Notices. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

30,874 words·~140 min read·/register/2006/05/09/06-4287·

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C 71 89 Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24698; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-026-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-700 and 737-800 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-700 and 737-800 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require performing a one-time high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of the backup intercostals located above the cutout for the forward airstair door; doing related investigative and corrective actions if any crack is found; and doing other specified corrective actions if no crack is found. This proposed AD results from a report of fatigue cracks discovered during a full-scale fatigue test conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could result in more extensive fatigue cracking and lead to possible loss of cabin pressure. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

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

(425)917-6430; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24698; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-026-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion This proposed AD results from a report of fatigue cracks discovered parallel to a line of fasteners on the two backup intercostals of the upper sill web during a full-scale fatigue test conducted by Boeing. We also received a report that similar cracks and upper sill web cracks were discovered on a Model 737-300 series airplane. This condition, if not corrected, could result in more extensive fatigue cracking of the backup intercostals and upper sill web and lead to possible loss of cabin pressure. Other Relevant Rulemaking As previously mentioned, similar cracking was discovered on a Model 737-300 series airplane, and it has been determined that the unsafe condition also applies to certain Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The corrective action for those airplane models is similar to that proposed for Model 737-700 and 737-800 series airplanes; however, the corrective action will be different due to the higher number of flight cycles that have accumulated on these earlier airplane models. Because the corrective action will be different, Boeing intends to issue a separate service bulletin for Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. We may consider further rulemaking when that service bulletin is issued and approved, rather than attempt to include all affected airplane models in this proposed AD. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1236, Revision 1, dated November 10, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for performing a one-time high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)inspection for cracking of the backup intercostals of the airstair doorway upper sill; doing related investigative and corrective actions if any crack is found; and doing other specified corrective actions if no crack is found. Related investigative and corrective actions include performing an HFEC inspection for cracking at certain door stop fastener holes in the upper sill web and contacting Boeing for instructions on how to repair any crack discovered. Other specified corrective actions include installing replacement filler blocks and fasteners. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.” Difference Between Proposed AD and Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance There are about 146 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed HFEC inspection would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $8,640, or $160 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24698; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-026-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 23, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-700 and 737-800 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1236, Revision 1, dated November 10, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of fatigue cracks discovered during a full-scale fatigue test conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could result in more extensive fatigue cracking and lead to possible loss of cabin pressure. Compliance

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

(f)Before the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes later: Perform a high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)inspection for cracking of the backup intercostals located above the cutout for the forward airstair door, and, before further flight, do related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions if any crack is found, and other specified corrective actions if no crack is found. Related investigative actions, applicable corrective actions and other specified corrective actions must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1236, Revision 1, dated November 10, 2005; except where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, repair all cracks using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD. Actions Accomplished Using Original Issue of Service Bulletin

(g)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1236, dated July 11, 2002, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-7011 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24697; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-045-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. This proposed AD would require doing initial and repetitive detailed or high frequency eddy current inspections for cracks around the rivets at the upper fastener row of the skin lap splice of the fuselage, and repairing any crack found. This proposed AD results from a report indicating that certain modified rivets were incorrectly installed in some areas of the skin lap splices during production because they were drilled with a countersink that was too deep. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct premature fatigue cracking at certain skin lap splice locations of the fuselage, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

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

(425)917-6450; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24697; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-045-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that certain modified rivets were incorrectly installed in some areas of the skin lap splices of the fuselage during production because they were drilled with a countersink that was too deep. The deep countersink makes a knife edge condition in the skin panel. The knife edge condition can lead to cracks in the skin lap splices of the fuselage. This premature fatigue cracking could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0090, dated June 2, 2005. The service bulletin describes the following procedures, depending on the airplane configuration: • Doing initial and repetitive detailed or high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)inspections for cracks of the skin lap splice of the fuselage; • Contacting Boeing for repair of cracking; and • Sending inspection results to Boeing. The service bulletin recommends compliance times at the following intervals: Service Bulletin Recommended Compliance Times Action Recommended compliance times Initial detailed or HFEC inspection Before the accumulation of 37,500 total flight cycles or 3,000 flight cycles after issuance of the service bulletin, whichever is later. Repetitive detailed inspections Intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight cycles. Repetitive HFEC inspections Intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies that you may contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require you to repair those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. The Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specify reporting inspection findings to the manufacturer. This proposed AD would not require that action. We do not need this information from operators. These differences have been coordinated with the manufacturer. Costs of Compliance There are about 294 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 160 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following tables provide the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with either the detailed or HFEC inspections in this proposed AD. Estimated Costs for Detailed Inspection, per Inspection Cycle Airplane group Work hours Average hourly labor rate Cost per airplane Group 1 7 $80 $560 Group 2 6 80 480 Group 3 12 80 960 Group 4 10 80 800 Estimated Costs for HFEC Inspection, per Inspection Cycle Airplane group Work hours Average hourly labor rate Cost per airplane Group 1 12 $80 $960 Group 2 11 80 880 Group 3 20 80 1,600 Group 4 15 80 1,200 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24697; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-045-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 23, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0090, dated June 2, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report indicating that certain modified rivets were incorrectly installed in some areas of the skin lap splices during production because they were drilled with a countersink that was too deep. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct premature fatigue cracking at certain skin lap splice locations of the fuselage and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. Compliance

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

(f)Do initial and repetitive detailed or high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking around the rivets at the upper fastener row of the skin lap splice of the fuselage by doing all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0090, dated June 2, 2005, except as provided by paragraphs

(g)and

(h)of this AD. Do the inspections at the applicable times specified in Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin; except where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the original release date of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance after the effective date of this AD. Repair

(g)If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD. No Reporting Required

(h)Although Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0090, dated June 2, 2005, recommends that inspection results be reported to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-7007 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24694; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-018-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon (Beech) Model 400 and 400A Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Raytheon (Beech) Model 400 and 400A series airplanes. This proposed AD would require, among other actions, reviewing the airplane logbook to determine whether certain generator control unit

(GCU)installation kits are installed, and replacing any incorrect GCU. This proposed AD results from reports of over-voltage conditions of the direct current

(DC)starter generator. We are proposing this AD to prevent such over-voltage conditions due to the incompatibility between certain GCUs, which could result in the loss of normal electrical power, damage to some electrical components, or blown fuses during flight, and consequent unrecoverable loss of some or all essential equipment. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, Department 62, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Petty, Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics, ACE-119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone

(316)946-4139; fax

(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24694; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-018-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(DC)starter generator. In one case, over-voltage conditions resulted in complete loss of the DC electrical power during flight and loss of the primary flight display. The cause is the incompatibility between a Goodrich (formerly Lucas Aerospace) DC starter generator and a Shinko generator control unit (GCU). This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of normal electrical power, damage to some electrical components, or blown fuses during flight, which could result in the unrecoverable loss of some or all essential equipment. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 24-3713, dated November 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for reviewing the airplane logbook to determine whether a certain GCU installation kit (Lucas Aerospace/Goodrich) is installed and replacing any incorrect Shinko GCU with a new Lucas Aerospace/Goodrich GCU. For certain findings, the service bulletin also describes the following procedures, as applicable: • Inspecting to determine the part number (P/N) of both GCUs; • Inspecting to determine the P/N of both current sense transformers on the lower inboard quadrant of the left-hand and right-hand engine inlets; • Replacing any incorrect GCU with a certain new GCU; and • Replacing any incorrect current sense transformer with a certain new transformer. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin Operators should note that the applicability of this proposed AD differs from the Effectivity of Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 24-3713. In addition to airplanes on which Kit No. 128-3004-1 P has been incorporated, this proposed AD also affects airplanes on which Kit No. 128-3004-3 P has been incorporated. We have determined that those airplanes also are subject to the identified unsafe condition. We have coordinated this difference with the airplane manufacturer. Costs of Compliance There are about 43 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 40 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $3,200, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Raytheon Aircraft Company (Formerly Beech):** Docket No. FAA-2006-24694; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-018-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 23, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category. Table 1.—Applicability Raytheon (Beech) model— Serials— On which—

(1)400 series airplanes RJ-1 through RJ-65 inclusive Kit part number (P/N) 128-3004-1 P or 128-3004-3 P has been incorporated (Lucas Aerospace/Goodrich Direct Current

(DC)Starter Generator).

(2)400A series airplanes RK-1 through RK-23 inclusive Kit P/N 128-3004-1 P or 128-3004-3 P has been incorporated (Lucas Aerospace/Goodrich DC Starter Generator). Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of over-voltage conditions of the DC starter generator. We are issuing this AD to prevent over-voltage conditions of the DC starter generator due to the incompatibility between certain GCUs, which could result in the loss of normal electrical power, damage to some electrical components, or blown fuses during flight, and consequent unrecoverable loss of some or all essential equipment. Compliance

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

(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 24-3713, dated November 2005. Review of Logbook

(g)Within 200 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, review the airplane logbook to determine whether GCU installation kit, P/N 128-3001-1 P or 128-3001-3 P, is installed, in accordance with the service bulletin. Installation Kit Not Found Installed: Replacement of Shinko GCU

(h)If no GCU installation kit, P/N 128-3001-1 P or 128-3001-3 P, is found installed or if the kit P/N cannot be conclusively determined during the review required by paragraph

(g)of this AD, within 200 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the Shinko GCUs with new Lucas Aerospace/Goodrich GCUs (installation kit P/N 128-3001-1 P or 128-3001-3 P), in accordance with the service bulletin. Installation Kit Found Installed: Inspections of GCUs and Current Sense Transformers and Replacement of Transformers as Applicable

(i)If any GCU installation kit, P/N 128-3001-1 P or 128-3001-3 P is found installed during the review required by paragraph

(g)of this AD: Within 200 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect to determine the P/N of both GCUs, in accordance with the service bulletin; and at the times specified in Table 2, do the applicable action(s) in that table. Table 2.—Inspection and Replacement of Current Sense Transformers If— Then, within 200 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first If— Then—

(1)Both GCUs have P/N 45AS88801-19 or -25 Inspect to determine the P/N of both current sense transformers on the lower inboard quadrant of the left-hand and right-hand engine inlets, in accordance with the service bulletin Both current sense transformers have P/N 45AS88801-21 Either current sense transformer is not identified with P/N 45AS88801-21 No further action is required by this AD. Within 200 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the current sense transformer with a new transformer, P/N 45AS88801-21, in accordance with the service bulletin.

(2)Either GCU does not have P/N 45AS88801-19 or -25 Replace the GCU with a new GCU, P/N 45AS88801-19 or -25, and inspect to determine the P/N of both current sense transformers on the lower inboard quadrant of the left-hand and right-hand engine inlets; in accordance with the service bulletin Both current sense transformers have P/N 45AS88801-21 Either current sense transformer is not identified with P/N 45AS88801-21 No further action is required by this AD. Within 200 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the current sense transformer with a new transformer, P/N 45AS88801-21, in accordance with the service bulletin. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-7014 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24696; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-038-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain EMBRAER Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the electrical bonding clamps inside the fuel tanks and adjacent areas. This proposed AD results from a report of a failure of fitting clamp of an electrical bonding cable for the fuel tubing. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of bonding protection in the interior of the fuel tanks or adjacent areas, and a consequent potential source of ignition in a fuel tank and possible fire or explosion. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 8, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

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

(425)227-2125; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24696; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-038-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all EMBRAER Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The DAC advises that it received a report of one failure of fitting clamp of an electrical bonding cable for the fuel tubing. Investigation into the failure identified a batch of electrical bonding cable fitting clamps that was manufactured with incorrect material; the incorrect aluminum alloy Type 1100, which is more ductile than the correct Type 2602 aluminum alloy, deforms during the installation process. The batch of clamps made from incorrect material was installed on numerous airplanes. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of bonding protection in the interior of the fuel tanks or adjacent areas, and a consequent potential source of ignition in a fuel tank and possible fire or explosion. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145-28-0028, dated November 7, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the electrical bonding clamps, having part numbers AN735D6 and AN735D4, inside the ventral, wing stub, and wing fuel tanks, and adjacent areas. The replacement includes measuring the electrical resistance between the tubes joined by the electrical bonding jumper. If the resistance is greater than 200 milliohms, the service bulletin describes repeating the clamp replacement and measuring the resistance until the resistance value is 200 milliohms or less. When the resistance is 200 milliohms or less, the service bulletin describes procedures for making the bonding protection inside the ventral, wing stub, and wing fuel tanks. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-02-03, effective February 24, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Brazilian Airworthiness Directive.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and Brazilian Airworthiness Directive Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-02-03, dated February 24, 2006, is applicable to “all EMB-145( ) aircraft models in operation.” However, this does not agree with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0028, dated November 7, 2005, which states that only certain EMB-145 airplanes are affected and identifies them by serial number. This proposed AD would be applicable only to the airplanes listed in the service bulletin. This difference has been coordinated with the DAC. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Replacement of bonding clamp (all airplane groups) 2 $80 Between $57 and $87 (depending on kit/airplane group) Between $217 and $247 (depending on kit/airplane group) 18 Between $3,906 and $4,446 (depending on kit/airplane group). Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2006-24696; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-038-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 8, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0028, dated November 7, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of a failure of fitting clamp of an electrical bonding cable for the fuel tubing. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of bonding protection in the interior of the fuel tanks or adjacent areas, and a consequent potential source of ignition in a fuel tank and possible fire or explosion. Compliance

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

(f)Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Replace the electrical bonding clamps having part numbers AN735D6 and AN735D4 inside the ventral, wing stub, and wing fuel tanks, and adjacent areas, by accomplishing all actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0028, dated November 7, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, International Branch ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(h)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-02-03, effective February 24, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-7013 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24093; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-19-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2003-13-04, which applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd (Pilatus) Model PC-6 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN)up to and including 939. AD 2003-13-04 currently requires you to inspect the integral fuel tank wing ribs for cracks and the top and bottom wing skins for distortion, repair any cracks or distortion before further flight, and do a fuel tank ventilating system installation. Since we issued AD 2003-13-04, the FAA determined the action should also apply to all the models of the PC-6 airplanes listed in the type certification data sheet of Type Certificate

(TC)No. 7A15 that are produced in the United States through a licensing agreement between Pilatus and Fairchild Republic Company (also identified as Fairchild Industries, Fairchild Heli Porter, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation). In addition, the intent of the applicability of AD 2003-13-04 was to apply to all the affected serial numbers of the airplane models listed in TC No. 7A15. Consequently, this proposed AD would retain all the actions of AD 2003-13-04, would add those Fairchild Republic Company airplanes to the applicability of this proposed AD, and would list out the individual specific airplane models. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the ribs of the inboard integral fuel tanks in the left and right wings, which could lead to wing failure during flight. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 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. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 63 19; facsimile: +41 41 619 6224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4059; facsimile:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “Docket No. FAA-2006-24093; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-19-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion Mandatory continuing airworthiness information and the FAA's determination that an unsafe condition existed on a Pilatus Model PC-6 airplane caused us to issue AD 2003-13-04, Amendment 39-13204 (68 FR 37394, June 24, 2003). AD 2003-13-04 currently requires that you inspect the integral fuel tank wing ribs for cracks and the top and bottom wing skins for distortion, repair any cracks or distortion before further flight, and do a fuel tank ventilating system installation on Pilatus Model PC-6 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN)up to and including 939. The Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Switzerland, notified the FAA of the need to supersede AD 2003-13-04 to address an unsafe condition that may exist or could develop on Pilatus Model PC-6 airplanes. The FOCA reports that the AD action should also apply to all the models of the PC-6 airplanes listed in the type certification data sheet of TC No. 7A15 produced in the United States through a licensing agreement between Pilatus and Fairchild Republic Company (also identified as Fairchild Industries, Fairchild Heli Porter, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation). This condition, if not corrected, could result in cracks in the ribs of the inboard integral fuel tanks in the left and right wings, which could lead to wing failure during flight. Foreign Airworthiness Authority Information The FOCA recently issued Swiss AD Number HB 2005-289, effective date August 23, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of all models of the PC-6 airplanes listed in TC No. 7A15, including those produced in the United States under a licensing agreement with Pilatus and Fairchild Republic Company (also identified as Fairchild Industries, Fairchild Heli Porter, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation). The State of Design for the Pilatus PC-6 airplanes is Switzerland and the airplanes are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the FOCA has kept us informed of the situation described above. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we have examined the FOCA's findings, evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2003-13-04 with a new AD that would retain all the actions of AD 2003-13-04 and would: • Add manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN)2001 through 2092 for all the models of the PC-6 airplanes as listed in TC No. 7A15 and specified in the applicability section. These MSN are the airplanes produced in the United States through a licensing agreement with the Fairchild Republic Company; and • List all the models of the PC-6 airplanes as listed in TC No. 7A15. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 49 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 5 work hours × $80 per hour = $400 Not applicable $400 $400 × 49 = $19,600. We estimate the following costs for each rib to do any necessary rib repair that will be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this repair: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per rib 3 work hours × $80 per hour = $240 per rib $50 per rib $290 We estimate the following costs to install any inboard fuel tank vent system that will be required based on the results of this proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need such installation. Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 12 work hours × $80 per hour = $960 $200 $1,160 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2003-13-04, Amendment 39-13204, and adding the following new AD: **Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24093; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-19-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by June 9, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-13-04, Amendment 39-13204. Applicability

(c)This AD affects the following Models PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2--H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes that are equipped with turbo-prop engines and are certificated in any category:

(1)Group 1 (maintains the actions from AD 2003-13-04): All manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN)up to and including 939.

(2)Group 2: MSN 2001 through 2092. Note: These airplanes are also identified as Fairchild Republic Company PC-6 airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter PC-6 airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation PC-6 airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Switzerland that requires retaining the actions of AD 2003-13-04 and adding MSN 2001 through 2092 for all the models of the PC-6 airplanes listed in the type certificate data sheet of Type Certificate

(TC)No. 7A15. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the ribs of the inboard integral fuel tanks in the left and right wings, which could lead to wing failure during flight. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures

(1)Inspect:

(i)The ribs in the inboard integral fuel tanks and related structure in the left and right wings for crack damage;

(ii)The upper and lower wing skins for damage; and

(iii)The inboard fuel tank area to determine if the inboard fuel tank vent system is installed.

(A)*For Group 1 Airplanes:* Within the next 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after August 15, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-13-04), unless already done

(B)*For Group 2 Airplanes:* Within the next 90 days or 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, unless already done Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 57-002, dated November 27, 2002.

(2)If crack damage is found:

(i)Correct the crack damage designated as repairable in the service bulletin.

(ii)For other crack damage, obtain a repair scheme from the manufacturer through FAA at the address specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD and incorporate this repair scheme. Before further flight after the inspections required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 57-002, dated November 27, 2002.

(3)If wing distortion is found, obtain a repair scheme from the manufacturer through FAA at the address specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD and incorporate this repair scheme Before further flight after the inspections required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 57-002, dated November 27, 2002.

(4)If the inboard fuel tank vent system is not installed, install the inboard fuel tank vent system Before further flight after the inspections required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 118, dated December 1972. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Standards Office, ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4059; facsimile:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(g)AMOCs approved for AD 2003-13-04 are approved for this AD. Related Information

(h)Swiss AD Numbers HB 2003-092, dated February 17, 2003, and HB 2005-289, effective date August 23, 2005, also address the subject of this AD. To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 63 19; facsimile: +41 41 619 6224. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-24093; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-19-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 3, 2006. Barry R. Ballenger, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-7021 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 2003-NM-123-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes; A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F Series Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes); and A310 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all of the airplanes identified above. That proposed AD would have required repetitive inspections to detect breaks in the bottom flange fitting of the ram air turbine (RAT); and corrective actions, if necessary. This new action revises the proposed AD by proposing to remove the requirement to repeat the inspections and, instead, revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to include a new Airplane Maintenance Manual task that specifies a detailed inspection after each RAT extension. This new action also proposes to require, for certain airplanes, an adjustment of the ejection jack; and, for certain other airplanes, replacement of the aluminum part with an improved steel part; these actions would terminate the inspection requirements of the earlier proposed AD. The actions specified by this new proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the RAT yoke fitting, which could result in the loss of RAT function and possible loss of critical flight control in the event of certain emergency situations. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. DATES: Comments must be received by June 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NM-123-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to

(425)227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: *9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov.* Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2003-NM-123-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or ASCII text. The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-2797; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received. Submit comments using the following format: • Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues. • For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested. • Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2003-NM-123-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Availability of NPRMs Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NM-123-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Discussion A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4; A300 B4-600, A300 B4-600R, A300 C4-605R Variant F, A300 F4-600R (collectively called A300-600); and A310 series airplanes, was published as a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)in the **Federal Register** on April 1, 2004 (69 FR 17115). That NPRM would have required repetitive inspections to detect breaks in the bottom flange fitting of the ram air turbine (RAT); and corrective actions, if necessary. That NPRM also would have required submission of an inspection report to the airplane manufacturer. That NPRM resulted from a report that the swivel coupling of the ram air turbine

(RAT)yoke fitting was found broken on a Model A310 series airplane. That condition, if not corrected, could result in the loss of RAT function and possible loss of critical flight control in the event of certain emergency situations. Actions Since Issuance of Previous Proposal The preamble to the NPRM specified that we considered the requirements “interim action” and that the manufacturer was analyzing inspection reports in order to obtain better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the damage, and eventually to develop a final action to address the unsafe condition. That NPRM explained that we may consider further rulemaking if a final action is developed, approved, and available. Since the issuance of that NPRM, Airbus has confirmed that the failure of the swivel yoke fitting is due to incorrect rigging of the RAT ejection jack, which leads to overstress of the bottom flange of the coupling yoke fitting. Airbus has developed an improved on-wing rigging procedure for airplanes equipped with certain Sundstrand RATs, which will prevent overload of the swivel coupling yoke fitting. Airbus has determined that, for airplanes equipped with Dowty Rotol RATs, an improved rigging procedure is not possible and, therefore, Airbus has developed a modification for replacing the aluminum part with an improved steel part. Explanation of Relevant Service Information Since we issued the original NPRM, Airbus has issued A300-600 All Operators Telex

(AOT)57A6096, Revision 01; and A310 AOT 57A2085, Revision 01; both dated April 11, 2005. (The original issues of these AOTs, both dated March 6, 2003, were referenced as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions in the original NPRM. The original issue of French airworthiness directive, 2003-149(B), dated April 16, 2003, was also referenced in the original NPRM.) These AOTs describe procedures for doing a one-time detailed inspection for breaks of the bottom flange fitting of the RAT; replacing it with a new aluminum or steel part, if necessary; and doing an adjustment of the ejection jack. The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile

(DGAC)classified these AOTs as mandatory. Airbus has also issued Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57-0244, dated March 4, 2005; A300-57-6099, dated February 23, 2005; and A310-57-2086, dated March 1, 2005. These service bulletins describe procedures for replacing the existing aluminum swivel coupling fork fitting with a new steel part. The procedures in Service Bulletin A300-57-0244 apply to airplanes equipped with Dowty Rotol RATs. The procedures in Airbus Service Bulletins A300-57-6099 and A310-57-2086 apply to airplanes with Dowty Rotol or Sundstrand RATs. Airbus has also issued Temporary Revision

(TR)29-015, dated April 12, 2005, to the Airbus A300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual

(AMM)Chapter 29-25-00. Airbus has also issued revisions to the following AMM chapters: A300-600 AMM 29-25-00, and A310 AMM 29-25-00; each dated June 1, 2005. The TR and AMM chapters specify an inspection for breaks of the bottom flange of the RAT swivel coupling yoke fitting after each RAT retraction; replacement of the RAT swivel coupling yoke fitting with a new part if necessary; adjustment of the RAT extension jack if necessary; and adjustment of the RAT mechanical control system. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued the following French airworthiness directives to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France: F-2003-149 R1, dated June 8, 2005 (which changes the repetitive inspection in the AOTs to a one-time inspection); F-2005-089, dated June 8, 2005; and F-2005-090 R1, dated July 6, 2005. Comments We have given due consideration to the comments received in response to the original NPRM. Request To Remove Repetitive Inspection Requirement FedEx states that it has inspected 90 airplanes of its affected fleet and has not found any cases of cracks in the flange fitting for the RAT. FedEx further states that it has incorporated Airbus's advice to prevent overstressing the fitting by performing a check for overfilling of the RAT jack fluid level. FedEx suggests that, based on its own experience with its own airplanes that range from 6,500 flight hours to 53,000 flight hours, the repetitive inspections proposed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the original NPRM may not be necessary. FedEx does not object to the one-time inspection proposed in paragraph

(b)of the original NPRM. We partially agree. As discussed previously, Airbus has issued TRs to the A300, A300-600, and A310 AMMs to revise the maintenance programs. These TRs include the task of a detailed inspection of the fork fitting at each maintenance of the RAT, which includes an inspection after each RAT extension. This supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) proposes to require incorporating this new AMM task into the operator's FAA-approved maintenance program. We have determined that inspections accomplished at the interval of RAT maintenance actions are more appropriate than the 600 flight-hour interval proposed by the NPRM in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2). We have removed the repetitive inspection requirements from paragraph

(a)of the SNPRM (paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the NPRM). We have replaced these repetitive inspection requirements with a proposal in paragraph

(c)to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to include a new AMM task that specifies a detailed inspection after each RAT extension. Request To Lengthen Repetitive Inspection Intervals UPS requests that we lengthen the repetitive inspection intervals from intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours, to an interval of every 30 months. UPS states that this interval coincides with the existing mandatory checks of the RAT system. As noted above, we have removed the repetitive inspection requirements from the SNPRM. Also as stated above, the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the NPRM have been removed and therefore the SNPRM has been revised relative to the NPRM. Request To Lengthen Initial Inspection Threshold The Air Transportation Association and American Airlines request that we extend the compliance time for doing the initial inspection of the yoke fitting. The commenters propose that we extend the compliance time for doing the initial inspection from the earlier of 600 flight hours or 3 months, to 6 months. American Airlines explains that it did the initial inspection on its A300-600 fleet in 2003, but found no cracks during this initial inspection; however, American Airlines notes that it experienced delays in doing the initial inspection because replacement parts for the yoke fitting were not available. American Airlines points out that in order to avoid grounding airplanes, operators will need to establish inventories of yoke fittings at field and main base maintenance stations before they do the initial inspection. The commenters therefore suggest that the extended compliance time for the initial inspection would allow operators to acquire replacement parts. The commenters state that, given the lack of findings in 2003, the extension should not present significant additional risk. We agree. Since we issued the original NPRM, the DGAC and Airbus have re-assessed the risk based on fleet reports from the original inspections that the DGAC specified through its airworthiness directive F-2003-149(B), dated April 16, 2003, which was cited in the original NPRM. Extending the compliance time will not adversely affect safety. We have revised paragraph

(a)of the SNPRM to propose a new compliance time of the earlier of 1,300 flight hours, or 6 months after the effective date of the proposed AD. Request To Include Adjustment of Ejection Jack Length as Terminating Action for Inspections UPS proposes that removing the ejection jack from the airplane and returning it to a component shop for verification of proper length and adjustment if necessary, would be sufficient to provide terminating actions for the repetitive inspections. UPS states that preliminary indications show that an overlength ejection jack is at the root of the failed yoke fittings, and that by ensuring proper length, the conditions for yoke fitting failures would be eliminated. We partially agree. We agree that the root cause of the failed yoke fittings is overstress during the extension of an incorrectly adjusted RAT ejection jack. We disagree that sending the ejection jack to a component shop for verification and adjustment would eliminate the conditions for yoke fitting failures and thus eliminate the need for repetitive inspections. The RAT must be retracted after each extension using the AMM procedure that includes adjusting the ejection jack to ensure that the proper adjustment remains. Sending the jack away for adjustment and verification would not ensure that the correct length would still remain for subsequent RAT extensions. Repetitive inspections would still be specified in accordance with the revised AMM task after each RAT extension. Explanation of Change to Applicability We have revised the applicability of this supplemental NPRM to be consistent with the effectivity of the French airworthiness directives listed in Note 5 of this supplemental NPRM. Clarification of Inspection Terminology In this proposed AD, the “inspection” specified in the AMM chapters, and the “detailed visual inspection” specified in the AOTs, is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the proposed AD. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance

(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Explanation of Removed Reporting Requirement We have removed the inspection report proposed in paragraph

(c)of the NPRM. The preamble of the NPRM stated that the manufacturer was analyzing these inspection reports in order to obtain better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the damage, and eventually to develop a final action to address the unsafe condition. This SNPRM addresses that final action. Explanation of Change to Cost Impact After the existing AD was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. Conclusion Since this change expands the scope of the originally proposed rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment. Cost Impact The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. There are approximately 165 airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Detailed Inspection 1 $80 $0 $80 AMM Revision 1 80 0 80 Replacement with Steel Fork Fitting 6 80 470 950 The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Impact The regulations proposed herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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)if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **Airbus:** Docket 2003-NM-123-AD. *Applicability:* Model A300 airplanes; A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F series airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes); and A310 airplanes; certificated in any category. *Compliance:* Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. To prevent failure of the ram air turbine

(RAT)yoke fitting, which could result in the loss of RAT function and possible loss of critical flight control in the event of certain emergency situations, accomplish the following: Detailed Inspections and Replacement

(a)Within 1,300 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: For all airplanes, do a detailed inspection for breaks of the bottom flange fitting of the yoke fitting for the RAT swivel coupling in accordance with the applicable All Operators Telex

(AOT)in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD. If the flange fitting is broken, before further flight, replace the flange fitting with a new flange fitting in accordance with the applicable AOT. For Model A300 airplanes, A300-600 series airplanes, and A310 airplanes, equipped with Hamilton Sundstrand RATs, verify the adjustment of the ejection jack, and correct the adjustment as applicable.

(1)For Model A300 airplanes: Airbus A300 AOT 57A0241, dated March 6, 2003.

(2)For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Airbus A300-600 AOT 57A6096, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2005.

(3)For Model A310 airplanes: Airbus A310 AOT 57A2085, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2005. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”

(b)For Model A300 airplanes, A300-600 series airplanes, and A310 airplanes equipped with Dowty Rotol RATs, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 12986 has been done: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the RAT swivel coupling fork fitting with a new steel fitting, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0244, dated March 4, 2005 (for Model A300 series airplanes); A300-57-6099, dated February 23, 2005 (for Model A300-600 airplanes); or A310-57-2086, dated March 1, 2005 (for Model A310 airplanes); as applicable. Revisions

(c)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Incorporate the information in the applicable airplane maintenance manual

(AMM)specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, and the Airbus temporary revision

(TR)specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD, into the FAA-approved maintenance program to specify an inspection for breaks of the bottom flange of the RAT swivel coupling yoke fitting after each RAT extension; and replacement of the RAT swivel coupling yoke fitting with a new aluminum part as applicable; in accordance with method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent). The page blocks specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, as applicable, are one approved method for the actions required by paragraph

(c)of this AD. Thereafter, except as provided by paragraph

(e)of this AD, no alternative inspection intervals may be approved for the bottom flange of the RAT swivel coupling yoke fitting.

(1)Airbus A300-600 AMM, Chapter 29-25-00, Page Block 301, dated June 1, 2005.

(2)Airbus A310 AMM, Chapter 29-25-00, Page Block 301, dated June 1, 2005.

(3)Airbus TR 29-015, dated April 12, 2005, to the Airworthiness Limitations

(AWL)section of the Airbus A300 AMM, Chapter 29-25-00. Note 2: After revising the maintenance program to include the required periodic inspections according to this paragraph, operators do not need to make a maintenance log entry to show compliance with this AD every time those inspections are accomplished thereafter. Note 3: The actions required by paragraph (c)(3) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of TR 29-015 into the AWL section of the Airbus A300 AMM, Chapter 29-25-00. When this TR has been included in general revisions of the AMM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AMM, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in TR 29-015. Note 4: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph

(e)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular

(AC)25-1529. Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously

(d)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus AOT 57A6096, dated March 6, 2003; or Airbus AOT 57A2085, dated March 6, 2003; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action in paragraph

(a)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (e)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directives F-2005-089, dated June 8, 2005; F-2005-090 R1, dated July 6, 2005; and F-2003-149 R1, dated June 8, 2005. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-7003 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24695; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-035-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, and 747SR Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, and 747SR series airplanes. This proposed AD would require doing repetitive inspections of engine struts 1 through 4, as applicable, for heat discoloration, cracking, buckling, or wrinkling. This proposed AD also would require a conductivity test to detect the extent of the heat damage and an inspection to detect cracking of the heat-discolored, buckled, or wrinkled area; and repair; if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of heat damage and cracking of the skin and internal structure adjacent to and aft of the precooler exhaust vent on several engine struts. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking, buckling, wrinkling, or heat damage of the skin and internal structure of the engine struts, which could result in extensive damage to the engine struts and consequent possible separation of an engine from the airplane during flight. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Governmentwide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

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

(425)917-6437; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-24695; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-035-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received reports of heat damage and cracking of the skin and internal structure adjacent to and aft of the precooler exhaust vent on 14 engine struts on in-service airplanes. These airplanes had the terminating modification specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54-2163 incorporated, which installed external titanium doublers and internal frame reinforcement to originally address high-temperature air from the precooler exhaust vent of the engine struts. However, the reported damage has occurred in unmodified areas, as well as modified areas. High-temperature air from the precooler exhaust vent could heat up and potentially anneal (reducing the strength) the skin and internal structure of the engine struts, which could result in cracking, buckling, wrinkling, or heat damage of the skin and internal structure of the engine struts. Such cracking, buckling, wrinkling, or heat damage, if not detected and corrected, could result in extensive damage to the engine strut and consequent possible separation of an engine from the airplane during flight. Other Relevant Rulemaking We have previously issued AD 95-13-07, amendment 39-9287 (60 FR 33336, June 28, 1995), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That AD requires modifications of the nacelle strut and wing structure, inspections and checks to detect discrepancies, and correction of discrepancies. The actions required by that AD must be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2158, dated November 30, 1994. That service bulletin refers to several service bulletins as additional sources of service information for doing the actions required by AD 95-13-07. One of those additional sources is Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54-2163. We have determined that the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54-2163 continue to prevent failure of the strut and subsequent loss of the engine. Therefore, this proposed AD would not affect the requirements of AD 95-13-07. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-54-2223, dated January 26, 2006. The service bulletin describes the following procedures: • Doing repetitive detailed inspections of engine struts 1 through 4, as applicable, for heat discoloration, cracking, buckling, or wrinkling; • Doing a conductivity test to detect the extent of the heat damage and a penetrant inspection or high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)inspection to detect cracking of the heat-discolored, buckled, or wrinkled area, if necessary; • Contacting Boeing for repair instructions if necessary. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance There are about 112 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 33 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed detailed inspections would take about 4 or 8 work hours per airplane (depending on the airplane configuration), at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $10,560 or $21,120, or $320 or $640 per airplane, per inspection cycle (depending on the airplane configuration). Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24695; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-035-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 23, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-54-2223, dated January 26, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of heat damage and cracking of the skin and internal structure adjacent to and aft of the precooler exhaust vent on several engine struts on in-service airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking, buckling, wrinkling, or heat damage of the skin and internal structure of the engine struts, which could result in extensive damage to the engine struts and consequent possible separation of an engine from the airplane during flight. Compliance

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

(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-54-2223, dated January 26, 2006. Repetitive Detailed Inspections

(g)Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of engine struts 1 through 4, as applicable, for heat discoloration, cracking, buckling, or wrinkling, in accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months. Corrective Actions

(h)If any heat discoloration, buckling, or wrinkling is found during any detailed inspection required by paragraph

(g)of this AD, before further flight, do a conductivity test to detect the extent of the heat damage and a penetrant inspection or high frequency eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the heat-discolored, buckled, or wrinkled area, in accordance with the service bulletin.

(1)If the conductivity test results are within the limits specified in the service bulletin and no cracking is detected, before further flight, repair any buckled or wrinkled area using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD. Heat discoloration does not need to be repaired if the conductivity test results of the heat-discolored area are within the specified limits in the service bulletin.

(2)If the conductivity test results are outside the limits specified in the service bulletin or if any cracking is detected, before further flight, repair any cracking, heat discoloration, or buckled or wrinkled area using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD.

(i)If any cracking is found during any detailed inspection required by paragraph

(g)of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-7016 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23673; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-233-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)that proposed a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The proposed AD would have required inspecting to determine the part number of the ailerons. For airplanes with affected aileron part numbers, the proposed AD would have required reworking the aileron damper fitting, and for certain airplanes, replacing the rod end of the aileron damper assembly with an improved rod end. Since the proposed AD was issued, we have received new data indicating that there is no unsafe condition associated with structural failure of the rod end of the aileron damper. Accordingly, the proposed AD is withdrawn. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2006-23673; the directorate identifier for this docket is 2005-NM-233-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for a new AD for all EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 25, 2006 (71 FR 4067). The NPRM would have required inspecting to determine the part number of the ailerons. For airplanes with affected aileron part numbers, the NPRM would have required reworking the aileron damper fitting. Also, for certain airplanes, the NPRM would have required replacing the rod end of the aileron damper assembly with an improved rod end. The NPRM resulted from reports of structural failure of the rod end of the aileron damper, which was caused by insufficient clearance between the lugs of the aileron damper fitting and the rod end of the aileron damper. The proposed actions were intended to prevent failure of the aileron damper, which could result in failure of the aileron actuator and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Comments EMBRAER requests that we withdraw the NPRM. EMBRAER points out that the unsafe condition stated in the NPRM (failure of the aileron damper, which could result in failure of the aileron actuator and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane) is incorrect. While the NPRM was intended to address reports of structural failure of the rod end of the aileron damper, there is no unsafe condition caused by such a failure. The aileron damper was introduced to improve safety by increasing redundancy: the aileron damper prevents vibration of the aileron surface in the event of failure of both rods of the aileron power control actuator (PCA). Failure of the rod end of the aileron damper and subsequent failure of the aileron damper will not cause vibration of the aileron surface. Further, while failure of the rod ends of the aileron PCA could result in reduced controllability of the airplane, this unsafe condition is already addressed by another action. EMBRAER notes that the FAA has previously issued AD 99-05-04 (64 FR 13894, March 23, 1999). That AD requires inspections to detect and correct cracking or failure of the rod ends of the aileron PCA on all EMBRAER Model EMB-145 series airplanes. EMBRAER further states that repetitive inspections of the aileron damper rod ends and fitting lugs for integrity and general condition are specified as a Certification Maintenance Requirement (for Model EMB-135 airplanes) and a System Inspection Requirement (for Model EMB-145 airplanes). The failures of the aileron damper rod ends that prompted the NRPM were discovered during inspections performed under these requirements. We agree with the commenter's request to withdraw the NPRM. EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0108, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2005, which the NPRM references as the appropriate source of service information for the required actions, was issued to correct insufficient clearance between the lugs of the aileron damper fitting and the rod end of the aileron damper. We have coordinated with EMBRAER and have determined that the actions in that service bulletin are not intended to address an unsafe condition. Doing those actions may provide an economic benefit to operators by preventing the need for an expensive repair in the event that damage is detected during routine inspections. Since there is no unsafe condition, the proposed AD is unnecessary. FAA's Conclusions Upon further consideration, we have determined that there is no unsafe condition associated with structural failure of the rod end of the aileron damper. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn. Withdrawal of the NPRM does not preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA to any course of action in the future. Regulatory Impact Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Withdrawal Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2006-23673, Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-233-AD, which was published in the **Federal Register** on January 25, 2006 (71 FR 4067). Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-7015 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24092; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-18-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2003-09-01, which applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd (Pilatus) Model PC-6 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN)up to and including 939. AD 2003-09-01 currently requires you to inspect and correct, as necessary, the aileron control bellcrank assemblies at the wing and fuselage locations. Since we issued AD 2003-09-01, the FAA determined the action should also apply to all the models of the PC-6 airplanes listed in the type certification data sheet of Type Certificate

(TC)No. 7A15 that are produced in the United States through a licensing agreement between Pilatus and Fairchild Republic Company (also identified as Fairchild Industries, Fairchild Heli Porter, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation). In addition, the intent of the applicability of AD 2003-09-01 was to all the affected serial numbers of the airplane models listed in TC No. 7A15. Consequently, this proposed AD would retain all the actions of AD 2003-09-01, would add those Fairchild Republic Company airplanes to the applicability of this proposed AD, and would list out the individual specific airplane models. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct increased friction in the aileron control bellcrank assemblies, which could result in failure of the aileron flight-control system. Such failure could lead to problems in controlling flight. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 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. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 63 19; facsimile: +41 41 619 6224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4059; facsimile:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-24092; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-18-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion Mandatory continuing airworthiness information and the FAA's determination that an unsafe condition existed on a Pilatus Model PC-6 airplane caused us to issue AD 2003-09-01, Amendment 39-13130 (68 FR 22582, April 29, 2003). AD 2003-09-01 currently requires you to inspect and correct, as necessary, the aileron control bellcrank assemblies at the wing and fuselage locations on Pilatus Model PC-6 airplanes. The Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Switzerland, notified the FAA of the need to supersede AD 2003-09-01 to address an unsafe condition that may exist or could develop on Model PC-6 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN)up to and including 939. The FOCA reports that the AD action should also apply to all the models of the PC-6 airplanes listed in the type certification data sheet of TC No. 7A15 produced in the United States through a licensing agreement between Pilatus and Fairchild Republic Company (also identified as Fairchild Industries, Fairchild Heli Porter, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation). This condition, if not corrected, could result in increased friction in the aileron control bellcrank assemblies, which could result in failure of the aileron flight-control system. Such failure could lead to problems in controlling flight. Foreign Airworthiness Authority Information The FOCA recently issued Swiss AD Number HB 2005-289, effective date August 23, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of all models of the PC-6 airplanes listed in TC No. 7A15, including those produced in the United States under a licensing agreement with Pilatus and Fairchild Republic Company (also identified as Fairchild Industries, Fairchild Heli Porter, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation). The State of Design for the Pilatus PC-6 airplanes is Switzerland and the airplanes are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the FOCA has kept us informed of the situation described above. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we have examined the FOCA's findings, evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2003-09-01 with a new AD that would retain all the actions of AD 2003-09-01 and would: • Add manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN)2001 through 2092 for all the models of the PC-6 airplanes as listed in TC No. 7A15 and specified in the applicability section. These MSN are the airplanes produced in the United States through a licensing agreement with the Fairchild Republic Company; and • List all the models of the PC-6 airplanes as listed in TC No. 7A15. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 49 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection and modifications: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 7 work hours × $80 per hour = $560 $300 $860 $860 × 49 = $42,140. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(AD)2003-09-01, Amendment 39-13130, and adding the following new AD: **Pilatus Aircraft LTD.:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24092; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-18-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by June 9, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-09-01, Amendment 39-13130. Applicability

(c)This AD affects the following Models PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes that are equipped with turbo-prop engines and are certificated in any category:

(1)*Group 1* (maintains the actions from AD 2003-09-01): All manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN)up to and including 939.

(2)*Group 2:* MSN 2001 through 2092. Note: These airplanes are also identified as Fairchild Republic Company PC-6 airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter PC-6 airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation PC-6 airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Switzerland that requires retaining the actions of AD 2003-09-01 and adding MSN 2001 through 2092 for all the models of the PC-6 airplanes listed in the type certificate data sheet of Type Certificate

(TC)No. 7A15. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct increased friction in the aileron control bellcrank assemblies, which could result in failure of the aileron flight-control system. Such failure could lead to problems in controlling flight. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures

(1)Inspect, before removal of the wing bellcrank assemblies, part numbers (P/N) 6132.0071.51 and 6132.0071.52, for installed circlips, P/N N237:

(i)If circlips are installed, do the actions required in paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6) of this AD

(ii)If circlips are not installed, perform all actions required by paragraphs (e)(3), (e)(4), (e)(5), (e)(6), and (e)(7) of this AD

(A)*For Group 1 Airplanes:* Within the next 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after June 17, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-09-01), unless already done

(B)*For Group 2 Airplanes:* Within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, unless already done Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 27-001, dated June 5, 2002.

(2)Inspect, before removal of the fuselage bellcrank assembly, P/N 6232.0118.00, for the circlip installed on the housing to prevent axial movement of the bellcrank on its bearing and the flange of the housing to the rear. If the fuselage bellcrank assembly has either no circlip and/or it is not installed as required, perform the actions in paragraphs (e)(8) and (e)(9) of this AD Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 27-001, dated June 5, 2002.

(3)Remove the wing bellcrank assemblies, P/Ns 6132.0071.51 and 6132.0071.52, and inspect for worn or damaged bearings. Replace worn or damaged bearings Before further flight after the inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD, as applicable Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 27-001, dated June 5, 2002.

(4)Stake and lock the bearing in the housing of the wing bellcranks, P/Ns 6132.0071.51 and 6132.0071.52 Before further flight after the inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD, as applicable Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 27-001, dated June 5, 2002.

(5)Inspect the wing bellcranks control-cable attachment bolts for correct type and for signs of rub damage on the heads. Replace bolts that are damaged and/or have a total length (including head) of more than 21.5 mm (0.85 in.) Before further flight after the inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 27-001, dated June 5, 2002.

(6)Inspect the wing bellcranks support plate for signs of rub damage caused by the bolts. If damage is found:

(i)Obtain a repair scheme from the manufacturer through FAA at the address specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD

(ii)Incorporate this repair scheme. Before further flight after the inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 27-001, dated June 5, 2002.

(7)Reinstall wing bellcrank assemblies Before further flight after the inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 27-001, dated June 5, 2002.

(8)Remove the fuselage bellcrank assembly, P/N 6232.0118.00, and inspect the housing for wear, damage, and signs of axial movement of the bearing in the housing. Replace worn or damaged bearings. If any signs of axial movement of a bearing are found:

(i)Obtain a repair scheme from the manufacturer through FAA at the address specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD

(9)Reinstall the fuselage bellcrank assembly. Ensure that the fuselage bellcrank assembly is installed so that the surface of the bellcrank with the flange of the housing is installed to the rear. The effect of this is to lock the bellcrank on the bearing tube and thus prevent movement Before further flight after the inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2) and (e)(8) of this AD Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 27-001, dated June 5, 2002.

(10)Do not install any bellcrank assemblies, P/Ns 6132.0071.51, 6132,0071.52, and 6232.0118.00 (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers), unless the aileron assembly has been inspected, modified, and installed

(A)*For Group 1 Airplanes:* As of June 17, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-09-01)

(B)*For Group 2 Airplanes:* As of the effective date of this AD Follow Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 27-001, dated June 5, 2002. Note 1: Axial movement of serviceable bearings in the housings of the wing bellcranks is permitted provided no wear or damage to the bearing is found. Note 2: Any signs of axial movement of a bearing in the housing of the fuselage bellcrank assembly requires that you obtain a repair scheme from the manufacturer through FAA at the address specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD and incorporate the repair scheme. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Standards Office, ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4059; facsimile:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(g)AMOCs approved for AD 2003-09-01 are approved for this AD. Related Information

(h)To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 63 19; facsimile: +41 41 619 6224. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-24092; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-18-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 3, 2006. Barry R. Ballenger, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-7017 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0342; FRL-8167-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, Conformity Budgets, Emissions Inventories; State of New Jersey AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of New Jersey. This revision will establish an updated ten-year carbon monoxide

(CO)maintenance plan for the Nine Not-Classified Areas in the State (the City of Atlantic City, the City of Burlington, the Borough of Freehold, the Town of Morristown, the Borough of Penns Grove, the City of Perth Amboy, the Borough of Somerville, the Toms River Area, and the City of Trenton) and Camden County. In addition, this document proposes to approve revisions to the CO, NO X , VOC, and PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets for Northern New Jersey. Finally, this document also proposes to approve revisions to the general conformity budget for McGuire Air Force Base and the 2002 base year emissions inventory. The Nine Not Classified Areas and Camden County were redesignated to attainment of the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on February 5, 1996 and maintenance plans were also approved at that time. By this action, EPA is proposing to approve the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's (New Jersey) second maintenance plans for these areas because they provide for continued attainment for an additional ten years of the CO NAAQS. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0342, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.* • Fax: 212-637-3901. • Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. • Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0342. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry Feingersh *feingersh.henry@epa.gov* for general questions, Raymond Forde *forde.raymond@epa.gov* for emissions inventory questions, or Matthew Laurita *laurita.matthew@epa.gov* for mobile source related questions at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, telephone number

(212)637-4249, fax number

(212)637-3901. Copies of the State submittals are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Energy, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 401 East State Street, CN027, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is being proposed under a procedure called parallel processing. Under parallel processing, EPA proposes action on a state submission before it has been formally adopted and submitted to EPA, and then EPA will take final action on its proposal if:

(1)The state's final submission is substantially unchanged from the submission on which this proposal is based, or

(2)if significant changes in the state's final submission are anticipated and adequately described in EPA's proposal as a basis for EPA's proposed action. EPA views the SIP revisions proposed in today's proposal as separable actions. This means that if EPA receives adverse comments on particular portions of this notice and not on other portions, EPA may choose not to take final action at the same time in a single notice on all of these SIP revisions. Instead, EPA may choose to take final action on these SIP revisions in separate notices. For detailed information on New Jersey's SIP revisions see the Technical Support Document, prepared in support of today's proposed action. A copy of the TSD is available upon request from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section or it can be viewed at *http://www.regulations.gov.* The following table of contents describes the format for this section: I. What Is the Nature of EPA's Action? II. CO Limited Maintenance Plan for Camden County and Nine Not-Classified Areas A. What Is a Limited Maintenance Plan? B. What Is included in a Maintenance Plan? 1. Attainment Inventory 2. Maintenance Demonstration 3. Monitoring Network 4. Verification of Continued Attainment 5. Contingency Plan a. Control Measures b. Contingency Measures 6. Conformity III. Revisions To the CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Northern New Jersey A. Are these budgets approvable? IV. Revisions To the NO X and VOC Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Northern New Jersey A. Are the Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Consistent With New Jersey's 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration? B. Are these budgets approvable? V. PM 2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Northern New Jersey A. Are These Budgets Approvable? VI. Revisions to the General Conformity Budget for McGuire Air Force Base A. Are these budgets approvable? VII. New Jersey Emissions Inventory A. 2002 Base Year Inventory B. 2009 Projection Year Inventory VIII. Conclusions IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is the Nature of EPA's Action? EPA is proposing to approve an updated ten-year CO maintenance plan for the Nine Not-Classified Areas (the City of Atlantic City, the City of Burlington, the Borough of Freehold, the Town of Morristown, the Borough of Penns Grove, the City of Perth Amboy, the Borough of Somerville, the Toms River Area, and the City of Trenton) and Camden County in New Jersey. On June 28, 1996, the EPA approved a request from New Jersey to redesignate the Nine Not-Classified Areas and Camden County to attainment of the CO NAAQS (61 FR 33678). In addition, the EPA also approved at that time a ten-year CO maintenance plan for each of those areas. The Clean Air Act (the Act) requires that an area redesignated to attainment of the CO NAAQS must submit a second ten-year CO maintenance Plan to show how the area will continue to attain the CO standard for an additional ten years. On February 21, 2006, New Jersey submitted a second ten-year CO maintenance plan for the Nine Not-Classified Areas and Camden County and requested that EPA approve the plan. The following sections describe how the EPA made its determination proposing to approve the second ten-year maintenance plan. EPA is also proposing to approve revisions to the CO, NO X , VOC, and PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets for Northern New Jersey. Finally, EPA also proposes to approve revisions to the general conformity budget for McGuire Air Force Base and the 2002 base year emissions inventory. These additional SIP revisions are discussed in sections III through VII. II. CO Limited Maintenance Plan for Camden County and Nine Not-Classified Areas A. What is a Limited Maintenance Plan? A maintenance plan is a SIP revision that must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS in the maintenance area for at least ten years. The Act requires that a second ten-year plan be submitted in order to assure that the area will continue to stay in compliance with the relevant NAAQS. For the Nine Not Classified Areas and Camden County, New Jersey is proposing to utilize EPA's limited maintenance plan approach, as detailed in the EPA guidance memorandum, “Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas” from Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995. Pursuant to this approach, EPA will consider the maintenance demonstration satisfied for “not classified” areas if the monitoring data show the design value is at or below 7.65 parts per million (ppm), or 85 percent of the level of the 8-hour CO NAAQS. The design value must be based on eight consecutive quarters of data. For such areas, there is no requirement to project emissions of air quality over the maintenance period. EPA believes if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 85 percent of the CO 8 hour NAAQS, the applicability of PSD requirements, the control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures, should provide adequate assurance of maintenance over the initial 10-year maintenance period. In addition, the design value for the area must continue to be at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA action on the redesignation. B. What Is Included in a Maintenance Plan? Section 175A of the Act sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The initial and subsequent ten-year plans must each demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after approval. In this notice, EPA is proposing action on the second ten-year maintenance plan which covers the period from 2008 to 2017. The specific elements of a maintenance plan are: 1. Attainment Inventory Since New Jersey's first ten-year maintenance plan contained an attainment inventory, this second ten-year maintenance plan did not need to include another one. However, given the amount of time that has passed since that submittal, New Jersey thought it more appropriate to submit a 2002 inventory which is discussed later in this notice. Since this was a Limited Maintenance Plan submittal, no projected inventories were required. EPA's October 6, 1995 Limited Maintenance Plan guidance states that for inventory purposes the State is only required to submit an attainment inventory to EPA that is based on monitoring data which shows attainment. There is no requirement to project emissions over the maintenance period. This means if 2002 is a calendar year which has monitoring data which demonstrates attainment of the standard, the 2002 base year inventory can be used as the attainment year inventory and no projection inventories are required over the years of the maintenance period. Only calendar year 2002 summary emissions data (based on winter season day) are required. In addition, the inventory should be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emission inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time and should include emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. New Jersey submitted a limited maintenance plan which included a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The 2002 inventory is also classified as the attainment year inventory for the limited maintenance plan. New Jersey has elected 2002 because it is the attainment year base year that will be used for the limited maintenance plan and 2002 represents one of the years of violation free monitored data in the area. The inventory included peak winter season daily emissions from stationary point, stationary area, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources of CO. These emission estimates were prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. EPA is approving the CO inventory for the counties of Atlantic, Burlington, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Salem and Somerset (the 9 non-classified areas) and Camden County. Details of the inventory review are located in section VII.A. of this notice. A more detailed discussion of how the emission inventory was reviewed and the results are presented in the technical support document. Tables 1 and 2 present a summary of the 2002 CO peak winter season daily emissions estimates in tons per day for the nine not classified areas and Camden County: Table 1.—2002 Attainment Inventory Nine Not Classified Areas Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventory [Tons/peak winter season day] County Point Area Nonroad mobile Onroad mobile Total Atlantic 0.48 62.98 21.57 153.15 238.18 Burlington 1.42 59.62 54.00 308.90 423.94 Mercer 1.46 14.32 43.01 224.90 283.69 Middlesex 8.27 6.34 107.85 531.04 653.50 Monmouth 0.72 30.42 78.43 423.04 532.61 Morris 1.23 46.59 97.30 393.14 538.26 Ocean 1.11 47.69 40.31 257.31 346.42 Salem 2.21 13.72 6.97 50.24 73.14 Somerset 1.17 11.65 47.55 211.93 272.30 Nine Not Classified Areas Total 18.07 293.33 496.99 2,553.65 3,362.04 Table 2.—2002 Attainment Inventory Camden County Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventory [Tons/peak winter season day] County Point Area Nonroad mobile Onroad mobile Camden 3.30 18.42 53.39 269.10 2. Maintenance Demonstration New Jersey has met the Limited Maintenance Plan air quality criteria requirement by demonstrating that its highest monitored design value is less than 85 percent (7.65 parts per million) of the CO standard of 9.0 parts per million. The highest monitored design value for the 2002-2003 design year was 4.4 parts per million. In addition, New Jersey commits to continued implementation of all other federal and State measures already implemented as part of its CO SIP. Thus, according to the Limited Maintenance Guidance, emission projections are not required. 3. Monitoring Network New Jersey continues to operate its CO monitoring network and will continue to work with the USEPA through the air monitoring network review process as required by 40 CFR part 58 to determine the adequacy of its network. New Jersey will continue annual reviews of its data in order to verify continued attainment of the NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, all of New Jersey's 8-hour design values are well below the 9.0 ppm 8-hour NAAQS for CO with the highest monitor reading 4.4 ppm. This can be seen in Table 3. Table 3.—Design Values for CO in New Jersey [8-hour standard—9 parts per million] Monitoring location 2002-2003 design value (parts per million) Ancora S.H. 0.8 Burlington 2.5 Camden Lab 1 2.1 East Orange 4.2 Elizabeth 4.4 Elizabeth Lab 3.1 Fort Lee 2 2.6 Freehold 2.2 Hackensack 3.4 Jersey City 2.9 Morristown 2.4 Newark Lab 3 2.9 Perth Amboy 2.5 Notes: 1 Data not available October-December 2003. 2 Data not available July-August 2002. 3 Data not available July-December 2003. In its SIP revision, New Jersey used the 2002-2003 design values since they coincide with the 2002 emissions inventory. EPA reviewed more recent data in addition to the 2002-2003 data and found the maximum 2004-2005 design value for New Jersey to be 3.4 ppm, which continues to show attainment of the NAAQS. 4. Verification of Continued Attainment New Jersey will verify that the Nine Not-Classified Areas and Camden County areas continue to attain the CO NAAQS through an annual review of its monitoring data. If any design value exceeds 7.65 ppm, New Jersey will coordinate with USEPA Region II to verify and evaluate the data and then, if warranted, develop a full maintenance plan for the affected maintenance area. 5. Contingency Plan Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include a contingency plan which includes contingency measures, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. Contingency measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a specified event. In addition, the contingency plan includes a requirement that the State continue to implement all control measures used to bring the area into attainment. The triggers specified in New Jersey's previous maintenance plan are included in this Limited Maintenance Plan. If air quality monitoring data indicate that the CO NAAQS were exceeded, New Jersey will analyze the data to determine the cause of the violation. If it is determined that the violation was caused by a non-local motor vehicle usage event, then the State will institute the contingency measures described below. a. Control Measures New Jersey has implemented a number of measures to control motor vehicle CO emissions. Emission reductions achieved through the implementation of these control measures are enforceable. These measures include the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, Federal reformulated gasoline, New Jersey's pre-1990 modifications to its inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and local transportation control measures. The State of New Jersey has demonstrated that actual enforceable emission reductions are responsible for the air quality improvement and that the CO emissions in the base year are not artificially low due to local economic downturn. EPA finds that the combination of existing EPA-approved SIP and Federal measures contribute to the permanence and enforceability of reduction in ambient CO levels that have allowed Camden County to attain the NAAQS since 1990 and the nine not-classified areas to attain since 1986. New Jersey commits to continuing to implement all control measures used to bring the area into attainment. b. Contingency Measure The State plans to continue to use the contingency measure from the original maintenance plan. The plan included implementation of an enhanced I/M program. This program is fully operational and the State commits to meet the performance standard for an enhanced I/M program in an effort to maintain the CO NAAQS. Although the plan is currently in place, EPA guidance allows for it to act as a contingency measure. In addition, since we had approved this measure in the previous maintenance plan, we are proposing to approve it in this notice. 6. Conformity Section 176(c) of the Act defines conformity as meeting the SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. The Act further defines transportation conformity to mean that no Federal transportation activity will:

(1)Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area;

(2)increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or

(3)delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The Federal transportation conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93 subpart A, sets forth the criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects which are developed, funded or approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and by metropolitan planning organizations or other recipients of federal funds under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. chapter 53). The transportation conformity rule applies within all nonattainment and maintenance areas. As prescribed by the Rule, once an area has an applicable SIP with motor vehicle emissions budgets, the expected emissions from planned transportation activities must be consistent with (“conform to”) such established budgets for that area. In the case of the Nine Not Classified Areas and Camden County CO limited maintenance plan areas, however, the emissions budgets may be treated as essentially not constraining for the length of this second maintenance period as long as the area continues to meet the limited maintenance criteria, because there is no reason to expect that these areas will experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result. In other words, emissions from on-road transportation sources need not be capped for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to believe that emissions from such sources would increase to a level that would threaten the air quality in this area for the duration of this maintenance period. Therefore, for the limited maintenance plan CO maintenance area, all Federal actions that require conformity determinations under the transportation conformity rule are considered to satisfy the regional emissions analysis and “budget test” requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 of the rule. Since limited maintenance plan areas are still maintenance areas, however, transportation conformity determinations are still required for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such determinations, transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects must still demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR part 108) and must meet the criteria for consultation and Transportation Control Measure

(TCM)implementation in the conformity rule (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, projects in limited maintenance areas will still be required to meet the criteria for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy “project level” conformity determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123) which must incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models that are available. All aspects of transportation conformity (with the exception of satisfying the emission budget test) will still be required. Approval of the limited maintenance plan will not supersede the current 2007 motor vehicle emissions budget. Conformity determinations conducted prior to the end of 2007 would still have to include a budget test for 2007. If one of the CO attainment areas should monitor CO concentrations at or above the limited maintenance eligibility criteria or 7.65 parts per million then that maintenance area would no longer qualify for a limited maintenance plan and would revert to a full maintenance plan. In this event, the limited maintenance plan would remain applicable for conformity purposes only until the full maintenance plan is submitted and EPA has found its motor vehicle emissions budget adequate for conformity purposes or EPA approves the full maintenance plan SIP revision. At that time regional emissions analyses would resume as a transportation conformity criteria. III. Revisions to the CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Northern New Jersey A. Are These Budgets Approvable? The proposed maintenance plan revises the motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) for CO for the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CO maintenance area for the years 2007 and 2014, previously approved by EPA in the August 30, 2004 **Federal Register** (69 FR 52834). These revised budgets include an allocation of a portion of a “safety margin” established in the CO maintenance plan. A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the air quality health standard. For example, 1996 is the base year of Northern New Jersey's first ten-year maintenance plan, and the safety margin is calculated using the differences between 1996 and future year total emissions. The total emissions in 1996 from mobile, stationary and area sources equaled 1365.31 tons per day of CO. New Jersey projected the CO emissions in Northern New Jersey from all sources for the years 2007 and 2014 to be 997.71 tons per day and 1071.93 tons per day, respectively. The CO safety margin for Northern New Jersey in 2007 and 2014 is calculated to be the difference between the total emissions in 1996 and the total emissions for each of the projected years, 367.60 tons per day for 2007 and 293.38 tons per day for 2014. The 2007 and 2014 CO emission projections reflecting the total of point, area and mobile source reductions are illustrated in Table 4. Table 4.—CO Emissions and Safety Margin Determinations, Northern New Jersey [Tons/day] Source category CO emissions 1996 2007 2014 Total 1365.31 997.71 1071.93 Safety Margin N/A 367.60 293.38 In the submittal the State requested to allocate the entire safety margin to both the 2007 and 2014 budgets. This approach provides the transportation sector with an adequate budget increase for the two future scenario years to account for changes in transportation-related emissions due to updated planning assumptions, while still meeting the requirements of the maintenance plan. The CO motor vehicle emissions budgets that include the safety margin allocations are outlined below in Table 5. Table 5.—Carbon Monoxide Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets [Tons/day] Year Prior motor vehicle emissions budgets Safety margin allocation Final motor vehicle emissions budgets 2007 783.39 367.60 1150 2014 605.63 293.38 899 The planned allowable levels of CO emissions are projected to maintain the area's air quality consistent with the air quality health standard. The safety margin credit can be allocated to the transportation sector while maintaining air quality attainment. The total emission level, even with this allocation, will be below the attainment level, or safety level, and thus is acceptable. These revised CO budgets are consistent with the State's emission baseline, projected inventories for highway mobile sources and use of a margin of safety. EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 and 2014 budgets for CO. IV. Revisions to the NO X and VOC Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Northern New Jersey A. Are the Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Consistent With New Jersey's 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration? New Jersey is proposing to revise the 2005 and 2007 VOC and NO X motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) for the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area by setting new budgets based on updated planning assumptions. These updated budgets apply to the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority. In its proposal, New Jersey included a relative reduction comparison to show that its 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP continues to demonstrate attainment using revised inventories for the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area. New Jersey's attainment demonstration used photochemical grid modeling supplemented with weight of evidence. As such, the State's methodology for the relative reduction comparison consists of comparing the updated on-road mobile inventories with the previously approved (67 FR 5152) inventories for the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area to determine if attainment will still be predicted by the established attainment dates. Specifically, the State calculated the relative reductions (expressed as percent reductions) in ozone precursors between the previous 1996 base year and attainment year inventories. These percent reductions were then compared to the percent reductions between the revised 1996 base year and attainment year inventories. New Jersey's relative reduction comparison shows that for the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area the percent reduction of VOC emissions achieved in the revised inventories is higher than the percent reduction previously calculated, however the percent reduction of NO X emissions achieved in the revised inventories is lower than the percent reduction previously calculated, and thus a slight NO X shortfall is indicated. New Jersey has previously demonstrated in its Rate of Progress SIP, approved by EPA on February 4, 2002 (67 FR 5152), that VOC or NO X emission reductions are equally valuable towards attaining the 1-hour ozone standard. Therefore, New Jersey substituted excess VOC emission reductions for NO X emission reductions, as allowed for under Section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act. To make such an equivalency demonstration, the State converted the percentage changes for VOC and NO X to +14.01 and −6.09 tons per day, respectively. Based on the emission inventories, New Jersey has determined for the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area that approximately 1.29 tons of VOC emissions equals 1 ton of NO X emissions, as the emissions relate to their potential to form ozone. Consistent with EPA's policy on substitution of ozone precursor emission reductions, New Jersey increased the NO X reductions and decreased VOC reductions by their equivalent amounts, resulting in offsetting effects with respect to ozone formation. Thus, the required emission reductions needed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are achieved for the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area, and the SIP continues to demonstrate attainment. New Jersey's proposed SIP revision demonstrates that the new levels of motor vehicle emissions calculated using updated planning assumptions continue to support achievement of the projected attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of 2007 for the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area. B. Are These Budgets Approvable? Table 6 below summarizes New Jersey's revised budgets contained in the proposed SIP revision. These budgets were developed using the latest planning assumptions, including 2005 vehicle registration data, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), speeds, fleet mix, and SIP control measures and are for the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority. The 2005 budgets are revised budgets based on the Reasonable Further Progress plan and the 2007 budgets are revised attainment year budgets. The increase in the NO X budget is attributed to the updated planning assumptions and does not necessarily indicate an actual increase in emissions. As described above, New Jersey, in its proposal, has demonstrated that attainment is not impacted by this revision. Table 6.—Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority [Tons/day] VOC 2005 2007 NO X 2005 2007 Previous 148.27 125.82 253.05 198.34 Updated 146.33 122.53 327.83 256.58 EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the 2005 and 2007 budgets for VOC and NO X for the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority. V. PM 2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Northern New Jersey A. Are these budgets approvable? The proposed early progress PM 2.5 SIP establishes motor vehicle emission budgets for 2009 for the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area. The NY-NJ-CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area and the Northern New Jersey portion thereof is violating the annual PM 2.5 standard, and therefore these budgets are being established for annual emissions of direct PM 2.5 and NO X , a PM 2.5 precursor. Northern New Jersey and the larger nonattainment area are not violating and are significantly below the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard, and EPA believes that the State has deemed that by attaining the annual standard they will continue to meet the 24-hour standard. Therefore, New Jersey did not address or establish budgets for the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard in this SIP revision. These budgets are established for annual emissions of direct PM 2.5 and NO X , a PM 2.5 precursor. Other PM 2.5 precursors (VOC, SO X , and NH 3 ) were not found to be significant by either New Jersey or EPA prior to this submittal and were not included in the motor vehicle emissions budgets. Additionally, fugitive dust emissions, which include re-entrained road dust and transportation-related construction dust, were not found to be significant by either New Jersey or EPA and were not included in the budgets. However, approval of these budgets does not preclude New Jersey or EPA from finding any of the above precursors or fugitive dust to be significant contributors to nonattainment of the PM 2.5 standard in the future. New Jersey may choose to include any or all precursors and fugitive dust in future SIP submittals. EPA allows for the establishment of motor vehicle emission budgets for PM 2.5 prior to the state submitting its first required PM 2.5 SIP (69 FR 40028). These budgets are set through the establishment of an early SIP that meets all the requirements of a SIP submittal, and in which emissions from all sources, when projected from the base to a future year, show some progress toward attainment. EPA has interpreted the phrase “some progress toward attainment” to mean a 5% to 10% reduction in emissions from all sources (69 FR 40019). For this SIP submittal emissions were projected from the 2002 base year to 2009, the attainment year. Submittal of this early progress SIP does not satisfy the requirement to submit a full PM 2.5 attainment SIP. New Jersey may revise the 2009 budgets in the PM 2.5 attainment SIP with appropriate supporting documentation. The total annual emissions in 2002 from mobile, stationary and area sources for Northern New Jersey equaled 13,952 tons per year of direct PM 2.5 and 236,251 tons per year of NO X . New Jersey projected the PM 2.5 and NO X emissions from all sources for 2009 to be 13,049 tons per year of direct PM 2.5 and 159,990 tons per year of NO X . This represents a 6.5% reduction in direct PM 2.5 and a 32.3% reduction in NO X emissions from 2002 to 2009, thereby meeting EPA's 5% to 10% minimum reduction guideline. The 2002 and 2009 emission projections reflecting the point, area and mobile source reductions are illustrated in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7.—Direct PM 2.5 Emissions, NJ Portion of the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area [Tons/year] Source category Direct PM 2.5 emissions 2002 2009 Percent change On-Road 2,220 1,296 −42 Nonroad 3,206 2,788 −13 Stationary 2,790 3,035 9 Area 5,736 5,930 3 Total 13,952 13,049 −6.5 Table 8.—NO X Emissions, NJ Portion of the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area [Tons/year] Source category NO X emissions 2002 2009 Percent change On-Road 137,701 66,004 −52 Nonroad 45,957 37,694 −18 Stationary 34,420 36,804 7 Area 18,173 19,488 7 Total 236,251 159,990 −32.3 A detailed review of the 2002 PM 2.5 and NO X annual emission inventories are covered in section VII. A. of this notice. Tables 11 and 12 present a summary of 2002 PM 2.5 and NO X annual emission estimates by source sector and by county for the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area. In the submittal, the State has established “sub-area budgets” for the two metropolitan planning organizations

(MPO)within the New Jersey portion of the larger PM 2.5 nonattainment area, the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). These sub-area budgets allow each MPO to work independently to demonstrate conformity by meeting its own PM 2.5 and NO X budgets. Each MPO must still verify, however, that the other MPO currently has a conforming long range transportation plan and transportation improvement program

(TIP)prior to making a new plan/TIP conformity determination. The sub-area budgets are listed in Table 9. Table 9.—2009 Sub-Area Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area [Tons/year] MPO Direct PM 2.5 NO X NJTPA 1 1,207 61,676 DVRPC 2 89 4,328 1 Covers Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union Counties. 2 Covers Mercer County only. The proposed 2009 PM 2.5 budgets are consistent with the State's 2002 emission baseline and 2009 projected inventories for highway mobile sources, as described in Sections VII.A. and B. of this notice. EPA is therefore proposing to approve the 2009 sub-area budgets for direct PM 2.5 and NO X , because these budgets meet all applicable requirements. These budgets are currently undergoing a process to find if they are adequate for transportation conformity purposes prior to EPA's final SIP action. Once budgets are deemed adequate, they may be used in making conformity determinations. EPA believes that the proposed 2009 budgets meet EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)) and, through a separate process, is taking comments through April 24, 2006 prior to making an adequacy determination. For more information on the adequacy process please see EPA's adequacy Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm* . The adequacy process is separate from the SIP approval process; therefore, these budgets may be found adequate prior to EPA finalizing any approval action for this SIP. The result of EPA's adequacy finding will be published in the **Federal Register** . VI. Revisions to the General Conformity Budget for McGuire Air Force Base A. Are These Budgets Approvable? New Jersey is proposing to update the 1-hour ozone general conformity emissions budgets for the McGuire Air Force Base previously approved by EPA in the July 23, 2003 **Federal Register** (68 FR 43462). Due to McGuire Air Force Base's vital role in the national defense and need to have operational flexibility in order to meet its present and future emissions, New Jersey is proposing a change to the 2005 emissions budgets. The year 2005 NO X budget is being increased by 450 tons per year and the VOC budget is being decreased by 468 tons per year. This budget will be used in preparation for a new budget to be determined by the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration. New Jersey is proposing this change consistent with EPA's policy on substitution of ozone precursor emission reductions. Based on the emission inventories, New Jersey has determined for the Trenton nonattainment area that approximately 1 ton per year of NO X emissions equals 1.04 tons per year of VOC emissions, as the emissions relate to their potential to form ozone. Thus, increasing NO X and decreasing VOC by their equivalent amounts results in offsetting effects with respect to ozone formation. The VOC emission reduction has been achieved through the implementation of pollution prevention measures. Table 10 below summarizes the revised general conformity budgets. The revised 2005 budgets would apply to 2005 and all future years until new budgets are established based on the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration. EPA is proposing to approve the revised 2005 general conformity emissions budgets. Table 10.—McGuire Air Force Base General Conformity Emissions Budgets Previously approved budgets VOC (tons/year) NO X (tons/year) New budgets VOC (tons/year) NO X (tons/year) 2005 1 1,198 1,084 730 1,534 1 2005 budgets updated such that the increase in NO X is offset by a decrease in VOC, resulting in no expected net increase in ozone formation. VII. New Jersey Emissions Inventory A. 2002 Base Year Inventory On November 18, 2002, EPA designated the 2002 base year inventory as the inventory for SIP planning process to address the pollutants for the eight hour-ozone, PM 2.5 and CO national ambient air quality standards. Identifying the base year gives certainty to States, and the selection of 2002 harmonizes the date for EPA's Consolidated Emissions Reporting rule (See 67 FR 39602 dated June 10, 2002), which requires submission of the ozone, PM 2.5 and CO emission inventories every three years; 2002 is one of the required years for such updates. These requirements allow the EPA, based on the state's progress in reducing emissions, to periodically reassess its policies and air quality standards and revise them as necessary. Most important, the 2002 ozone, PM 2.5 and CO inventories will be used to develop and assess new control strategies that the states will need to submit in their attainment demonstration SIPs for the national ambient air quality standards for ozone, PM 2.5 and CO. The base year inventory plays an important role in modeling demonstrations for areas classified as nonattainment and transport regions. The base year inventory may also serve as part of statewide inventories for purposes of regional modeling in transport areas. For the reasons stated above, EPA would therefore emphasize the importance and benefits of developing comprehensive, current, and accurate 2002 ozone, PM 2.5 and CO emission inventories. There are specific components of an acceptable emission inventory. The emission inventory must meet certain minimum requirements for reporting each source category. Specifically, the source requirements are detailed below. The review process, which is described in supporting documentation, is used to determine that all components of the base year inventory are present. This review also evaluates the level of supporting documentation provided by the state, assesses whether the emissions were developed according to current EPA guidance, and evaluates the quality of the data. The review process is outlined here and consists of 9 points that the inventory must include. For a base year emission inventory to be acceptable, it must pass all of the following acceptance criteria: 1. Evidence that the inventory was quality assured by the state and its implementation documented. 2. The point source inventory was complete. 3. Point source emissions were prepared or calculated according to the current EPA guidance. 4. The area source inventory was complete. 5. The area source emissions were prepared or calculated according to the current EPA guidance. 6. Biogenic emissions were prepared according to current EPA guidance or another approved technique. 7. Non-road mobile emissions were prepared according to current EPA guidance for all of the source categories. 8. The method (e.g., HPMS or a network transportation planning model) used to develop VMT estimates followed EPA guidance. 9. The MOBILE model was correctly used to produce emission factors for each of the vehicle classes. Based on EPA's review, New Jersey satisfied all of EPA's requirements for purposes of providing a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions for ozone, PM 2.5 and CO nonattainment areas. Where applicable, annual emissions are provided for VOC, NO X , CO, PM 2.5 , PM 10 , NH 3 and SO 2 emissions; VOC, NO X and CO peak summer season daily emissions are provided for ozone nonattainment areas and CO peak winter season daily emissions are provided for CO nonattainment areas. The inventory was developed in accordance with *Emission Inventory Guidance for Implementation of ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulation* , dated August 2005. A summary of EPA's review is given below: 1. The Quality Assurance

(QA)plan was implemented for all portions of the inventory. The QA plan included a QA/Quality control

(QC)program for assessing data completeness and standard range checking. Critical data elements relative to the inventory sources were assessed for completeness. QA checks were performed relative to data collection and analysis, and double counting of emissions from point, area and mobile sources. QA/QC checks were conducted to ensure accuracy of units, unit conversions, transposition of figures, and calculations. 2. The inventory is well documented. New Jersey provided documentation detailing the methods used to develop emissions estimates for each category. In addition, New Jersey identified the sources of data used in developing the inventory. 3. The point source emissions are complete in accordance with EPA guidance. 4. The point source emissions were prepared/calculated in accordance with EPA guidance. 5. The area source emissions are complete and were prepared/calculated in accordance with EPA guidance. 6. Biogenic emissions were prepared/calculated using the EPA's Biogenic Emission Inventory System Model version 3.12 in accordance with EPA guidance. 7. Emission estimates for the non-road mobile source categories were correctly based on the latest nonroad mobile model and prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. 8. The method used to develop VMT estimates was in accordance with EPA guidance and was adequately described and documented in the inventory report. 9. Mobile model 6.2.03 was used correctly for each of the vehicle classes. The 2002 base year inventory has been developed in accordance with EPA guidance. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year VOC, NO X , CO, PM 2.5 , PM 10 , NH 3 and SO 2 emission inventories. A more detailed discussion of how the emission inventory was reviewed and the results of the review are presented in the technical support document. Detailed emission inventory development procedures can be found in the following document: * Emission Inventory Guidance for Implementation of ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulation * , dated August 2005. Tables 11 and 12 present a summary of 2002 PM 2.5 and NO X annual emission estimates by source sector and by county for the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area. Tables 13, 14 and 15 present a summary of VOC, NO X and CO peak summer season daily emissions by source sector by county in New Jersey. Tables 16 through 22 present a summary of the 2002 VOC, NO X , CO, PM 2.5 , NH 3 , PM 10 , and SO 2 annual emissions by source sector by county in New Jersey. Section II.B.1, Tables 1 and 2 present CO peak winter season daily emissions. Table 11.—2002 Annual PM 2.5 Base Year Inventory, the New Jersey Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area [In tons/year] County Point Area Nonroad mobile Onroad mobile Bergen 149 537 478 376 Essex 185 411 393 291 Hudson 1,077 269 345 134 Mercer 188 530 203 141 Middlesex 483 467 346 347 Monmouth 55 981 501 244 Morris 39 1,284 280 209 Passaic 19 543 178 141 Somerset 55 441 149 152 Union 540 272 333 185 Total 2,790 5,736 2,788 2,200 Table 12.—2002 Annual NO X Base Year Inventory, the New Jersey Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area [In tons/year] County Point Area Nonroad mobile Onroad mobile Bergen 988 2,815 6,707 23,917 Essex 2,441 2,436 8,137 16,537 Hudson 9,674 1,735 5,976 7,853 Mercer 13,034 1,257 2,427 8,505 Middlesex 3,567 2,343 4,849 22,147 Monmouth 240 1,806 4,316 14,860 Morris 284 1,752 3,151 13,758 Passaic 122 1,361 2,413 8,748 Somerset 313 1,048 2,097 9,090 Union 3,757 1,621 5,883 12,294 Total 34,420 18,173 45,957 137,701 Table 13.—2002 Statewide VOC Summer Season Daily Emission Inventory [By county and source sector] County VOC tons per day Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile source Nonroad mobile sources Biogenic Atlantic 0.15 11.04 12.85 10.25 40.38 Bergen 5.72 36.86 36.09 22.05 4.60 Burlington 4.02 17.54 15.80 10.01 39.84 Camden 1.23 22.68 13.80 7.23 20.06 Cape May 0.20 5.26 4.72 22.61 19.55 Cumberland 0.46 8.93 5.37 11.03 28.41 Essex 2.95 31.53 18.26 11.92 3.40 Gloucester 32.01 20.39 9.10 5.91 16.83 Hudson 7.33 21.09 9.10 5.22 3.27 Hunterdon 0.64 5.49 5.99 3.66 12.44 Mercer 2.13 13.06 11.60 7.01 12.65 Middlesex 16.08 34.87 26.00 14.58 12.78 Monmouth 1.37 24.65 22.26 21.26 22.00 Morris 1.27 20.81 18.87 15.09 13.75 Ocean 0.26 24.01 14.30 21.54 43.80 Passaic 1.99 19.84 10.22 6.62 11.04 Salem 4.92 3.47 4.23 3.37 18.64 Somerset 0.73 12.29 10.65 6.87 12.20 Sussex 0.25 5.69 4.62 3.86 20.48 Union 26.56 25.26 15.92 7.75 2.31 Warren 2.88 5.07 4.99 2.78 13.50 Total in State 113.15 369.83 274.74 220.60 371.95 Table 14.—2002 Statewide NO X Summer Season Daily Emission Inventory [By county and source sector] County NO X tons per day Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile sources Nonroad mobile sources Biogenic Atlantic 1.67 1.17 24.50 6.26 0.21 Bergen 3.64 3.83 63.24 23.38 0.07 Burlington 12.35 1.77 31.10 12.88 0.26 Camden 2.69 2.10 27.00 9.44 0.21 Cape May 19.15 0.42 8.82 5.92 0.19 Cumberland 10.50 0.65 10.61 7.94 0.34 Essex 16.18 3.31 44.06 25.70 0.07 Gloucester 14.48 1.01 18.50 8.01 0.19 Hudson 51.61 2.24 21.05 20.71 0.07 Hunterdon 9.47 0.54 17.17 4.70 0.19 Mercer 47.87 1.72 22.70 9.32 0.20 Middlesex 44.47 3.33 58.00 17.54 0.16 Monmouth 0.86 2.23 38.15 15.74 0.22 Morris 1.18 2.40 35.06 11.58 0.12 Ocean 3.68 2.39 24.65 7.57 0.27 Passaic 0.68 1.79 23.01 8.88 0.10 Salem 15.26 0.31 11.91 3.21 0.32 Somerset 3.60 1.44 23.85 7.57 0.15 Sussex 0.21 0.57 7.47 2.46 0.15 Union 18.88 2.26 32.22 20.25 0.08 Warren 1.93 0.47 15.60 2.48 0.22 Total in State 280.36 35.92 558.66 231.56 3.78 Table 15.—2002 Statewide CO Summer Season Daily Emission Inventory [By county and source sector] County CO tons per day Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile sources Nonroad mobile sources Biogenic Atlantic 0.36 2.66 155.53 70.26 2.96 Bergen 2.36 2.07 324.50 358.25 0.54 Burlington 1.48 1.97 168.90 121.35 3.33 Camden 3.28 6.89 145.90 112.44 1.57 Cape May 2.18 0.66 53.58 80.06 1.54 Cumberland 1.56 1.13 56.91 50.35 2.28 Essex 3.61 2.40 187.93 182.98 0.45 Gloucester 3.27 1.54 99.80 77.69 1.41 Hudson 9.42 1.22 87.49 68.72 0.44 Hunterdon 6.43 1.03 64.94 48.31 1.60 Mercer 1.51 1.37 122.70 104.18 1.42 Middlesex 34.20 2.54 287.54 228.84 1.16 Monmouth 1.28 1.79 227.22 212.60 1.98 Morris 2.24 2.35 209.14 227.91 1.42 Ocean 1.21 29.78 135.96 143.85 3.89 Passaic 0.40 1.23 105.86 98.09 1.13 Salem 2.28 0.57 49.04 21.42 1.63 Somerset 5.96 1.16 112.52 107.75 1.40 Sussex 0.33 1.80 42.35 37.57 2.00 Union 3.87 1.11 162.44 118.31 0.36 Warren 2.12 1.19 56.12 26.89 1.58 Total in State 89.35 66.45 2,856.37 2,497.80 34.09 Table 16.—2002 Statewide VOC Annual Emission Inventory [By county and source sector] County VOC tons per year Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile sources Nonroad mobile sources Biogenic Atlantic 52 5,492 3,613 3,521 14,748 Bergen 773 11,243 14,048 6,361 1,681 Burlington 927 7,057 6,278 3,000 14,552 Camden 453 7,228 5,512 2,110 7,326 Cape May 39 2,474 1,348 8,480 7,140 Cumberland 102 3,208 1,492 4,196 10,377 Essex 791 9,568 7,238 3,739 1,244 Gloucester 11,560 7,032 3,650 1,686 6,148 Hudson 2,104 6,628 3,567 1,617 1,195 Hunterdon 144 2,468 2,441 1,038 4,545 Mercer 446 4,445 4,636 1,922 4,619 Middlesex 4,366 10,594 10,478 4,115 4,669 Monmouth 287 8,477 8,973 6,996 8,036 Morris 309 7,947 7,662 4,211 5,024 Ocean 76 7,746 5,792 7,714 15,998 Passaic 253 6,537 4,109 2,081 4,034 Salem 1,034 1,516 1,205 1,162 6,809 Somerset 224 4,075 4,311 1,898 4,455 Sussex 38 3,656 1,881 1,490 7,479 Union 5,382 7,652 6,354 2,237 843 Warren 809 2,631 2,001 832 4,931 Total in State 30,169 127,673 106,589 70,407 135,851 Table 17.—2002 Statewide NO X Annual Emission Inventory [By county and source sector] County NO X tons per year Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile sources Nonroad mobile sources Biogenic Atlantic 129 964 6,764 1,771 78 Bergen 988 2,815 23,917 6,707 25 Burlington 1,273 1,424 11,644 3,776 97 Camden 776 1,523 10,074 2,669 77 Cape May 3,819 357 2,433 1,959 68 Cumberland 1,778 469 2,883 2,574 125 Essex 2,441 2,436 16,537 8,137 27 Gloucester 4,645 800 6,899 2,200 71 Hudson 9,776 1,735 7,853 5,976 27 Hunterdon 491 424 6,444 1,223 69 Mercer 13,034 1,257 8,505 2,427 72 Middlesex 3,651 2,343 22,147 4,849 58 Monmouth 240 1,806 14,860 4,316 79 Morris 284 1,752 13,748 3,151 43 Ocean 395 1,507 9,538 2,138 98 Passaic 122 1,361 8,748 2,413 38 Salem 3,267 227 3,185 932 116 Somerset 313 1,048 9,090 2,097 54 Sussex 39 495 2,936 615 55 Union 4,080 1,621 12,294 5,883 28 Warren 580 379 5,782 631 79 Total in State 52,121 26,742 206,280 66,443 1,382 Table 18.—2002 Statewide CO Annual Emission Inventory [By county and source sector] County CO tons per year Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile sources Nonroad mobile sources Biogenic Atlantic 66 10,726 53,885 19,798 1,080 Bergen 619 1,453 166,589 93,002 199 Burlington 413 9,709 83,768 31,350 1,216 Camden 1,154 3,789 72,489 29,402 574 Cape May 311 4,145 18,758 26,265 562 Cumberland 126 3,196 19,994 15,941 831 Essex 624 1,306 96,967 53,407 164 Gloucester 1,029 4,513 49,458 19,203 516 Hudson 2,058 896 44,767 20,015 161 Hunterdon 259 3,973 34,283 11,896 585 Mercer 323 2,567 61,101 25,685 518 Middlesex 3,034 1,309 149,288 57,965 424 Monmouth 381 5,252 118,952 55,614 722 Morris 266 8,121 109,947 56,136 519 Ocean 271 10,563 72,072 40,914 1,420 Passaic 68 2,985 55,414 26,769 412 Salem 487 2,389 17,071 5,991 595 Somerset 226 2,079 59,270 26,731 511 Sussex 83 8,995 23,055 10,883 731 Union 1,012 794 84,178 31,780 133 Warren 444 5,306 29,700 7,198 578 Total in State 13,254 94,067 1,421,004 665,944 12,451 Table 19.—2002 Statewide PM 2.5 Annual Emission Inventory [By county and source sector] County PM 2.5 tons per year Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile sources Nonroad mobile sources Biogenic Atlantic 19 1,541 104 225 NA Bergen 149 537 376 478 NA Burlington 308 1,448 193 413 NA Camden 233 754 167 228 NA Cape May 109 637 40 468 NA Cumberland 280 495 52 374 NA Essex 185 411 291 393 NA Gloucester 426 754 112 222 NA Hudson 1,077 269 134 345 NA Hunterdon 50 644 111 103 NA Mercer 188 530 141 203 NA Middlesex 483 467 347 346 NA Monmouth 55 981 244 501 NA Morris 39 1,284 209 280 NA Ocean 38 1,734 160 409 NA Passaic 19 543 141 178 NA Salem 371 377 57 122 NA Somerset 55 441 152 149 NA Sussex 5 1,301 54 89 NA Union 540 272 185 333 NA Warren 240 809 92 64 NA Total in State 4,868 16,230 3,361 5,922 NA Table 20.—2002 Statewide NH 3 Annual Emission Inventory [By county and source sector] County PM 2.5 tons per year Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile sources Nonroad mobile sources Biogenic Atlantic 0 184 297 13 329 Bergen 0 543 821 163 863 Burlington 0 522 454 39 520 Camden 0 281 393 46 518 Cape May 5 86 107 6 130 Cumberland 1 310 118 20 203 Essex 0 598 492 82 762 Gloucester 0 445 265 22 274 Hudson 14 461 222 56 572 Hunterdon 0 569 187 14 164 Mercer 3 310 331 41 347 Middlesex 11 492 765 108 746 Monmouth 0 399 628 47 651 Morris 0 273 572 75 544 Ocean 0 258 396 21 616 Passaic 0 264 292 65 505 Salem 1 463 97 7 89 Somerset 0 423 317 43 309 Sussex 0 296 135 8 235 Union 3 456 425 82 501 Warren 0 371 152 12 153 Total in State 38 8,005 7,469 970 9,032 Table 21.—2002 Statewide PM 10 Annual Emission Inventory [By county and source sector] County PM 10 tons per year Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile sources Nonroad mobile sources Biogenic Atlantic 17 1,863 154 248 NA Bergen 135 981 524 524 NA Burlington 318 2,145 275 471 NA Camden 126 1,210 238 249 NA Cape May 102 799 58 509 NA Cumberland 266 721 73 407 NA Essex 203 646 389 444 NA Gloucester 531 1,169 161 242 NA Hudson 1,705 431 179 375 NA Hunterdon 50 1,115 148 113 NA Mercer 221 967 201 224 NA Middlesex 537 1,162 486 376 NA Monmouth 48 1,575 352 545 NA Morris 46 1,813 305 309 NA Ocean 39 2,377 229 446 NA Passaic 18 835 195 194 NA Salem 435 590 77 132 NA Somerset 76 984 211 164 NA Sussex 6 1,667 77 99 NA Union 434 512 261 362 NA Warren 240 1,195 123 71 NA Total in State 5,555 24,760 4,718 6,505 NA Table 22.—2002 Statewide SO 2 Annual Emission Inventory [By county and source sector] County SO 2 tons per year Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile sources Nonroad mobile sources Biogenic Atlantic 10 498 202 176 NA Bergen 82 819 634 620 NA Burlington 286 459 361 2,462 NA Camden 162 506 313 1,057 NA Cape May 12,178 163 75 993 NA Cumberland 665 412 89 2,115 NA Essex 2,110 1,078 429 980 NA Gloucester 5,431 390 211 1,243 NA Hudson 19,250 625 196 1,582 NA Hunterdon 18 391 163 123 NA Mercer 14,379 450 264 501 NA Middlesex 504 689 590 612 NA Monmouth 55 510 453 929 NA Morris 52 798 403 276 NA Ocean 38 652 290 216 NA Passaic 26 494 231 223 NA Salem 4,590 156 85 673 NA Somerset 41 273 250 180 NA Sussex 0 566 98 69 NA Union 1,253 602 321 1,680 NA Warren 101 345 134 63 NA Total in State 61,231 10,876 5,793 16,772 NA B. 2009 Projection Year Inventory New Jersey included in its submittal 2009 projection year inventories with post-2002 controls showing that future emissions will be less than 5 percent of those contained in the 2002 base year emissions inventory. Annual PM 2.5 and NO X point, area, nonroad mobile and onroad mobile emissions were projected from 2002 base year to 2009. New Jersey did so using the appropriate growth factors and methodologies, in a manner acceptable to EPA. The development of the projection year inventory involved several methodologies depending on the source category in question. This depended heavily upon what type of indicator was considered to have a significant impact on emissions. In all cases mentioned below, the 2002 emissions were grown to the 2009 projection year: 1. Major point sources were grown using growth factors from EPA EGAS model version 4.0 for all point sources except those that combust fuel. For combustion sources, projection data were obtained from the Annual Energy Outlook report produced by the U.S. Department of Energy's

(DOE)Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2. Area sources were grown using growth factors from EPA EGAS model version 4.0 for all area sources except those that combust fuel. For combustion sources, projection data were obtained from the Annual Energy Outlook report produced by the DOE-EIA. 3. Nonroad mobile source emissions were developed by conducting independent runs for 2009 emission inventories by using the NONROAD 2004 emissions model. 4. Aircraft emissions were developed for 2002 using landings and take offs

(LTO)operation numbers for each aircraft type into the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling Systems for NO X emissions, and PM 2.5 emission factors were used with LTO data to estimate PM 2.5 annual emissions. Growth factors from FAA database based on future flight operations were used to project emissions from 2002 to 2009. 5. Commercial Marine Vessels

(CMV)emissions were grown from 2002-2009 based on an extensive review of historical trends in the different types of CMV calling in on the Northern New Jersey ports to project CMV growth. This information was obtained from the Maritime Association of the Port of New York and New Jersey. 6. Calendar year 2009 onroad mobile source emission factor data were generated from the Mobile 6.2.03 model. Emission factors from the model were then applied to actual and projected VMT and fleet distribution data based on annual or projection measurements of VMT taken from the Transportation Demand Model and Highway Performance Monitoring System from the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. EPA finds the methodologies for all sources to be acceptable in accordance with EPA guidance for inventory budget planning purposes. A summary of the 2009 annual PM 2.5 and NO X emissions in the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area is found in section V. of this notice. A more detailed discussion of how the 2009 emission inventory was reviewed and the results are presented in the technical support document. VIII. Conclusions EPA has evaluated New Jersey's submittals for consistency with the Act and Agency regulations and policy. EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's CO limited maintenance plan because it meets the requirements set forth in section 175A of the Act and continues to demonstrate that the NAAQS for CO will continue to be met for the next ten years. EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the CO, NO X , VOC, and PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets for Northern New Jersey. Finally, this notice also proposes to approve revisions to the general conformity budget for McGuire Air Force Base and the 2002 base year emission inventories. Note that New Jersey will be submitting additional information on the emission inventories. EPA will consider all information submitted prior to any final rulemaking action as a supplement or amendment to the February 21, 2006 submittal. EPA views the SIP revisions proposed in today's proposal as separable actions. This means that if EPA receives adverse comments on particular portions of this notice and not on other portions, EPA may choose not to take final action at the same time in a single notice on all of these SIP revisions. Instead, EPA may choose to take final action on these SIP revisions in separate notices. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Region 2 Office by one of the methods discussed in the ADDRESSES section of this action. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: April 28, 2006. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. 06-4287 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents