Proposed Rules. Proposed rule
16,568 words·~75 min read·
/register/2006/06/06/06-5133A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 71 108 Tuesday, June 6, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 7 CFR Part 3411 RIN 0524-AA32 National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program—Revisions to Administrative Provisions AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) proposes to update and make technical corrections to the administrative provisions for the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP).
In addition, CSREES proposes substantive revisions to 7 CFR 3411.3(d), the “Eligibility requirements” for NRICGP Postdoctoral Fellowships, New Investigator Awards, and Strengthening Awards, and to 7 CFR 3411.4(c)(8), Agency instructions to applicants preparing project budgets for NRICGP conference grants and postdoctoral fellowships. CSREES anticipates the proposed changes to the eligibility requirements would increase the impact of the Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards, while the proposed changes to the budget instructions would facilitate additional conference and postdoctoral fellowship awards.
DATES: The Agency must receive comments on or before August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Erin Daly; United States Department of Agriculture; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, STOP 2299, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-2299. Comments may also be sent via electronic mail to *edaly@csrees.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail McLean at
(202)401-6060 or via electronic mail at *gmclean@csrees.usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) proposes revisions to the administrative provisions for the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP), which was authorized in section 2(b) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended by section 1615 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACT Act), (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)). Some of the revisions are mere technical corrections, including updates to the Agency's name. Other revisions reflect the Agency's developing capabilities to exchange proposal and grant data electronically. Finally, CSREES proposes substantive revisions to the eligibility requirements for Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards (7 CFR 3411.3(d)) and the Agency's instructions to applicants preparing project budgets for NRICGP conference grants and postdoctoral fellowships (7 CFR 3411.4(c)(8)). The Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards are intended to help institutions develop competitive research programs and to attract scientists to research in agriculture, food, and environmental sciences. To increase the impact of the Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards, CSREES proposes changing the eligibility requirements for Postdoctoral Fellowships, New Investigator Awards, and Strengthening Awards. Anticipated impacts would include:
(1)For Postdoctoral Fellowships, improved funding continuity and potentially more postdoctoral scientists entering into an agricultural research career;
(2)for New Investigator Awards, improved project design and increased probability of a successful agricultural research program; and
(3)for Strengthening Awards, improved research project continuity and more incentive for researchers to stay at USDA-Experimental Program for Stimulating Competitive Research (EPSCoR) or small/mid-sized institutions. The proposed revisions to Agency instructions regarding the preparation of project budgets apply narrowly and should optimize the use of NRICGP funds for scientific meetings and for postdoctoral researchers. Postdoctoral Fellowships Current provisions indicate a postdoctoral fellowship applicant should not have received a doctoral degree before January 1 of the fiscal year three years prior to the submission of the proposal and not later than June 15 of the fiscal year during which the proposal is submitted (7 CFR 3411.3(d)(1)(i)). In the past, NRICGP proposal submission dates were grouped together and occurred within an approximate range of three to four months. As a result, applicants had similar amounts of time from the date they submitted their proposals until they were notified of awards. This was important because applicants used the time to arrange for postdoctoral positions and ensure continuity of funding for their postdoctoral research. Now, however, NRICGP proposal submission dates are spread throughout the year. The current provisions put at a disadvantage postdoctoral fellowship applicants to NRICGP programs with proposal submission dates that are later in the fiscal year than the doctoral degree cutoff date of June 15. In order to ensure the availability of their awards, applicants to these programs may wait a year between receiving their doctoral degrees and applying for the postdoctoral fellowships. The gap in funding can result in postdoctoral researchers leaving agricultural research because they cannot find a laboratory with sufficient funding to support them during this interim. CSREES proposes revising the provisions for NRICGP postdoctoral fellowships to base cutoff dates for receipt of doctoral degrees on proposal due dates for specific NRICGP programs. This change would add equity to the process and allow applicants sufficient time to make arrangements for financial support of their postdoctoral research prior to graduation. In doing so, it should further the engagement of the best and brightest young scientists in agricultural research. New Investigator Awards The current provisions require that, in addition to the Project Director, all co-Project Directors must meet NRICGP New Investigator Award eligibility requirements (7 CFR 3411.3(d)(2)). When evaluating the scientific merit of a proposal, reviewers frequently suggest that New Investigators work with established investigators. Established investigators can provide valuable expertise on scientific subjects and experimental methods that New Investigators need for successful research projects. The interaction between New Investigators and established investigators can be more than simple collaboration and require sharing of funds and significant interaction. The current eligibility requirements for New Investigator Awards inhibit, if not prevent, these close relationships. CSREES proposes revising the eligibility requirements for New Investigator Awards so that they apply to Project Directors only. As the Project Director, the New Investigator would maintain the primary responsibility for the research and the funding. Currently, applicants are ineligible for New Investigator Awards if they have received competitively-awarded Federal research funds beyond the level of pre-or postdoctoral research awards (7 CFR 3411.3(d)(2)). As a result, CSREES is not able to make New Investigator Awards to former recipients of NRICGP seed grants. NRICGP seed grants are relatively small awards that enable investigators to collect preliminary data they can use to prepare standard research grant applications. Seed grant eligibility is limited to faculty with appointments at
(1)small and mid-sized degree-granting institutions that are not in the top 100 most successful institutions; and
(2)degree-granting institutions eligible for USDA-EPSCoR funding. CSREES proposes revising the NRICGP New Investigator Award provisions so that former recipients of NRICGP seed grants are eligible to apply for these funds. By allowing investigators who received seed grants to remain eligible for New Investigator Awards, CSREES hopes to increase the chances that beginning scientists will achieve funding and continuation of agricultural research projects. Strengthening Awards According to the eligibility requirements for Research Career Enhancement Awards, Seed Grants, and Strengthening Standard Research Project Awards, no investigators on the Proposal Cover Page may have received a USDA NRICGP competitive research grant within the last 5 years (7 CFR 3411.3(d)(3)(ii)(A)). CSREES proposes removing this restriction so that investigators from eligible institutions can apply for these types of Strengthening Awards regardless of having received NRICGP awards in the past. The Agency believes this will increase the likelihood that investigators at institutions in EPSCoR states, and those at institutions with small to mid-sized enrollment, will have the funding stability necessary for successful agricultural research programs. Often researchers from these institutions have difficulty renewing strengthening awards. Although their projects have important scientific merit, they tend to be limited in size and scope due to, for example, teaching commitments, equipment access, and smaller numbers of students and postdoctoral researchers. Thus, these proposals do not compete well against projects from larger research institutions that have more resources and personnel. This change will improve funding continuity and provide incentives for established researchers to stay at EPSCoR or small/mid-sized institutions. In doing so, it will strengthen the institutions and the future of agricultural research through increased opportunities for students to participate in active, successful agricultural research projects. The current provisions require that, in addition to the Project Director, all co-Project Directors must meet NRICGP Strengthening Award eligibility requirements (7 CFR 3411.3(d)(3)(ii)(B)). As with a similar restriction placed on New Investigators, this requirement unnecessarily hampers close relationships between investigators who can provide expertise needed to successfully complete a project. CSREES proposes revising the eligibility requirements for these types of NRICGP Strengthening Awards so that they apply to Project Directors only. Indirect Costs—Conference Awards and Postdoctoral Fellowships CSREES proposes adding language to 7 CFR 3411.4(c)(8) that prohibits indirect costs for conference awards and postdoctoral fellowships. Currently, CSREES restricts conference awardees' recovery of indirect costs to 20% of total Federal funds, as provided in Section 709 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-97). Conference awards support meetings that bring together scientists to identify research needs, update information, or advance an area of research. Typically, these awards are modest. They rarely exceed $10,000, but are recognized as integral to research efforts. Where grantees incur administrative costs relative to sponsoring such conferences (especially in off-site locations), the Agency believes the administrative costs are negligible. In accordance with its fiscal year 2006 Request for Applications
(RFA)for NRICGP (available at *http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/nri_rfa.html* ), CSREES allows postdoctoral fellowship awardees to request an institutional allowance (not to exceed $2,400 per year) or indirect costs within the $125,000 maximum award limit. Postdoctoral fellowship applicants primarily request funds for salary support, although they are allowed to request other expenditures ( *e.g.* , supplies, travel, and publication) if they properly justify them. These awards allow postdoctoral researchers to develop independent research projects they can take with them to career-track positions. Postdoctoral fellowships play an important role in attracting and supporting beginning researchers in agricultural sciences. For postdoctoral fellowships, CSREES proposes that it continue to indicate in its annual NRICGP RFA a maximum institutional allowance, and that, in accordance with revised administrative provisions, the Agency plans to make this allowance available to awardees in lieu of indirect costs. CSREES is soliciting public comments regarding this proposed rule and will consider and address such comments in subsequent rulemaking on this subject. Comments should be submitted as provided for in the ADDRESSES and DATES portions of this proposed rule. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995—Information Collection Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collection of information requirements contained in this Proposed Rule have been approved (OMB Approval No. 0524-0039). Regulatory Flexibility Act USDA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ) because it is a Federal assistance program, not a regulatory regime, and the majority of awards will be made to colleges and universities that do not qualify as small entities. Executive Order 12866 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 and has been determined to be nonsignificant as it will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action planned by another agency; will not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or rights and obligations of the recipients thereof; and will not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or principles set forth in this Executive Order. This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health, or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), the Department assessed the effects of this rulemaking action on State, local, and Tribal government, and the public. This action does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or Tribal governments, or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is not required. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(1)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(2)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(3)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with the Executive Order:
(1)All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted;
(2)no retroactive effect will be given to this rule;
(3)no administrative proceedings are required before bringing any judicial action regarding this rule. Executive Order 13132 In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on policymaking discretion of 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. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Executive Order 12372 For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule Related Notice for 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. This program does not directly affect State and local governments. Executive Order 13175 The policies contained in this rulemaking do not have tribal implications and thus no further action is required under Executive Order 13175. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3411 Agricultural research, Grant programs—agriculture, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service proposes to amend 7 CFR part 3411 to read as set forth below: PART 3411—NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 3411 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 2(i) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i(i)). Subpart A—General 2. Revise paragraph
(a)of § 3411.1 to read as follows: § 3411.1 Applicability of regulations.
(a)The regulations of this part apply to competitive research grants awarded under the authority of section 2(b) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended by section 1615 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACT Act), (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), for the support of research to further the programs of the Department of Agriculture and to improve research capabilities in the agricultural, food, and environmental sciences in the following categories: Single investigators or coinvestigators in the same disciplines; teams of researchers from different disciplines; multidisciplinary teams for long-term applied research problems; multidisciplinary teams whose research has the eventual goal of technology transfer and education capacity through the acquisition of special research equipment and improvement of teaching and education, including fellowships; single investigators or coinvestigators who are beginning their research careers; and, faculty of small and mid-sized institutions not previously successful in obtaining competitive grants under this subsection. In accordance with Public Law 104-127, within the Department of Agriculture, the Secretary established the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB) to provide overall guidance to the Research, Education and Economics mission area on policies and priorities related to programs, including NRICGP. In addition to the stakeholder listening sessions NAREEEAB sponsors, CSREES receives stakeholder input on policies and priorities related to NRICGP from multiple sources including scientific societies; the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences; producers, processors, industry; the land-grant university system; non-governmental organizations; and other federal agencies; and through international coordination. The Administrator of CSREES shall determine and announce, through publication of a notice on the CSREES Web site ( *http://www.csrees.usda.gov* ), the government-wide funding opportunities Web site ( *http://www.grants.gov* ), or in such publications as the **Federal Register** , professional trade journals, agency or program handbooks, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, or any other appropriate means, high-priority research areas and categories for which proposals will be solicited and the extent that funds are made available therefore. 3. Revise paragraphs
(a)and
(c)of § 3411.2 to read as follows: § 3411.2 Definitions.
(a)*Administrator* means the Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and any other officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture to whom the authority involved may be delegated.
(c)*Project Director* means a single individual who is responsible for the scientific and technical direction of the project, as designated by the grantee in the grant application and approved by the Administrator. 4. Amend § 3411.3 by revising paragraphs (a),
(d)introductory text, (d)(1) introductory text, (d)(1)(i), (d)(2), and (d)(3)(ii) to read as follows: § 3411.3 Eligibility requirements.
(a)For research projects, except where otherwise prohibited by law, State agricultural experiment stations, all colleges and universities, other research institutions and organizations, Federal agencies, private organizations or corporations, and individuals shall be eligible to apply for and receive a competitive grant under this part, provided that the applicant qualifies as a responsible grantee under the criteria set forth in paragraph
(b)of this section.
(d)*Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.* In addition to paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c)of this section, the following eligibility requirements apply to Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards for research projects (Program reserves the right to specify funding limitations and administrative requirements each year in the program solicitation):
(1)*Postdoctoral Fellowships.* In accordance with section 2(b)(3)(D) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended, individuals who recently have received or will soon receive their doctoral degree may submit proposals for postdoctoral fellowships. The following eligibility requirements apply:
(i)The doctoral degree of the applicant must be received not earlier than January 1 of the fiscal year three years prior to the submission of the proposal and not later than nine months after the proposal due date;
(2)*New Investigator Awards.* Pursuant to section 2(b)(3)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended, Project Directors who are beginning their research careers, do not have an extensive research publication record, and have less than 5 years of post-graduate, career-track research experience, may submit proposals as new investigators. Applicants may not have received competitively-awarded Federal research funds beyond the level of pre- or postdoctoral research awards or USDA NRICGP seed grants.
(3)*Strengthening Awards.*
(ii)*Research Career Enhancement Awards, Seed Grants, and Strengthening Standard Research Project Awards.* The following eligibility requirements apply to Research Career Enhancement Awards, Seed Grants, and Strengthening Standard Research Project Awards:
(A)The Project Director listed on the Application For Funding must be from a small or mid-sized institution that is not among the top 100 universities and colleges for receiving Federal funds for science and engineering research as specified in the annual program solicitation or must be from an institution located in a USDA-EPSCoR state.
(B)Every investigator listed on the Application For Funding must have an appointment at a degree granting institution. 5. Amend § 3411.4 by revising paragraphs
(a)introductory text, (a)(4), (a)(5), (c)(3) introductory text, (c)(7) introductory text, (c)(8), (c)(11), and (c)(13) to read as follows: § 3411.4 How to apply for a grant.
(a)Program solicitations will be prepared and announced through publication on the government-wide funding opportunities Web site ( *http://www.grants.gov* ) as early as practicable each fiscal year. It will contain information sufficient to enable all eligible applicants to prepare competitive grant proposals and will be as complete as possible with respect to:
(4)Deadline dates for receipt of proposal packages;
(5)Submission addresses;
(b)* * *
(c)*Format for grant proposals.*
(3)*Project Description.* The specific aims of the project must be included in all proposals. The text of the project description may not exceed 18 single- or double-spaced pages and must contain the following components:
(7)*Personnel support.* To assist peer reviewers in assessing the competence and experience of the proposed project staff, all personnel who will be involved in the proposed project must be identified clearly. For each Project Director involved, and for all senior associates and other professional personnel who expect to work on the project, whether or not funds are sought for their support, the following should be included:
(8)*Budget.* A detailed budget is required for each year of requested support. In addition, a summary budget is required detailing requested support for the overall project period. A copy of the form which must be used for this purpose, along with instructions for completion, is included in the NRICGP Application Kit identified under § 3411.4(b) of the part and may be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be requested under any of the categories listed, provided that the item or service for which support is requested may be identified as necessary for successful conduct of the proposed project, is allowable under applicable Federal cost principles, and is not prohibited under any applicable Federal statute or regulation. It should be noted, for example, that section 2(b)(7) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended, prohibits the use of funds under this program for the renovation or refurbishment of research spaces, purchases or installation of fixed equipment in such spaces, or for the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of a building or facility. Also, section 2(b)(8) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended, requires that all grants, except equipment grants authorized by section 2(b)(3)(D) of the same Act, awarded under this part, shall be used without regard to matching funds or cost sharing. Equipment grants may not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the equipment to be acquired. Equipment grant funds also may not be used for installation, maintenance, warranty, or insurance expenses. Indirect costs are not permitted on equipment grants, conference grants, or postdoctoral fellowships. According to the limit included in the annual program solicitation, a postdoctoral fellowship applicant may request and receive a reasonable institutional allowance.
(11)*Additions to project description.* Each project description is expected by the Administrator, the members of peer review groups, and the relevant program staff to be complete. However, if the inclusions of additional information is necessary to ensure the equitable evaluation of the proposal (e.g., photographs which do not reproduce well, reprints, and other pertinent materials which are deemed to be unsuitable for inclusion in the text of the proposal), the number of copies submitted should match the number of copies of the application requested in the program solicitation. Each set of such materials must be identified with the name of the submitting organization, and the name(s) of the Project Director(s). Information may not be appended to a proposal to circumvent page limitations prescribed for the project description. Extraneous materials will not be used during the peer review process.
(13)*National Environmental Policy Act.* As outlined in CSREES's implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)at 7 CFR part 3407, environmental data or documentation for the proposed project is to be provided to CSREES in order to assist CSREES in carrying out its responsibilities under NEPA. These responsibilities include determining whether the project requires an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement or whether it can be excluded from this requirement on the basis of several categorical exclusions listed in 7 CFR p art 3407. In this regard, the applicant should review the categories defined for exclusion to ascertain whether the proposed project may fall within one or more of the exclusions, and should indicate if it does so on the National Environmental Policy Act Exclusions Form provided in the NRICGP Application Kit. 6. Revise paragraph
(a)of § 3411.5 to read as follows: § 3411.5 Evaluation and disposition of applications.
(a)*Evaluation.* All proposals received from eligible applicants and received in accordance with deadlines established in the annual program solicitation shall be evaluated by the Administrator through such officers, employees, and others as the Administrator determines are uniquely qualified in the areas represented by particular projects. To assist in equitably and objectively evaluating proposals and to obtain the best possible balance of viewpoints, the Administrator shall solicit the advice of peer scientists, *ad hoc* reviewers, and/or others who are recognized specialists in the areas covered by the applications received and whose general roles are defined in §§ 3411.2(j) and 3411.2(k). Specific evaluations will be based upon the criteria established in § 3411.15, unless CSREES determines that different criteria are necessary for the proper evaluation of proposals in one or more specific program areas, or for specific types of projects to be supported, and announces such criteria and their relative importance in the annual program solicitation. The overriding purpose of these evaluations is to provide information upon which the Administrator may make informed judgments in selecting proposals for ultimate support. Incomplete, unclear, or poorly organized applications will work to the detriment of applicants during the peer evaluation process. To ensure a comprehensive evaluation, all applications should be written with the care and thoroughness accorded papers for publication. 7. Amend § 3411.6 as follows: A. Revise paragraph (a), paragraph
(b)heading, (b)(1)(iii), (b)(1)(iv),
(d)introductory text, (d)(2), and (f). B. Remove and reserve paragraph (b)(2). § 3411.6 Grant awards.
(a)*General.* Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official shall make grants to those responsible, eligible applicants whose proposals are judged most meritorious in the announced program areas under the evaluation criteria and procedures set forth in this part. All funds granted under this part shall be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations of this part, the terms and conditions of the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's Federal assistance regulations.
(b)*Grant award document.*
(1)* * *
(iii)Name(s) and address(es) of Project Director(s) chosen to direct and control approved activities;
(iv)Identifying grant and proposal numbers assigned by the Department;
(d)*Funding mechanisms.* The two mechanisms by which grants shall be awarded are as follows:
(2)*Continuation grant.* This is a funding mechanism whereby the Department agrees to support a specified level of effort for a predetermined period of time with a statement of intention to provide additional support at a future date, provided that performance has been satisfactory, appropriations are available for this purpose, and continued support would be in the best interests of the Federal government and the public. This kind of mechanism normally will be awarded for an initial one-year period, and any subsequent continuation project grants will also be awarded in one-year increments. The award of a continuation project grant to fund an initial or succeeding budget period does not constitute an obligation to fund any subsequent budget period. Unless prescribed otherwise by CSREES, a grantee must submit a separate application for continued support for each subsequent fiscal year. Decisions regarding continued support and the actual funding levels of such support in future years usually will be made administratively after consideration of such factors as the grantee's progress and management practices and the availability of funds. Since initial peer reviews are based upon the full term and scope of the original application, additional evaluations of this type generally are not required prior to successive years' support. However, in unusual cases (e.g., when the nature of the project or key personnel change or when the amount of future support requested substantially exceeds the grant application originally reviewed and approved), additional reviews may be required prior to approving continued funding.
(f)*Current Research Information Service (CRIS).* For each project funded, instructions will be sent to the grantee for the completion of CRIS Forms AD-416, “Research Work Unit/Project Description—Research Resume” and AD-417, “Research Work Unit/Project Description—Classification of Research.” Grant funds will not be released until the completed forms are received electronically via CRIS. 8. Revise paragraph (b)(1) of § 3411.7 as follows: § 3411.7 Use of funds; changes.
(b)*Change in project plans.*
(1)The permissible changes by the grantee, Project Director(s), or other key project personnel in the approved grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee and/or the Project Director(s) is uncertain whether a particular change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the Administrator for final determination. 9. In the list of statutes in § 3411.8, revise the fifth and tenth statutes listed. § 3411.8 Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply. 7 CFR part 3015—USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, implementing OMB directives ( *i.e.* , Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122) and incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (formerly, the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-224), as well as general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental financial assistance; 7 CFR part 3407—CSREES procedures to implement the National Environmental Policy Act; Dated: May 31, 2006. Colien Hefferan, Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. [FR Doc. E6-8704 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24253; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-23-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO KG Model G102 ASTIR CS Sailplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive
(AD)84-09-05, which applies to certain GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO KG (previously identified as BURKHART-GROB FLUGZEUGBAU INDUSTRIESTRABE) Model G102 ASTIR CS sailplanes. AD 84-09-05 requires you to install a modified spherical locking bolt and nut in the forward horizontal stabilizer connection to the vertical stabilizer and install new locking pins in the aft connecting plate for the horizontal stabilizer. Since we issued AD 84-09-05, fatigue cracks were found in the modified spherical locking bolt. Consequently, this proposed AD would require you to replace the modified spherical locking bolt, the retaining pins (collar bolts), and associated hardware; add a life limit on the spherical locking bolt and the retaining pins; and repetitively inspect the front and rear horizontal stabilizer attachment. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracks in the spherical locking bolt, which could result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer connection. This failure could lead to loss of control. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 29, 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 GROB Luft-und Raumfahrt, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D-86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Federal Republic of Germany; telephone: 011 49 8268 998139; fax: 011 49 8268 998200; e-mail: *productsupport@grob-aerospace.de.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory A. Davison, Aerospace Engineer, ACE-112, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; 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-2006-24253; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-23-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 A broken spherical locking bolt in the horizontal stabilizer attachment on a GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO KG
(GROB)(previously identified as BURKHART-GROB FLUGZEUGBAU INDUSTRIESTRABE) Model G102 ASTIR CS sailplane caused us to issue AD 84-09-05, Amendment 39-4849. AD 84-09-05 requires the following for certain Model G102 ASTIR CS sailplanes: • Installing a modified spherical locking bolt and nut in the forward horizontal stabilizer connection to the vertical stabilizer; and • Installing new locking pins in the aft connecting plate for the horizontal stabilizer. The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, notified the FAA of the need to supersede AD 84-09-05 to address an unsafe condition that may exist or could develop on GROB Model G102 ASTIR CS sailplanes. The LBA reports an incident of the modified spherical locking bolt found broken on one of the affected sailplanes after landing. Investigation revealed that fatigue, resulting from alternating stress on the stabilizer during unsymmetrical loading, caused the spherical locking bolt to crack. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer connection. This failure could lead to loss of control. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38/1, dated November 28, 2005, and GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38, dated February 12, 2004. These service bulletins specify doing the following: • Removing and replacing the spherical locking bolt with a new bolt, part number (P/N) 102-3500.21; • Removing and replacing all retaining pins (collar bolts) on the T-plate with new retaining pins, P/N 102-2142.46; • Incorporating Revision 9 into the Maintenance Manual (which may be downloaded at *http://www.Grob-Aerospace.de/* ); • Adding a life limit to the new spherical locking bolt and retaining pins; and • Inspecting (repetitively) the front and rear horizontal stabilizer attachment assembly after the initial replacements. Foreign Airworthiness Authority Information The LBA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued German AD Number D-2004-168, dated March 23, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these sailplanes in Germany. These GROB Model G102 ASTIR CS sailplanes are manufactured in Germany 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. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA 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 LBA'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 84-09-05 with a new AD that would require you to do the following: • Remove the existing spherical locking bolt, nut, retaining pins (collar bolts), self-locking nut, and the lock washer; and replace with a new spherical locking bolt, P/N 102-3500.21, that has revision letter “b” permanently marked on the bottom of the bolt, a new nut, P/N 102-3510.21, new retaining pins (collar bolts), P/N 102-2142.46, a new self-locking nut, P/N LN9348-M8, and a new lock washer, P/N DIN 6797-10,5PHR. • Add a life limit on the new spherical locking bolt and the retaining pins; and • Inspect (repetitively) the front and rear horizontal stabilizer attachment assembly after the initial replacements. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information The service information specifies using a 20X magnifying glass for doing the inspections. This proposed AD specifies using a dye penetrant method and a 10X magnifying glass for doing the inspections. This difference is because 20X magnifiers are not readily available in the field. The requirements of this proposed AD, if adopted as a final rule, would take precedence over the provisions in the service information. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 56 sailplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed replacements: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost for each sailplane Total cost on U.S. operators 2 workhours × $80 per hour = $160 $253 $413 $23,128 We estimate the following costs to do each proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost for each sailplane Total cost on U.S. operators 2 workhours × $80 per hour = $160 Not Applicable $160 $8,960 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)84-09-05, Amendment 39-4849, and adding the following new AD: **GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO KG (previously identified as BURKHART-GROB FLUGZEUGBAU INDUSTRIESTRABE):** Docket No. FAA-2006-24253; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-23-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by June 29, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 84-09-05, Amendment 39-4849. Applicability
(c)This AD affects Model G102 ASTIR CS sailplanes, serial numbers 1001 through 1536, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracks in the spherical locking bolt, which could result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer connection. This failure could lead to loss of control. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Remove and replace as follows:
(i)Remove the existing retaining pins (collar bolts) and the self-locking nut and replace with new retaining pins, part numbers (P/N) 102-2142.46, and self-locking nut, P/N LN9348-M8 (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers), on the T-plate;
(ii)Remove the existing spherical locking bolt and replace with a new spherical locking bolt, P/N 102-3500.21, that has revision letter “b” permanently marked on the bottom of the bolt (or FAA-approved equivalent part number ). Return all replaced spherical locking bolts to Grob Systems, Inc., Aircraft Division, 1070 Navajo Drive, Bluffton, Ohio 45817; Within the next 90 days after the effective date of this AD, unless already done. After doing the replacements, the spherical locking bolt and retaining pins have a life limit of 10 years and must be replaced at that time As specified in GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38/1, dated November 28, 2005, following the Accomplishment Instructions in GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38, dated February 12, 2004, and the Annual Inspection procedures on pages 7 and 8 of the Astir CS Maintenance Manual, Rev. 9, dated Nov. 2005.
(iii)Remove the existing nut and replace with a new nut, P/N 102-3510.21 (or FAA-approved equivalent part number); and
(iv)Remove the existing lock washer and replace with a new lock washer, P/N DIN 6796-10,5PHR (or FAA-approved equivalent part number)
(2)Repetitively inspect the front and rear horizontal stabilizer attachment assembly using a dye-penetrant method along with a minimum 10X magnifying glass for excessive movement, cracks, and/or damage in the spherical locking bolt. This inspection method takes precedence over the procedures outlined in GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38, dated February 12, 2004 Initially inspect within the next 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS)or at the next annual inspection after the replacement required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, whichever occurs first. Repetitively inspect thereafter at 12-month intervals or at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, whichever occurs first As specified in GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38/1, dated November 28, 2005, following the Accomplishment Instructions in GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38, dated February 12, 2004, and the Annual Inspection procedures on pages 7 and 8 of the Astir CS Maintenance Manual, Rev. 9, dated Nov. 2005.
(3)If, during any inspection required in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, you find excessive movement:
(i)In the front horizontal stabilizer attachment, you must replace the spherical locking bolt with a new part.
(ii)In the rear horizontal stabilizer attachment, you must replace the retaining pins with new parts.
(iii)In the front and rear horizontal stabilizer attachment after doing the replacement(s) required in paragraph (e)(3)(i) and (e)(3)(ii) of this AD, you must replace the bearing in the stabilizer spar web. Before further flight after each inspection required in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD. After each replacement, the spherical locking bolt and the retaining pins have a life limit of 10 years and must be replaced at that time As specified in GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38/1, dated November 28, 2005, following the Accomplishment Instructions in GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38, dated February 12, 2004, and the Annual Inspection procedures on pages 7 and 8 of the Astir CS Maintenance Manual, Rev. 9, dated Nov. 2005.
(4)If, during any inspection required in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, you do not find excessive movement in the front and rear horizontal stabilizer attachment:
(i)Inspect the spherical locking bolt for cracks and damage using a dye-penetrant method along with a minimum 10X magnifying glass.
(ii)If you find cracks or damage on the spherical locking bolt, during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this AD, you must replace the bolt with a new bolt. Before further flight after each inspection required in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD. After each replacement, the spherical locking bolt and the retaining pins have a life limit of 10 year and must be replaced at that time As specified in GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38/1, dated November 28, 2005, following the Accomplishment Instructions in GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38, dated February 12, 2004, and the Annual Inspection procedures on pages 7 and 8 of the Astir CS Maintenance Manual, Rev. 9, dated Nov. 2005.
(5)Do not install any spherical locking bolt, P/N 102-3500.21 (or FAA-approved equivalent part number), that does not have revision letter “b” permanently marked on the bottom of the bolt As of the effective date of this AD Not applicable.
(6)14 CFR 21.303 allows for replacement parts through parts manufacturer approval (PMA). The phrase “or FAA-approved equivalent part number” in this AD is intended to signify those parts that are PMA parts approved through identicality to the design of the part under the type certificate and replacement parts to correct the unsafe condition under PMA (other than identicality). If parts are installed that are identical to the unsafe parts, then the corrective actions of the AD affect these parts also. In addition, equivalent replacement parts to correct the unsafe condition under PMA (other than identicality) may also be installed provided they meet current airworthiness standards, which include those actions cited in this AD Not Applicable Not Applicable. Note: During ground handling, it has been noted that a tendency exists for the ground crew to move these gliders by using the horizontal stabilizer as a lifting point. This practice may facilitate damage to the stabilizer assembly and should be avoided. See Caution note in GROB Service Bulletin MSB306-38, dated February 12, 2004. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Gregory A. Davison, Aerospace Engineer, ACE-112, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; 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 84-09-05 are not approved for this AD. Related Information
(h)German AD Number D-2004-168, dated March 23, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD. To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact GROB Luft-und Raumfahrt, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D-86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Federal Republic of Germany; telephone: 011 49 8268 998139; fax: 011 49 8268 998200; e-mail: *productsupport@grob-aerospace.de.* 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-2006-24253; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-23-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 30, 2006. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-8712 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24951; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-184-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Model GV and GV-SP 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 Gulfstream Model GV and GV-SP series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repairing the force link assembly wire harness. This proposed AD results from a report indicating that the wiring harness outer shield and insulation on the primary conductors may have been inadvertently cut due to an improper method used to remove the wiring outer jacket. We are proposing this AD to prevent the loss of the hardover prevention system
(HOPS)in the roll axis due to a short circuit in the wiring harness, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 21, 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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31402-2206, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darby Mirocha, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ACE-119A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone
(770)703-6095; fax
(770)703-6097. 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-2006-24951; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-184-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 While installing an aileron force link assembly during the production of a Model GIV-X series airplane, a technician noticed that the wiring harness outer shield and insulation on the primary conductors were cut. The cuts did not appear to sever the electrical wire core, but the potential for severed wires prompted an investigation by the force link supplier. The investigation revealed that an improper method had been used to remove the wiring outer jacket on approximately 221 affected force links. If this condition causes the hardover prevention system
(HOPS)to fire inadvertently, the HOPS would shut down the hydraulics system in that axis, increasing pilot workload. Also, an electrical short circuit in the wiring harness could result in loss of the HOPS in the roll axis, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Gulfstream G500 Customer Bulletin 14 and G550 Customer Bulletin 14 (for Model GV-SP series airplanes), and Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin 135 (for Model GV series airplanes), all dated June 23, 2005. The customer bulletins describe procedures for repairing the force link assembly wire harness. The repair includes installing new wiring, visually inspecting the seal around the wires for nicks and other damage, and visually inspecting the mating ends of the connectors to ensure the contacts are properly inserted. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The Gulfstream customer bulletins include Vought Service Bulletin SB-VAIGV/GVSP-27-PG0098, dated May 9, 2005, as an additional source of service information for the repair. 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 below. Clarification of Proposed Repair Requirements The service bulletins do not provide corrective action for nicks or other damage found during the inspection of the environmental seal around the installed wires. This proposed AD would require operators to repair those conditions using a method approved by the FAA. Costs of Compliance There are about 99 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost 3 $80 The manufacturer states that it will supply required parts to the operators at no cost $240 77 $18,480 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): **Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24951; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-184-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 21, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation airplanes, certificated in any category: Table 1.—Applicability Model Serial Nos. GV series airplanes 674 through 693 inclusive. GV-SP series airplanes 5001 through 5072 inclusive. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report indicating that the wiring harness outer shield and insulation on the primary conductors may have been inadvertently cut due to an improper method used to remove the wiring outer jacket. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of the hardover prevention system
(HOPS)in the roll axis due to a short circuit in the wiring harness of the aileron force link assembly, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Repair
(f)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, repair the force link assembly wire harness by doing all actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in Table 2 of this AD, except as required by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Table 2.—Service Information For model— Use— GV-SP series airplanes Gulfstream G500 Customer Bulletin 14, dated June 23, 2005. GV-SP series airplanes Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 14, dated June 23, 2005. GV series airplanes Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin 135, dated June 23, 2005. Note 1: The Gulfstream customer bulletins identified in Table 2 of this AD include Vought Service Bulletin SB-VAIGV/GVSP-27-PG0098, dated May 9, 2005, as an additional source of service information for the repair. Exception to Service Bulletin Specifications
(g)During the inspection of the environmental seal around the installed wires required by paragraph
(f)of this AD: If any nick or other damage is found, repair before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 26, 2006. Jeffrey E. Duven, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-8711 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24952; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-107-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections of the wire bundles, power display unit
(PDU)wiring, and wire attaching hardware, supports, and sleeving located in the forward and aft lower lobe cargo compartments and corrective actions as necessary. This proposed AD results from a fire in the forward lower lobe cargo compartment found shortly after airplane arrival. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damage to wires in the forward and aft lower lobe cargo compartments, which could result in a potential short circuit and consequent fire in the forward and aft lower lobe cargo compartments. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 21, 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: Elias Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)917-6478; 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-2006-24952; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-107-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 of a fire in the forward lower lobe cargo compartment of a Boeing Model 767-300 series airplane, found 20 minutes after arrival. The flightcrew and passengers had deplaned before the start of the fire, and the cleaning crew and all other personnel were evacuated without incident. Investigation revealed that flammable debris had accumulated below the 13L and 14L power drive units (PDUs), but the source of ignition was not positively identified. During subsequent inspections of the operator's fleet of Model 767 airplanes, crushed and chafed PDU power supply cables were found. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a potential short circuit and consequent fire in the forward and aft lower lobe cargo compartments. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0376 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0377 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both dated November 17, 2005. The service bulletins describe procedures for doing repetitive detailed inspections for damage to the wire bundles, PDU wiring, and wire attaching hardware, supports, and sleeving located in the forward and aft lower lobe cargo compartments; and doing corrective actions as necessary. The corrective actions include repairing any damage to the wire bundles, PDU wiring, and wire attaching hardware, supports, and sleeving. 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. Clarification of Inspection Terminology The “detailed visual inspection” specified in the service bulletins is referred to as a “detailed inspection” in this proposed AD. Boeing has included the definition for a detailed inspection in Note 4 of the service bulletins. Costs of Compliance There are about 857 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 374 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspections would take about 6 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 $179,520, or $480 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24952; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-107-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 21, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a fire in the forward lower lobe cargo compartment found shortly after airplane arrival. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage to wires in the forward and aft lower lobe cargo compartments, which could result in a potential short circuit and consequent fire in the forward and aft lower lobe cargo compartments. 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. Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions if Applicable
(f)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do detailed inspections for damage to the wire bundles, power drive unit wiring, and wire attaching hardware, supports, and sleeving located in the forward and aft lower lobe cargo compartments; and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight after the inspections; by accomplishing all of the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0376 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0377 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both dated November 17, 2005, as applicable. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24,000 flight hours or 72 months, whichever occurs first. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 26, 2006. Jeffrey E. Duven, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-8708 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 2001-NM-110-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: This action withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)that proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B series airplanes. That action would have required modifying or replacing flight data recorders
(FDR)of a certain model. Since the issuance of the NPRM, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)has received new data that the identified unsafe condition has been corrected on all airplanes that would have been subject to the NPRM. Accordingly, the proposed rule is withdrawn. 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: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B series airplanes, was published in the **Federal Register** as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)on August 17, 2001 (66 FR 43128). The proposed rule would have required modifying or replacing flight data recorders
(FDR)of a certain model. That action resulted from reports of a number of incidents in which flight data have been lost from the FDR. The proposed actions were intended to prevent loss of flight data from the FDR, which could hamper discovery of the cause of an accident, preventing the Federal Aviation Administration from developing and mandating actions to prevent additional accidents caused by the same unsafe condition. Actions That Occurred Since the NPRM Was Issued Since the issuance of that NPRM, the FDR manufacturer, L-3 Communications Corporation, notified the FAA that the only affected operator flying in the U.S. has accomplished the action proposed in the NPRM, and no unsafe condition exists or is likely to exist. In the event that a Saab Model SAAB-Fairchild SF340A (SAAB/SF340A), or SAAB 340B airplane is imported into the U.S., the FAA issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (NM-06-40, April 14, 2006) to alert U.S. operators of the need to install the replacement FDR. Explanation of Change to Model Designation We have revised the model reference in the above paragraph to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. FAA's Conclusions Upon further consideration, the FAA has determined that the actions that would have been required by the NPRM have already been done on all affected airplanes, and the identified unsafe condition has been corrected. Accordingly, the proposed rule is hereby withdrawn. Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes only such action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another action in the future, nor does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future. Regulatory Impact Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, 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, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket 2001-NM-110-AD, published in the **Federal Register** on August 17, 2001 (66 FR 43128), is withdrawn. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 26, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-8710 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-22420; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-47-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; B-N Group Ltd. BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN-2T-4R Series (All Individual Models Included in Type Certificate Data Sheet
(TCDS)A17EU, Revision 16, Dated December 9, 2002) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an airworthiness authority of another country. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address an unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 21, 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. • 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 the proposed AD, contact the B-N Group Ltd, Bembridge Airport, Isle of Wright, United Kingdom, PO35 5PR; telephone: 0870 881 5064; facsimile: 0870 881 5065; e-mail: *structural@britten-norman.com.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Safety Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4138; facsimile:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. We are prototyping this process and specifically request your comments on its use. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all existing AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to follow our technical decision-making processes in all aspects to meet our responsibilities to determine and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. The comment period for this proposed AD is open for 15 days. The comment period is reduced because the airworthiness authority and manufacturer have already published the documents on which we based our decision, making a longer comment period unnecessary. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written 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-2005-22420; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-47-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 are also inviting comments, views, or arguments on the new MCAI process. 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 The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, has issued British Airworthiness Directive No. G-2004-0011, dated May 25, 2004 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that that the aircraft manufacturer has identified several cases of corroded elevator final drive control rods. If not corrected corrosion of the interior surface could result in failure or collapse of the rod, resulting in loss of control or jamming of the elevator system. The MCAI requires an inspection of the internal surface of the elevator system final drive control rod and replacement if found corroded. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the docket. Relevant Service Information BN-Group Ltd. has issued Britten-Norman Service Bulletin SB number 303, Issue 1, dated May 14, 2004. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product is manufactured outside the United States and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the State of Design's airworthiness authority has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We have examined the airworthiness authority's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on all products of this type design. We are issuing this proposed AD to correct the unsafe condition. Differences Between the Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable in a U.S. court of law. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These proposed requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 91 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 workhours per product to do the action and that the average labor rate is $80 per workhour. Required parts would cost about $1,000 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $127,400, or $1,400 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies 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 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 Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **B-N Group Ltd:** Docket No. FAA-2005-22420; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-47-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive
(AD)by June 21, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN-2T-4R Series (all individual models included in Type Certificate Data Sheet
(TCDS)A17EU, Revision 16, dated December 9, 2002) airplanes; certificated in any U.S. category. Reason
(d)The aircraft manufacturer has identified several cases of corroded elevator final drive control rods. If not corrected corrosion of the interior surface could result in failure or collapse of the rod, resulting in loss of control or jamming of the elevator system. The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)requires an inspection of the internal surface of the elevator system final drive control rod and replacement if found corroded. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following except as stated in paragraph
(f)below.
(1)Within the next 50 hours time-in-service or one month after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the internal surface of the elevator system final drive control rod, in accordance with B-N Group Ltd. Britten-Norman Service Bulletin SB number 303, Issue 1, dated May 14, 2004.
(2)If corrosion is found, the elevator control rod must be replaced before further flight. FAA AD Differences
(f)When complying with this AD, repeat the actions in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 12 months. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Safety Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4138; fax:
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Return to Airworthiness:* When complying with this AD, perform FAA-approved corrective actions before returning the product to an airworthy condition.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)This AD is related to MCAI United Kingdom Airworthiness Directive No: G-2004-0011, Issued Date: May 25, 2004, which references B-N Group Ltd. Britten-Norman Service Bulletin SB number 303, Issue 1, dated May 14, 2004, for information on required actions. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 30, 2006. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-8713 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 401 and 402 RIN 0960-AG14 Privacy and Disclosure of Official Records and Information AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: We propose to amend our privacy and disclosure rules to help preserve the anonymity of, and help protect the physical well-being of, SSA employees who reasonably believe that they are at risk of injury or other harm if certain employment information about them is disclosed. These changes in the regulations would ensure uniform application of the policy for at-risk employees. DATES: To be sure that your comments are considered, we must receive them no later than August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may give us your comments by: using our Internet facility ( *i.e.* , Social Security Online) at *http://policy.ssa.gov/erm/rules.nsf/Rules+Open+To+Comment* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; e-mail to *regulations@ssa.gov* ; by telefax to
(410)966-2830, or letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, Baltimore, MD 21235-7703. You may also deliver them to the Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 100 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD. 21235-6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. Comments are posted on our Internet site, or you may inspect them on regular business days by making arrangements with the contact person shown in this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edie McCracken, Social Insurance Specialist, Office of Public Disclosure, 3-A-6 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
(410)965-6117 or TTY
(410)965-5609. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet Website, Social Security Online, at *http://www.socialsecurity.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Version The electronic file of this document is available on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . Background Former Commissioner Kenneth S. Apfel approved a recommendation of the National Health and Safety Partnership Committee for Security (NHSPCS) to implement a nationwide program to enhance the safety and security of SSA employees who are victims, or potential victims, of domestic violence. The NHSPCS' proposed program was developed, during the era of “partnership”, by a joint union/management workgroup. It was intended to safeguard the anonymity of at-risk employees when requests for their work location and/or phone number were received, by delaying the disclosure of the information when certain conditions were met. This would have entailed a change in SSA policy that now permits such information requests to be honored. No action was ever taken on the recommendation when the “partnership” was dissolved by Executive Order 13203 on February 17, 2001. We are now proposing a modified approach to strengthening our privacy and disclosure rules to better safeguard at-risk employees. Explanation of Changes We propose to amend subsection (b)(3)(c)(4) of Appendix A to Part 401 and add a new subsection
(e)to § 402.45 to permit SSA to exercise its discretion, consistent with the Freedom of Information Act and the rules of the Office of Personnel Management (5 CFR part 293), to withhold the work location and telephone number of employees who reasonably believe that they are at risk of injury or other harm by the disclosure of such information. These proposed changes would clarify our procedures for access to, and disclosure of, personally identifiable information regarding employees and enhance our ability to maintain adequate safeguards against disclosures in situations in which an employee may be at risk or fear for his/her physical safety. We propose to amend Part 401, Appendix A, (b)(3)(c)(4) by removing the first sentence, “Location of duty station, including room number and telephone number.” We also propose to revise § 402.45 by adding a new subsection (e). New subsection § 402.45(e) will fully describe the rules governing the release of personally identifiable information as it pertains to employees' telephone numbers and duty stations (including room numbers, bay designations, or other identifying information regarding buildings or places of employment). Clarity of These Proposed Rules Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your comments on how to make these proposed rules easier to understand. For example: • Have we organized the material to suit your needs? • Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated? • Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rules easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand? Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866 We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and determined that these proposed rules would meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258. Thus, they were subject to OMB review. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that these proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect only individuals or entities acting on their behalf. Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act These proposed rules impose no reporting or record keeping requirements subject to OMB clearance. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security-Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security-Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security-Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security Income). List of Subjects in 20 CFR Parts 401 and 402 Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Privacy. Dated: February 27, 2006. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend subpart C of part 401 and part 402 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 401—PRIVACY AND DISCLOSURE OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 205, 702(a)(5), 1106, and 1141 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405, 902(a)(5), 1306, and 1320b-11); 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1360; 26 U.S.C. 6103; 30 U.S.C. 923. Appendix A to Part 401—[Amended] 2. Appendix A, paragraph (b)(3)(c)(4) is amended by removing the first sentence. PART 402—AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION AND RECORDS TO THE PUBLIC 1. The authority citation for part 402 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 205, 702(a)(5), and 1106 of the Social Security Act; (42 U.S.C. 405, 902(a)(5), and 1306); 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1360; 18 U.S.C. 1905; 26 U.S.C. 6103; 30 U.S.C. 923b; 31 U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235. 2. Section 402.45 is amended by adding paragraph
(e)to read as follows: § 402.45 Availability of records.
(e)*Federal employees* . The agency will generally not disclose information when the data sought is a list of telephone numbers and/or duty stations of one or more Federal employees which, as determined by the official responsible for custody of the information:
(1)Is selected in such a way that would reveal more about the employee on whom information is sought than the aforementioned items, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; or
(2)Would otherwise be protected from mandatory disclosure under an exemption of the FOIA. [FR Doc. E6-8697 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-112994-06] RIN 1545-BF47 Guidance Under Section 7874 Regarding Expatriated Entities and Their Foreign Parents AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulation and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations relating to the determination of whether a foreign entity shall be treated as a surrogate foreign corporation under section 7874(a)(2)(B) of the Code. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. This document also provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by September 5, 2006. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for October 24, 2006, at 10 a.m., must be received by October 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-112994-06), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-112994-06), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the IRS Internet site at: *http://www.irs.gov/regs* or via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (IRS-REG-112994-06). The public hearing will be held in the auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Milton Cahn at
(202)622-3860; concerning submission and delivery of comments and the public hearing, Treena Garrett,
(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to section 7874. The temporary regulations set forth rules relating to the determination of whether a foreign entity shall be treated as a surrogate foreign corporation under section 7874(a)(2)(B) of the Code. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the amendments. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The nature of the businesses that are most likely to consider corporate expatriation transactions, as well as the complexity and the costs of structuring and implementing those transactions, makes it unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will engage in such transactions. In addition, any economic impact to entities affected by section 7874, large or small, is derived from the operation of the statute or its intended application, not the proposed regulations in this notice of proposed rulemaking. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing has been scheduled for October 24, 2006, at 10 a.m., in the auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit electronic or written comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) by October 3, 2006. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Jefferson VanderWolk of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 1.7874-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and (g). * * * **Par. 2** . Section 1.7874-2 is added to read as follows: § 1.7874-2 Surrogate foreign corporation. [The text of proposed § 1.7874-2 is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Mark E. Matthews, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-8698 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Part 604 [Docket No. FTA-2005-22657] RIN 2132-AA85 Charter Service AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of additional committee members notice of and meeting dates and times. SUMMARY: This notice lists the additional committee members as nominated by the Charter Bus Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (CBNRAC) and approved by the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This notice also includes new meeting dates and times. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 6, 2006. See supplementary information section for dates of future meetings. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Martineau, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, 202-366-1936 ( *elizabeth.martineau@dot.gov* ). Her mailing address at the Federal Transit Administration is 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9316, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: New Members April 10, 2006, FTA published a final notice establishing the Charter Bus Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (CBNRAC) (71 FR 18056). The CBNRAC held its first meeting in Washington, DC on May 8 and 9. During those meetings, the members of the CBNRAC nominated four additional members for inclusion on the CBNRAC. Those individuals are:
(1)Michael Waters, Vice President and General Manager, Coach USA;
(2)Dale Moser, Chief Operating Officer, Coach America;
(3)Richard Ruddell, President and Executive Director, Fort Worth Transportation Authority;
(4)Sandy Dragoo, Executive Director, Capital Area Transportation Authority. The Deputy Administrator considered these names, and, on May 26, 2006, approved the inclusion of these individuals on the CBNRAC. Schedule of Meetings As mentioned above, the first meetings of the CBNRAC occurred on May 8 and 9 in Washington, DC. During those meetings, the Committee agreed on the following schedule for future meetings: June 19 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. June 20 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. July 17 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. July 18 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. September 12 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. September 13 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. October 25 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. October 26 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. December 6 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. December 7 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. All of the above meetings will be held in room 2301 at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Any changes in dates, times, or location, will be announced in a **Federal Register** notice in advance of the next meeting. Issued this 31st day of May, 2006, in Washington, DC. Sandra K. Bushue, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 06-5133 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 24
Traces to 24 documents
U.S. Code
- Transferred§ 450i
- Definitions§ 601
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments§ 405
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Establishment of central file; information from other departments and agencies§ 1360
- Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information§ 6103
- Filing of notice of claim§ 923
- Disclosure of confidential information generally§ 1905
- SHORT TITLE.§ 9701
- Rules and regulations§ 7805
- Rules relating to expatriated entities and their foreign parents§ 7874
register
20 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 3411
- 7 CFR 3411.3(d)
- 7 CFR 3411.4(c)(8)
- 7 CFR 3411.3(d)(1)(i)
- 7 CFR 3411.3(d)(2)
- 7 CFR 3411.3(d)(3)(ii)(A)
- 7 CFR 3411.3(d)(3)(ii)(B)
- Pub. L. 109-97
- Pub. L. 96-354
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 7 CFR 3015
- Pub. L. 104-127
- 7 CFR 3407
- 31 USC 6301-6308
- Pub. L. 95-224
- 14 CFR 39
- 5 CFR 293
- 30 USC 923b
- 26 CFR 1
- 49 CFR 604
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
Cite7 CFR 3411
Cite7 CFR 3411.3(d)
Cite7 CFR 3411.4(c)(8)
Cites 44 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources