, Revision 1, dated August 20, 1976; Revision 2, dated February 11, 1977; or Revision 3, dated December 22, 1988; Section III, Part II, including installation of the bolt retainer clips or the preventive modification specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1022, Section III, Part II, dated April 15, 1977; is considered terminating action for the inspection requirements of paragraph

(g)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD Determine Elevator Group Number or Elevator Configuration Number

(i)Within 1,000 flight hours or 750 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, determine the elevator group number or the elevator configuration number in accordance with Appendix A of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078, dated October 27, 2005. Initial and Repetitive Inspections

(j)At the applicable time specified in Tables 2 and 3 of paragraph 1.E. “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078, dated October 27, 2005, except where the alert service bulletin specifies a compliance time from the release date of the alert service bulletin, this AD requires the compliance time after the effective date of this AD: Do the applicable initial detailed and special detailed inspections for interlaminar corrosion, cracking, delamination, or disbonding in the rear spar by doing all the applicable actions specified in Parts I, II, and III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078, dated October 27, 2005; except where step 3. of Part III of the alert service bulletin specifies to do a special detailed inspection for spar interlaminar corrosion as given in Figure 3, this AD requires all actions specified in Figure 3 to be done (a detailed inspection for interlaminar corrosion and disbonding and a special detailed inspection for interlaminar corrosion and delamination). Doing the initial inspections terminates the requirements of paragraphs

(f)and

(g)of this AD.

(k)Repeat the inspections specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD at the applicable time specified in Tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E. “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078, dated October 27, 2005; except where Table B.4 in Appendix B of the alert service bulletin specifies compliance times in flight hours or flight cycles, this AD requires the actions specified in Table B.4 be done at the earlier of the compliance times in flight hours or flight cycles. Corrective Actions

(l)If any interlaminar corrosion, cracking, delamination, or disbonding is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, use Appendix C of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078, dated October 27, 2005, to determine the permitted repairs, and do the applicable repair, including related investigative and corrective actions, by doing all the applicable actions specified in Parts IV through VIII (Interim Repairs) and Part IX (Time-limited Repair) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin, except as provided by paragraphs

(n)and

(o)of this AD.

(m)If the time-limited repair specified in Part IX of the alert service bulletin is done: At the time specified in Table 6 of paragraph 1.E. “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078, dated October 27, 2005, do the applicable repair, including related investigative and corrective actions, by doing all the applicable actions specified in Parts IV through VI (Interim Repairs). Thereafter, do the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph

(k)of this AD.

(n)Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078, dated October 27, 2005, specifies to contact the manufacturer for appropriate action for the inspar rib replacement or for more instructions if any crack is outside the limit specified in the service bulletin: Before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or using a method approved in accordance with paragraph

(p)of this AD.

(o)Where step 3.a. of Part III of the alert service bulletin specifies that if interlaminar corrosion is found, spar replacement is required, this AD requires spar replacement if interlaminar corrosion, delamination, or disbonding is found. Where step 3.C. of Appendix C of the alert service bulletin specifies that for laminated spars that have interlaminar corrosion, only repair options B, C, and D are permitted, this AD specifies that for laminated spars that have interlaminar corrosion, delamination, or disbonding, only repair options B, C, and D are permitted. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(4)Accomplishing the Interim Repair Option C or D specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1078, dated October 27, 2005, is an AMOC for the structural modification requirements specified in paragraph A of AD 90-06-02, amendment 39-6489, that are done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletins 737-55A1020 or 737-55-1022 only. All provisions of AD 90-06-02 that do not specifically reference these service bulletins remain fully applicable and must be complied with.

(5)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 76-11-05 R1, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs

(f)through

(h)of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 3, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-5469 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23708; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-1] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Modification of Control 1234L Offshore Airspace Area; AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Control 1234L, Offshore Airspace Area in Alaska. Specifically, this action proposes to modify Control 1234L in the immediate vicinity of the Saint Paul Island Airport, AK, by lowering the airspace floor from 2,000 feet above ground level

(AGL)to 700 AGL. Additionally, outside the vicinity of the airport this proposal lowers the airspace floor from 2,000 AGL to 1,200 feet AGL within a 73-mile radius of the St. Paul Island Airport. The FAA is proposing this action to provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft instrument operations

(IFR)at the St. Paul Island Airport. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-232078 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-01, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:

(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-23708 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-01) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-23708 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-01.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRM's An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov.,* or the **Federal Register** 's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Service Area Office, Air Traffic, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue 14, Anchorage, AK 99513. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Control 1234L Offshore Airspace Area, AK by lowering the floor to 700 feet AGL in the vicinity of the St. Paul Island airport, AK, and 1,200 feet AGL within a 73-mile radius of the airport. The purpose of this proposal is to establish controlled airspace to support IFR operations at the St. Paul Island Airport, Alaska. The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch developed new instrument approach procedures for the St. Paul Island Airport. New controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL and 1,200 feet AGL in international airspace would be created by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient to support instrument operations at the St. Paul Island Airport. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation

(DOT)Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. ICAO Considerations As part of this proposal relates to navigable airspace outside the United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO)International Standards and Recommended Practices. The application of International Standards and Recommended Practices by the FAA, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Airspace & Rules, in areas outside the United States domestic airspace, is governed by the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Specifically, the FAA is governed by Article 12 and Annex 11, which pertain to the establishment of necessary air navigational facilities and services to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of civil air traffic. The purpose of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to ensure that civil aircraft operations on international air routes are performed under uniform conditions. The International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 11 apply to airspace under the jurisdiction of a contracting state, derived from ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when air traffic services are provided and a contracting state accepts the responsibility of providing air traffic services over high seas or in airspace of undetermined sovereignty. A contracting state accepting this responsibility may apply the International Standards and Recommended Practices that are consistent with standards and practices utilized in its domestic jurisdiction. In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, state-owned aircraft are exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention. Article 3(d) of the Convention provides that participating state aircraft will be operated in international airspace with due regard for the safety of civil aircraft. Since this action involves, in part, the designation of navigable airspace outside the United States, the Administrator is consulting with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 10854. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9N, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2005, and effective September 15, 2005, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6007 Offshore Airspace Areas Control 1234L [Amended] That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 8 miles west and 6 miles east of the 360°(T)/350°(M) bearing from the St. Paul Island Airport to 14 miles north of the St. Paul Airport, and within 6 miles west and 8 miles east of the 172°(T)/162°(M) bearing from the St. Paul Island Airport to 15 miles south of the St. Paul Island Airport, and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile radius of the St. Paul Island Airport, and the airspace extending upward from 1,200 MSL within a 72.8-mile radius of Chignik Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 2,000 feet above the surface within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 58°06′57″ N., long. 160°00′00″ W., south along long. 160°00′00″ W. until it intersects the Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center boundary; thence southwest, northwest, north, and northeast along the Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center boundary to lat. 62°35′00″ N., long. 175°00′00″ W.; to lat. 59°59′57″ N., long. 168°00′08″ W.; to lat. 57°45′57″ N., long. 161°46′08″ W.; to the point of beginning. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2006. Edith V. Parish, Manager, Airspace and Rules. [FR Doc. E6-5523 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD05-06-002] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chincoteague Channel, Chincoteague, VA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations that govern the operation of the SR 175 Bridge, at mile 3.5, at Chincoteague, Virginia. The proposal would allow the bridge to open on demand from midnight to 6 a.m., and every hour and a half from 6 a.m. to midnight; except from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., on the last consecutive Wednesday and Thursday in July, the draw need not be opened. The proposed change would reduce vehicular traffic congestion to increase public safety and to extend the structural and operational integrity of the movable span while still balancing the needs of marine and vehicular traffic. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at

(757)398-6629. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking, CGD05-06-002, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like a return receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all submittals received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Virginia Department of Transportation

(VDOT)owns and operates this swing-type bridge. The current regulation allows the SR 175 Bridge to open on demand from midnight to 6 a.m., and on the hour from 6 a.m. to midnight; except from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the last Wednesday and Thursday in July of every year, the draw need not open. The Chincoteague Town Council has requested a change to the existing regulations for the SR 175 Bridge. This proposal is an effort to further reduce traffic congestion for public safety by reducing the number of drawbridge openings; and to extend the structural and operational integrity of the movable span while balancing the needs of mariners and vehicular traffic transiting in and around this seaside resort area. The SR 175 highway is also the principle arterial route that serves as the major evacuation highway in the event of emergencies or tidal flooding. On June 28, 2004, we published a notice of temporary deviation from the regulations and request for comments entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chincoteague Channel, VA” in the **Federal Register** (69 FR 36011). The temporary deviation was in operation to test an alternate drawbridge operation schedule for 90 days and solicit comments from the public. From July 2, 2004 through September 29, 2004, the draw of the bridge opened every two hours on the even hour from 6 a.m. to Midnight; except from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., on the last Wednesday and Thursday, the draw need not be opened. At all other times, the draw need not open. The Coast Guard received six letters and four petitions commenting on the provisions of the temporary deviation. Several comments from residents of the Town of Chincoteague favored the two-hour opening schedule. The commercial vessel owners favored a less restrictive hourly opening schedule. On December 30, 2004, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chincoteague Channel, Chincoteague, VA” in the **Federal Register** (69 FR 78373). The NPRM allowed hourly openings of the draw year-round from 6 a.m. to Midnight; except from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the last consecutive Wednesday and Thursday in July of every year, the draw need not be opened. At all other times, the draw need not open. We received six comments on the NPRM. Five comments were from Chincoteague Island residents and the other comment was from Coast Guard

(CG)Group Eastern Shore. All favored an hourly opening schedule year round and CG Eastern Shore also suggested the bridge open on demand from midnight to 6 a.m. On April 18, 2005, the Coast Guard published a final rule entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chincoteague Channel, Chincoteague, VA” in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 20051). The final rule required the draw to open on demand from midnight to 6 a.m., and on the hour from 6 a.m. to midnight, except from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the last consecutive Wednesday and Thursday in July of every year, the draw need not be opened. In October 2005, the Chincoteague Town Council adopted a resolution that requested a change in the scheduled openings of the bridge. The resolution details the Town's concerns based on the following factors: the number of openings have actually increased since the last modification; the boats north of the bridge frequently sail and return one-at-a-time; due to inconsistencies in the openings, the Town has received many motorists' complaints; and openings on the even hours as needed will not significantly impact the boaters. This proposed change is being requested to make the operation of the SR 175 Bridge more efficient. It will reduce vehicular traffic congestion to increase public safety and to extend the structural and operational integrity of the movable span while still balancing the needs of marine and vehicular traffic. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.1005 by inserting a new provision to require the draw to open on demand from midnight to 6 a.m., and limit the required openings of the draw year-round to every one and a half hours from 6 a.m. to midnight, with a closure period from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the last consecutive Wednesday and Thursday in July of every year. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings to minimize delays. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, and mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings can minimize delay. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District,

(757)398-6222. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Section 117.1005 is revised to read as follows: § 117.1005 Chincoteague Channel. The draw of the SR 175 Bridge, mile 3.5, at Chincoteague shall open on demand from midnight to 6 a.m., and every one and a half hours from 6 a.m. to midnight; except from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the last consecutive Wednesday and Thursday in July, the draw need not be opened. Dated: March 31, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-5521 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-06-034] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Potomac River, Washington Channel, Washington, DC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security zone in certain waters of Washington Channel on the Potomac River off Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC during the May 25, 2006, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant's Change of Command ceremony. The security zone is necessary to provide for the security and safety of life and property of event participants, spectators and mariners on U.S. navigable waters during the event. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland, or designated representative. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number

(410)576-2674 or

(410)576-2693. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-06-034), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as continued threats by al Qaeda and other similar organizations to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide, have made it prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert. Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, the Coast Guard as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks. The Coast Guard will conduct a Change of Command ceremony at Fort McNair in Washington, DC. To address the aforementioned security concerns during the event, the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland proposes to establish a security zone upon certain waters of the Washington Channel. This proposed security zone will help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in waterborne terrorist actions during the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant's Change of Command ceremony. Due to the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack during the ceremony would have against the large number of dignitaries, and the surrounding area and communities, a security zone is prudent for this type of event. Discussion of Proposed Rule On Thursday, May 25, 2006, The U.S. Coast Guard Commandant's Change of Command ceremony will be held at Fort Lesley J. McNair, in Washington, DC. The event will consist of several high-ranking dignitaries and a background comprised of U.S. Coast Guard vessels anchored adjacent to Fort McNair on the confined waters of the Washington Channel on the Potomac River. A security zone is needed from 11 a.m. through 4 p.m. on May 25, 2006 to safeguard event participants and prevent vessels or persons on certain waters of the Washington Channel of the Potomac River from approaching Fort McNair and thereby bypassing the security measures established on shore during the event. U.S. Coast Guard patrol vessels will be provided to prevent the movement of persons and vessels in an area approximately 200 yards wide and 450 yards long within Washington Channel. Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented will immediately proceed out of the zone. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to publicize the security zone and notify the public of changes in the status of the zone. Such notices will continue until the ceremony is complete. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This temporary rule affects a limited area of the Washington Channel, approximately 200 yards wide and 450 yards long, for approximately five hours. The operational restrictions of the security zone are tailored to provide the minimal disruption of vessel operations necessary to provide immediate, improved security for persons and vessels on certain waters of the Washington Channel. Additionally, this security zone is temporary in nature any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are outweighed by the national interest in protecting high-ranking dignitaries from the devastating consequences of acts of terrorism, and from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate, remain or anchor within certain waters of the Washington Channel, in an area approximately 200 yards wide and 450 yards long, encompassed by lines connecting the following points, beginning at 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′07″ W, thence to 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′14″ W, thence to 38°51′50″ N, 077°01′14″ W, thence to 38°51′50″ N, 077°01′07″ W, thence to 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′07″ W. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because of the limited size and duration of the zone. Before the effective period, we would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Washington Channel. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number

(410)576-2674. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rulemaking is a security zone less than one week in duration. A draft “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination”

(CED)are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.T05-034 to read as follows: § 165.T05-034 Security Zone; Potomac River, Washington Channel, Washington, DC.

(a)*Definitions.*

(1)The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act on his or her behalf.

(b)*Location.* The following area is a security zone: All waters of the Washington Channel, from surface to bottom, encompassed by lines connecting the following points, beginning at 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′07″ W, thence to 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′14″ W, thence to 38°51′50″ N, 077°01′14″ W, thence to 38°51′50″ N, 077°01′07″ W, thence to 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′07″ W. These coordinates are based upon NAD 1983.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing security zones found in § 165.33.

(2)Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.

(3)Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the security zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port, Baltimore to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone number

(410)576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.

(4)*Enforcement.* The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

(d)*Effective period.* This section will be effective from 11 a.m. through 4 p.m. on May 25, 2006. Dated: April 4, 2006. Jonathan C. Burton, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6-5522 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2005-TN-0008-200534(b); FRL-8157-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee: Revisions to Volatile Organic Compound Definition AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation on September 7, 1998. This revision adds 16 compounds to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of “Volatile Organic Compounds.” In the Final Rules Section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no significant, material, and adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-TN-0008, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: hou.james@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*

(404)562-9019. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R04-OAR-2005-TN-0008,” Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 12th floor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is

(404)562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at *hou.james@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: March 31, 2006. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 06-3489 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 34

Traces to 34 documents

U.S. Code