Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
14,156 words·~64 min read·
/register/2006/04/17/06-3636A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P 71 73 Monday, April 17, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24171; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-08-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-50C Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain General Electric Company
(GE)CF6-50C series turbofan engines. This proposed AD would require reworking the forward fan stator case and installing a fan module secondary containment shield. This proposed AD results from reports of uncontained fan blade failures causing damage and separation of airplane hydraulic lines. We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained fan blade failures, which can result in separation of airplane hydraulic lines, damage to critical airplane systems, and possible loss of airplane control. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by June 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from General Electric Company via GE-Aviation, Attn: Distributions, 111 Merchant St., Room 230, Cincinnati, Ohio 45246, telephone
(513)552-3272; fax
(513)552-3329. You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Curtis, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7192; fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-24171; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-08-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the DOT Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the DOT Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management Facility receives them. Discussion In the service history of the CF6-50C series turbofan engine, there have been more than 40 fan blade failure events. In two of these events, fragments were uncontained, impacting airplane hydraulic lines. In another of these events, the fan case bulged, separating a hydraulic line. Failure of fan blades can result from material defects, foreign object ingestion, or bird ingestion. Fan blade uncontainment can result depending on the size and kinetic energy of the released fan blade fragments, the impact location, and the design capability and integrity of the containment structure. Continued safe flight and landing might be compromised if uncontained fan blade fragments impact critical airplane system components, such as hydraulic lines. This condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained fan blade failures, which can result in separation of airplane hydraulic lines, damage to critical airplane systems, and possible loss of airplane control. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of GE Service Bulletin
(SB)No. CF6-50 S/B 72-0985, Revision 1, dated September 15, 1998 (Airbus) and GE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-0986, Revision 1, dated September 15, 1998 (McDonnell Douglas). These SBs describe procedures for reworking the forward fan stator case and installing a fan module secondary containment shield. Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Manufacturer's Service Information The SBs recommend compliance at the operator's convenience. We determined that a stricter compliance schedule is necessary. The European Aviation Safety Agency issued AD 2004-0007, on December 15, 2004, which required compliance by December 14, 2005. However, due to insufficient parts availability, we propose to require compliance no later than June 30, 2007. 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 engines of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require reworking certain CF6-50C forward fan stator cases and installing secondary containment shields at the next engine shop visit after the effective date of the proposed AD, but no later than June 30, 2007. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 226 CF6-50C series turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2.5 work hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $9,451 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $2,181,126. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **General Electric Company:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24171; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-08-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by June 16, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to General Electric Company
(GE)CF6-50C, CF6-50C1, CF6-50C2, CF6-50C2B, CF6-50C2F, and CF6-50C2R turbofan engines, with a forward fan stator case, part number 9064M53G04, GO5, G06, G07, G08, G09, G10, G12, or G13, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A300, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 series, and DC-10-30F (KC-10A, KDC-10) airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of uncontained fan blade failures causing damage and separation of airplane hydraulic lines. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained fan blade failures, which can result in separation of airplane hydraulic lines, damage to critical airplane systems, and possible loss of airplane control. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
(f)At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, but no later than June 30, 2007, rework the forward fan stator case and install the fan module secondary containment shield.
(1)For engines on Airbus 300 series airplanes, use paragraph 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of GE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 72-0985, dated December 2, 1991 or Revision 1, dated September 15, 1998, to do the rework and installation.
(2)For engines on McDonnell Douglas airplanes, use paragraph 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of GE Service Bulletin
(SB)No. CF6-50 S/B 72-0986, dated December 2, 1991 or Revision 1, dated September 15, 1998, to do the rework and installation.
(g)The rework and installation specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(2) of this AD can also be done on-wing. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(h)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(i)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2004-0007, dated December 15, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 11, 2006. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-5645 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 97-ANE-09] Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 800 Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: This action withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). That NPRM proposed to revise the existing airworthiness directive
(AD)applicable to Rolls-Royce plc
(RR)Model RB211 Trent 892, 884, 877, 875, and 892B series turbofan engines. That proposed rule would have required initial and repetitive inspections of the angled drive upper shroud, the intermediate gearbox housing (IGH), and the external gearbox lower bevel box
(LBB)housing, and initial and repetitive master magnetic chip detector
(MCD)inspections. Since we issued that proposed rule, RR notified us that after reviewing the service experience and the original actions taken, the unsafe condition no longer exists and mandatory actions required by the proposed rule are no longer required. Accordingly, we withdraw the proposed rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7175; fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to RR Model RB211 Trent 892, 884, 877, 875, and 892B series turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on November 2, 1999 (64 FR 59137). That proposed action would have required initial and repetitive inspections of the angled drive upper shroud, the intermediate gearbox housing (IGH), and the external gearbox lower bevel box
(LBB)housing. In addition, that proposed AD would have required initial and repetitive master magnetic chip detector
(MCD)inspections. Also, that proposed AD would have eliminated the repetitive inspections of the IGH, external gearbox LBB housing, and the angled drive upper shroud, if the engines have incorporated modifications described in certain RR service bulletins. Also, that proposed AD would have increased the inspection interval for repetitive master MCD inspections. That proposed AD resulted from service experience since publication of AD 97-06-13. We proposed that AD to prevent loss of oil, which could cause an engine fire, and in-flight engine shutdowns and airplane diversions caused by oil loss and bearing failures. Since we issued that proposed AD, RR notified us that after reviewing the service experience and the original actions taken, the unsafe condition no longer exists and mandatory actions required by the proposed AD are no longer required. Upon further consideration, we hereby withdraw the proposed rule based on RR's analysis and conclusion stated above. Withdrawal of this notice of proposed rulemaking constitutes only such action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another notice in the future, nor does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future. Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule. Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) do not cover this withdrawal. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Withdrawal Accordingly, we withdraw the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. 97-ANE-09, published in the **Federal Register** on November 2, 1999 (64 FR 59137). Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 11, 2006. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-5666 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-21242; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-09-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 Turboshaft Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to revise an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. That AD currently requires initial and repetitive position checks of the gas generator 2nd stage turbine blades on all Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. That AD also currently requires initial and repetitive replacements of 2nd stage turbines on 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines only. This proposed AD revision would require the same actions, but would relax the compliance times for initially replacing 2nd stage turbines in Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 turboshaft engines. This proposed AD revision results from a request by Turbomeca to clarify the compliance times for 2nd stage turbine initial replacement on Arriel 1D, 1D1, and 1B turboshaft engines. We are proposing this AD revision to clarify and relax the AD compliance times for 2nd stage turbine initial replacement on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 turboshaft engines. We are also proposing this AD revision to prevent inflight engine shutdown and subsequent forced autorotation landing or accident. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD revision by June 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD revision. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone +33 05 59 74 40 00, fax +33 05 59 74 45 15, for the service information identified in this proposed AD revision. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7175, fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-21242; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-09-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the DMS Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Discussion On January 12, 2006, the FAA issued AD 2006-02-08, Amendment 39-14460 (71 FR 3754, January 24, 2006). The Direction Generale de L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition might exist on Turbomeca, Arriel 1B (modified per TU 148), 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. The DGAC advises that sixteen cases of release of gas generator 2nd stage turbine blades occurred in service, with full containment of debris. These events resulted in uncommanded engine in flight shutdowns. Although terminating action is still unavailable, mandatory checks of the turbine blades and replacement of the turbine are being required in order to reduce the probability of an uncommanded engine in flight shutdown. That AD requires initial and repetitive position checks of the gas generator 2nd stage turbine blades on all Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. That AD also requires initial and repetitive replacements of 2nd stage turbines on 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines only. That condition, if not corrected, could result in uncommanded engine in flight shutdown. Actions Since AD 2006-02-08 Was Issued Since that AD 2006-02-08 was issued, Turbomeca asks if our intent is to require initial replacement of all Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 2nd stage turbines by August 31, 2006. Turbomeca states that if so, the compliance time in the AD is too restrictive. Turbomeca requests that we clarify the AD compliance times for 2nd stage turbine initial replacement on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 turboshaft engines. We recognize that our intent is not clear in the AD. Our intent is not to require all Arriel 1D, 1D1, and 1B 2nd stage turbine initial replacements by August 31, 2006. Our intent is to require initial replacement of only those Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 2nd stage turbines that are over the hourly limits specified. We are proposing this AD revision to clarify and relax the AD compliance times for 2nd stage turbine initial replacement on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 turboshaft engines. We are also proposing this AD revision to prevent inflight engine shutdown and subsequent forced autorotation landing or accident. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Turbomeca Alert Service Bulletins
(ASBs)A292 72 0807, for Arriel 1B post-TU 148; ASB A292 72 0808, for Arriel 1D; ASB A292 72 0809, for Arriel 1D1; and ASB A292 72 0810, for Arriel 1S1, all dated March 24, 2004. These ASBs describe procedures for initial and repetitive position checks of the 2nd stage turbine blades, and replacement of 2nd stage turbines on 1B and 1D1 engines only. The DGAC classified these ASBs as mandatory and issued airworthiness directive F-2004-047, dated March 31, 2004, in order to ensure the airworthiness of these Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1 and 1S1 turboshaft engines in France. Bilateral Agreement Information This engine model is manufactured in France 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. In keeping with this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD Revision We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD revision, which would require: • Initial and repetitive position checks of the 2nd stage turbine blades on Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. • Replacement of 2nd stage turbines on 1B and 1D1 engines only. • Initially replacing 2nd stage turbines in Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 turboshaft engines at relaxed compliance times. The proposed AD revision would require that you do these actions using the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD revision would affect 721 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 workhours per engine to inspect all 721 engines and 40 workhours per engine to replace about 571 2nd stage turbines on 1B and 1D1 engines, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $3,200 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD revision to U.S. operators to be $4,249,760. 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 revision would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD revision would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD revision. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14460 (71 FR 3754, January 24, 2006) and by adding a new airworthiness directive, to read as follows: **Turbomeca:** Docket No. FAA-2005-21242; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-09-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by June 16, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD revises AD 2006-02-08, Amendment 39-14460. Applicability
(c)This AD revision applies to Turbomeca Arriel 1B engines fitted with 2nd stage turbine modification TU 148, and Arriel 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 engines. Arriel 1B engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter France AS-350B and AS-350A “Ecureuil” helicopters. Arriel 1D engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter France AS-350B1 “Ecureuil” helicopters. Arriel 1D1 engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter France AS-350B2 “Ecureuil” helicopters. Arriel 1S1 engines are installed on, but not limited to, Sikorsky Aircraft S-76A and S-76C helicopters. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD revision results from a request by Turbomeca to clarify the compliance times for 2nd stage turbine initial replacement on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 turboshaft engines. We are issuing this AD revision to clarify and relax the AD compliance times for 2nd stage turbine initial replacement on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 turboshaft engines. We are also issuing this AD revision to prevent inflight engine shutdown and subsequent forced autorotation landing or accident. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD revision performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Initial Relative Position Check of 2nd Stage Turbine Blades
(f)Do an initial relative position check of the 2nd stage turbine blades using the Turbomeca mandatory alert service bulletins
(ASBs)specified in the following Table 1. Do the check before reaching any of the intervals specified in Table 1 or within 50 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Table 1.—Initial and Repetitive Relative Position Check Intervals of 2nd Stage Turbine Blade Turbomeca engine model Initial relative position check interval Repetitive interval Mandatory alert service bulletin Arriel 1B (modified per TU 148) Within 1,200 hours time-since-new
(TSN)or time-since-overhaul
(TSO)or 3,500 cycles-since-new
(CSN)or cycles-since-overhaul (CSO), whichever occurs earlier Within 200 hours time-in-service-since-last-relative-position-check (TSLRPC) A292 72 0807, dated March 24, 2004. Arriel 1D1 and Arriel 1D Within 1,200 hours TSN or TSO or 3,500 hours CSN or CSO, whichever occurs earlier Within 150 hours TSLRPC A292 72 0809, Update No. 1, dated October 4, 2005. Arriel 1S1 Within 1,200 hours TSN or TSO or 3,500 hours CSN or CSO, whichever occurs earlier Within 150 hours TSLRPC A292 72 0810, dated March 24, 2004. Repetitive Relative Position Check of 2nd Stage Turbine Blades
(g)Recheck the relative position of 2nd stage turbine blades at the TSLRPC intervals specified in Table 1 of this AD, using the mandatory ASBs indicated. Credit for Previous Relative Position Checks
(h)Relative position checks of 2nd stage turbine blades done using Turbomeca Service Bulletin A292 72 0263, Update 1, 2, 3, or 4, may be used to show compliance with the initial requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD. Initial Replacement of 2nd Stage Turbines on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 Engines
(i)Initially replace the 2nd stage turbine with a new or overhauled 2nd stage turbine as follows:
(1)On or before August 31, 2006, replace the 2nd stage turbine with a new or overhauled 2nd stage turbine:
(i)As soon as practicable after accumulating 1,500 hours TSN or TSO for Arriel 1D and 1D1 engines.
(ii)As soon as practicable after accumulating 2,200 hours TSN or TSO for Arriel 1B engines.
(2)After August 31, 2006, replace the 2nd stage turbine with a new or overhauled 2nd stage turbine:
(i)Before accumulating 1,500 hours TSN or TSO for Arriel 1D and 1D1 engines.
(ii)Before accumulating 2,200 hours TSN or TSO for Arriel 1B engines. Repetitive Replacements of 2nd Stage Turbines on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 Engines
(j)Thereafter, replace the 2nd stage turbine with a new or overhauled 2nd stage turbine within every 1,500 hours TSN or TSO for Arriel 1D and 1D1 engines, and within every 2,200 hours TSN or TSO for Arriel 1B engines. Criteria for Overhauled 2nd Stage Turbines
(k)Do the following to overhauled 2nd stage turbines, referenced in paragraphs
(i)and
(j)of this AD:
(1)You must install new blades in the 2nd stage turbines of overhauled Arriel 1D and 1D1 engines.
(2)You may install either overhauled or new blades in the 2nd stage turbines of overhauled Arriel 1B engines. Relative Position Check Continuing Compliance Requirements
(l)All 2nd stage turbines, including those that are new or overhauled, must continue to comply with relative position check requirements of paragraphs
(f)and
(j)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(m)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(n)DGAC airworthiness directive F-2004-047 R1, dated October 26, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(o)You must use the service information specified in Table 2 of this AD to perform the actions required by this AD. The Director of the **Federal Register** previously approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in Table 2 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, as of February 28, 2006 (71 FR 3754, January 24, 2006). Contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone +33 05 59 74 40 00, fax +33 05 59 74 45 15, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001, on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Table 2.—Incorporation by Reference Turbomeca mandatory alert service bulletin No. Page Update No. Date A292 72 0807, Total Pages: 17 ALL Original March 24, 2004. A292 72 0809, Total Pages: 18 ALL 1 October 4, 2005. A292 72 0810, Total Pages: 14 ALL Original March 24, 2004. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 11, 2006. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-5646 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 700 [Docket No. 060215037-6037-01] Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS): Metalworking Machines AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of inquiry. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS)is seeking public comments on the impact of the Defense Priorities and Allocations System
(DPAS)set-aside for metalworking machines on industry (15 CFR 700.31). This notice of inquiry is part of an effort to collect information to assist in the preparation of revisions to the DPAS regulation (15 CFR part 700), including the possible elimination of the metalworking machines set-aside. DATES: Comments must be received by May 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: DPAS@bis.doc.gov* . Include the phrase “Metalworking Machines Notice of Inquiry” in the subject line; • *Fax:*
(202)482-5650 (Attn: Michael Vaccaro); • *Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:* Michael Vaccaro, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3876, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liam McMenamin, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone:
(202)482-2233. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under Title I of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, *et seq.* ), the President is authorized to require preferential acceptance and performance of contracts or orders supporting certain approved national defense and energy programs, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities in such a manner as to promote these approved programs. Additional priorities authority is found in section 18 of the Selective Service Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 468), 10 U.S.C. 2538, and 50 U.S.C. 82. DPAS authority has also been extended to support emergency preparedness activities under Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 5914, *et seq.* ) The President delegated DPAS authority to the Department of Commerce in Executive Order 12919 (June 3, 1994), and it was subsequently redelegated to the Bureau of Industry and Security. Originally published in 1984, the DPAS regulation was revised on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 31918) to update, streamline, and clarify a number of provisions. Allocations rules like the DPAS ( *i.e.* , controlled materials programs) were established in response to previous periods of national security emergency such as the Second World War and the Korean conflict to assure the availability of any scarce and critical item for approved programs. The basic elements of the controlled materials programs were set-asides (the amount of an item for which a producer or supplier must reserve order-book space in anticipation of the receipt of rated orders), production directives (requiring a producer to supply a specific quantity, size, shape, and type of an item within a specific time period), and allotments (the maximum quantity of an item authorized for use in a specific program or application). Discussion and Request for Comments Currently, the DPAS regulation includes a set-aside that applies to metalworking machines. Section 700.31 of the DPAS regulation states as follows: “(c) A metalworking machine producer is not required to accept DO rated orders calling for delivery in any month of a total quantity of any size of machine in excess of 60 percent of scheduled production of that size of machine for that month, or any DO rated orders received less than three months prior to the beginning of the month for which delivery is requested. However, DX rated orders must be accepted without regard to a set-aside or the lead time, if delivery can be made by the required date.” In pursuit of the DPAS mission, the Department of Commerce endeavors to minimize disruptions to the normal commercial activities of industry. In an effort to streamline the DPAS regulation, BIS is seeking comment on the impact of the DPAS's set-aside for metalworking machines on industry and the effect on industry of the possible elimination of this set-aside. Submission of Comments All comments must be submitted to the address indicated in this notice. The Department requires that all comments be submitted in written form. The Department encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on May 17, 2006. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission and also provide a non-confidential submission that can be placed in the public record. The Department will seek to protect such information to the extent permitted by law. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be made a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)Web site at *http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia* . This office does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you have technical difficulties accessing this Web site, please call BIS's Office of Administration at
(202)482-1900 for assistance. Dated: April 11, 2006. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5649 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 635 [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-FHWA-2006-23552] RIN 2125-AF18 Construction and Maintenance AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments. SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to revise certain provisions in 23 CFR part 635 subpart D to address section 5514 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) that requires the FHWA to ensure that the States provide for competition with respect to the specification of alternative types of culvert pipes. This action is in addition to the FHWA's guidance memoranda previously issued on this subject. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or submit electronically at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit* or fax comments to
(202)493-2251. Alternatively, comments may be submitted via the eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form on all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 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, (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, Office of Program Administration,
(202)366-1562 or Mr. Michael Harkins, Office of the Chief Counsel,
(202)366-4928, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System
(DMS)at: * http://dmses.dot.gov/submit.* The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by using the Internet to reach the Office of the Federal Register's Home page at: *http://www.archives.gov * or the Government Printing Office's Web page at: *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.* Background On May 11, 2005, the FHWA issued a policy memorandum to clarify the interpretation of our material or product selection policy regarding culvert pipes. Titled “Guidance on Pipe Selection,” 1 this memorandum stated that 23 CFR 635.411(d), Appendix A was not intended to limit or restrict the use of certain pipe materials in specific drainage installations, nor was it intended to prohibit the specifying of alternative materials when the appendix did not require it. The FHWA stated that it would consider further policy changes to clarify this issue following the enactment of reauthorization legislation. 1 See memorandum titled: “Guidance on Pipe Selection,” dated May 11, 2005, which is available on the FHWA's home page: *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/051105.cfm.* On August 10, 2005, the President signed the SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59; Aug. 10, 2005). Section 5514 of the SAFETEA-LU titled “Competition for Specification of Alternative Types of Culvert Pipes,” requires the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that States provide for competition with respect to the specification of alternative types of culvert pipes through requirements that are commensurate with competition requirements for other construction materials. This section requires the Secretary to accomplish this action not later than 180 days after the enactment of SAFETEA-LU (or by February 6, 2006). On October 6, 2005, the FHWA issued a memorandum titled “SAFETEA-LU Section 5514” 2 to reaffirm the May 11, 2005, memorandum and comply with the requirements of section 5514. In this memorandum, the FHWA indicated that it would consider this issue and other potential revisions to 23 CFR part 635 during a future rule making. 2 See memorandum titled: “SAFETEA-LU Section 5514,” dated October 6, 2005, which is availale on the FHWA's home page: *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/100605.cfm.* In each of the above memoranda, we indicated that we would consider appropriate revisions to 23 CFR part 635 in a future rule making. Therefore, we are now proposing to amend 23 CFR 635.411 to implement these changes. Proposed Changes The FHWA proposes to revise its regulation for material and product selection in 23 CFR 635.411. In § 635.411, we propose to delete paragraph
(d)and re-designate paragraphs
(e)and
(f)as
(d)and
(e)respectively. We also propose to delete Appendix A to subpart D—“Summary of Acceptable Criteria for Specifying Types of Culvert Pipes” in its entirety. Appendix A to subpart D of part 635 was officially incorporated into FHWA's regulations on September 30, 1974. Appendix A contained the requirements concerning the specification, number and types of culvert pipes specified on Federal-aid highway construction projects. These requirements were intended to encourage competition and lower the cost of culvert pipes by encouraging the consideration of alternate culvert pipe materials in certain drainage installations. The FHWA's policies in 23 CFR subpart D—General Material Requirements support the competitive bidding principles in Title 23 U.S.C. 112 by providing for the broadest consideration of materials to encourage competition. Where alternative products are judged to be of satisfactory quality and equally acceptable on the basis of engineering and economic analysis, the FHWA requires equal consideration in the specification of materials. Therefore, to further implement the provisions of section 5514, and be consistent with the long-standing policy of ensuring the consideration of the largest number of appropriate alternatives that lead to the lowest overall life cycle cost, the FHWA is proposing to delete Appendix A to subpart D of 23 CFR part 635. This will eliminate the specific requirement for the consideration of alternative types of culverts for certain drainage installations. By doing so, the selection and specification of culvert types would be governed by the same regulatory policy for all other materials in 23 CFR 635.411 thus ensuring competition in the selection of pipes. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices All comments received on or before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable, but the FHWA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In addition to the late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the docket relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action would not be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. We anticipate that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. These proposed changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and will not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required. The proposed changes to the FHWA's Material or Product Selection policies are considered to be minor in nature. The proposed deletion of Appendix A to subpart D of 23 CFR part 635 eliminates the specific requirement for the consideration of alternative types of culverts for certain drainage installations. Culvert pipes will be subject to the same selection policies as all other highway materials and products. Regulatory Flexibility Act In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and have determined that the action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendment addresses the obligation of Federal funds to States for Federal-aid highway projects. As such, it affects only States and States are not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply, and the FHWA certifies that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995), as it will not result in the expenditure by State, local, tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $120.7 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532 *et seq.* ). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the affects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Additionally, the definition of “Federal mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and the FHWA has determined that this proposed action would not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on the States. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed action would not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ), the FHWA must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information we conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this proposal does not contain a collection of information requirement for purposes of the PRA. National Environmental Policy Act The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), and has determined that this proposed action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property) The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interface with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this proposed action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) This action 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. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children) We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this proposed action would not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately affect children. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposed action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The proposed rulemaking addresses obligations of Federal funds to States for Federal-aid highway projects and would not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001. 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 it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. Regulation Identification Number A regulation identification number
(RIN)is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda. List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 635 Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Issued on: April 11, 2006. J. Richard Capka, Acting Federal Highway Administrator. In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend part 635 of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 635—CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE 1. Revise the authority citation for part 635 to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 5514 of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144; 23 U.S.C. 101 (note), 109, 112, 113, 114, 116, 119, 128, and 315; 31 U.S.C. 6505; 42 U.S.C. 3334, 4601 *et seq.* ; Sec. 1041(a), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; 23 CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.48(b). § 635.411 [Amended] 2. Amend 23 CFR 635.411 by removing paragraph
(d)and redesignating paragraphs
(e)and
(f)as
(d)and
(e)respectively. Subpart D—[Amended] 3. Amend 23 CFR Part 635, Subpart D by removing Appendix A to Subpart D. [FR Doc. E6-5651 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-124988-05] RIN 1545-BE72 Updated Mortality Tables for Determining Current Liability; Hearing Cancellation AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public hearing on proposed rulemaking that relates to the affect plans sponsors and administrators, and participants in and beneficiaries of certain retirement plans under section 412(l)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 302(d)(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 10 a.m., is cancelled. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Treena Garrett of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) at
(202)622-7180 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the **Federal Register** on Friday, December 2, 2005 (70 FR 72260), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, April 19, 2006, at 10 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is proposed regulations under section 412 of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these proposed regulations expired on Wednesday, March 29, 2006. Outlines of oral comments were due on Wednesday, March 29, 2006. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit outlines of the topics to be addressed. As of Friday, April 7, 2006, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, April 19, 2006, is cancelled. Guy R. Traynor, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-5630 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-06-023] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for the “Roar on the River Rampage”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of the Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, North Carolina. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Pasquotank River adjacent to Clarksville, Virginia during the power boat race. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, fax them to
(757)398-6203, or e-mail them to *Dennis.M.Sens@uscg.mil* . The Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, 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 the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, at
(757)398-6204. 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 (CGD05-06-023), 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. We anticipate that if a Final Rule is issued time constraints will require us to provide less than a 30 day period before the rule becomes effective. Immediate action is needed to protect the safety of life at sea from the danger posed by high-speed power boats. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have the regulations in effect during the event. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address listed 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 On June 10 and 11, 2006, the Virginia Boat Racing Association will sponsor the “Roar on the River Rampage”, on the waters of the Pasquotank River. The event will consist of approximately 60 inboard hydroplanes racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval racecourse. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Pasquotank River adjacent to Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The regulated area includes a section of the Pasquotank River approximately one mile long, and bounded in width by each shoreline. This rule would be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 10 and 11, 2006, and would restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the power boat race. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, when practical would allow the passage of vessels when races are not taking place. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. 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. Although this proposed regulation would prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Pasquotank River adjacent to Elizabeth City, North Carolina during the event, the effect of this regulation would not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area would be in effect. Extensive advance notifications would be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic would be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. 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 affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Pasquotank River during the event. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be enforced for only a short period, from 7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 10 and 11, 2006. The regulated area will apply to a segment of the Pasquotank River adjacent to the Elizabeth City waterfront. Marine traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels will be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we would issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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 the Coast Guard at the address listed under ADDRESSES . 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 concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 100.35-T05-023 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-023 Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area is established for the waters of the Pasquotank River, adjacent to Elizabeth City, NC, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the west by the Elizabeth City Draw Bridge and bounded on the east by a line originating at a point along the shoreline at latitude 36°17′54″ N., longitude 76°12′00″ W., thence southwesterly to latitude 36°17′35″ N., longitude 76°12′18″ W., at Cottage Point. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions.*
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the “Roar on the River Rampage” under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(c)*Special local regulations.*
(1)Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(ii)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(iii)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 10 and 11, 2006. Dated: March 31, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-5606 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-06-025] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Mill Creek, Fort Monroe, Hampton, VA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for the “Hampton Cup Regatta”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of Mill Creek, near Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of Mill Creek adjacent to Fort Monroe during the power boat race. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, fax them to
(757)398-6203, or e-mail them to *Dennis.M.Sens@uscg.mil* . The Compliance and Inspection Branch, 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 the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Compliance and Inspection Branch, at
(757)398-6204. 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 (CGD05-06-025), 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 the address listed 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 On August 18, 19 and 20, 2006, the Virginia Boat Racing Association will sponsor the “Hampton Cup Regatta”, on the waters of Mill Creek adjacent to Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia. The event will consist of approximately 100 inboard hydroplanes racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval racecourse. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of Mill Creek adjacent to Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia. The regulated area is comprised of the southern section of Mill Creek approximately one half mile in length and width. This rule would be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on August 18, 19 and 20, 2006, and would restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the power boat race. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, when practical would allow the passage of vessels when races are not taking place. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. 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. Although this proposed regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Mill Creek during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect. Extensive advance notifications will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. 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 affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of Mill Creek during the event. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be enforced for only a short period, from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on August 18, 19 and 20, 2006. The regulated area will apply to the southerly segment of Mill Creek adjacent to Fort Monroe and the Route 258 bridge. Marine traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels will be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we would issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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 the Coast Guard at the address listed under ADDRESSES. 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 concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary *§ 100.35-T06-025 to read as follows:* § 100.35-T06-025, Mill Creek, Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia.
(a)*Regulated area* The regulated area is established for the waters of Mill Creek, adjacent to Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia, enclosed by the following boundaries: to the north, a line drawn along latitude 37°01′00″ N., to the east a line drawn along longitude 76°18′30″ W., to the south a line parallel with the shoreline adjacent to Fort Monroe, and the west boundary is parallel with the Route 258—Mercury Boulevard Bridge. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions.*
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the “Hampton Cup Regatta” under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.
(c)*Special local regulations.*
(1)Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(ii)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(iii)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on August 18, 19 and 20, 2006. Dated: April 4, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-5605 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-R06-OAR-2005-LA-0004; FRL-8158-9] Approval of the Clean Air Act Section 112(l) Program for Hazardous Air Pollutants and Delegation of Authority to the State of Louisiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ)has submitted a request for receiving delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). The requests apply to certain NESHAPs promulgated by EPA, as adopted by LDEQ through July 1, 2004 (40 CFR part 63 standards). The delegation of authority under this action does not apply to sources located in Indian Country. EPA is providing notice that proposes to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to LDEQ. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Jeff Robinson, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule located in the final rules section of the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Air Permits Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, at
(214)665-6435, or at *robinson.jeffrey@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving LDEQ's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce certain NESHAPs for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). LDEQ has adopted certain NESHAPs into Louisiana's state regulations. In addition, EPA is waiving its notification requirements so sources will only need to send notifications and reports to LDEQ. The EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal because EPA views this as a non-controversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action 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 action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412. Dated: April 7, 2006. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 06-3636 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Renumbered § 4882]§ 2538
- Procurement of ships and material during war§ 82
- Letting of contracts§ 112
- Definitions§ 601
- Statements to accompany significant regulatory actions§ 1532
- Purposes§ 3501
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Definitions and declaration of policy§ 101
- Authority to provide specialized or technical services§ 6505
- Coordination of Federal aids with local governments§ 3334
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Hazardous air pollutants§ 7412
21 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- 15 CFR 700
- 45 USC 5914
- 23 CFR 635
- Pub. L. 109-59
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 109 Stat. 48
- 119 Stat. 1144
- Pub. L. 102-240
- 105 Stat. 1914
- 49 CFR 1.48(b)
- 26 CFR 1
- 33 CFR 100
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- 33 USC 1233
- 40 CFR 63
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite1 CFR 51
Cite15 CFR 700
Cites 48 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources