Notices. Temporary final rule

11,382 words·~52 min read·/register/2006/06/20/06-5489

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

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07-06-074] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Welch Causeway (SR 699) Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 122.8, Madeira Beach, Pinellas County, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the regulations governing the operation of the Welch Causeway (SR 699) Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway mile 122.8, Madeira Beach, Pinellas County, Florida.

This rule is needed to provide vehicular traffic relief during heavy vehicular traffic periods as well as meeting the reasonable needs of mariners during the construction of nearby bridges. This bridge will open on the hour and half hour, Friday, 2 p.m. until 6 p.m., Saturday, Sunday and Federal holidays from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. until October 29, 2006. DATES: This rule is effective from June 20, 2006 until October 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD07-06-074 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, FL 33131, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Project Officer, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at

(305)415-6743. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NRPM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM was impracticable and contrary to the public interest, because the rule is needed to provide for vehicular traffic relief during construction of bridges and provides provisions for vessels to transit through the area on a twice an hour schedule during heavy vehicular traffic periods. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after **Federal Register** publication. This rule provides for scheduled bridge openings for vessels to transit through the bridge. Background and Purpose The Welch Causeway (SR 699) bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway mile 122.8, Madeira Beach, Pinellas County, Florida currently opens on signal; except that, from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays, the draw need be opened only on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after the hour. This bridge is in close proximity to other bridges currently under construction. The bridge provides vehicular access on and off the coastal barrier islands. Florida State Representative Rice's office, on behalf of the citizens of Madeira Beach, requested the Coast Guard change the current operation of the bridge to two openings per hour during certain periods, while other bridge construction projects were underway. The bridge will be required to only open on the hour and half-hour Fridays from 2 p.m. until 6 p.m. and Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. Public vessels of the United States, tugs with tows and vessels in distress shall be passed as necessary. Discussion of Rule The regulation was requested by Florida Representative Rice's office on behalf of the residents of Madeira Beach and will provide temporary relief for vehicular traffic while other bridge construction projects are underway, while continuing to provide for the reasonable needs of navigation. The bridge will be required to only open on the hour and half-hour on Fridays from 2 p.m. until 6 p.m. and on Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. The draw shall open as necessary for the passage of tugs with tows, public vessels of the United States and vessels in distress. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary, because the rule will allow for bridge openings during the construction of nearby bridges. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the regulations provide for bridge openings, and for the reasonable needs of navigation. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order, because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section 117.255 also issued under authority of Public Law 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. From 2 p.m. on June 20, 2006, through 6 p.m. on October 29, 2006, § 117.287(h) is suspended and new paragraph

(l)is added to read as follows: § 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

(l)The draw of the Welch Causeway (SR 699) bridge, mile 122.8 at Madeira Beach shall open on signal; except that from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Fridays, and from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday and Federal holidays, the draw need be opened only on the hour and half-hour. Public vessels of the United States, tugs with tows and vessels in distress shall be passed as necessary. Dated: June 12, 2006. D.W. Kunkel, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-9663 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-06-014] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone on the waters of the upper Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the security of a large number of visitors to the annual July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The security zone will allow for control of a designated area of the river and safeguard spectators and high-ranking officials. DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. local time on July 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-06-014 and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number

(410)576-2674 or

(410)576-2693. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 3, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled “Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, D.C.” in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 16531). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Immediate action is needed to protect the public from waterborne acts of sabotage or terrorism. Any delay in the effective date of this rule is impractical and contrary to the public interest. Background and Purpose Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, the Coast Guard as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Captain of the Port Baltimore must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks. In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned security concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large number of spectators and high-ranking officials during the annual July 4th celebration would have on the public interest, the Coast Guard is establishing a security zone upon all waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, 75 yards from the eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the shore, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, totally including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. This security zone will help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against a large number of spectators and high-ranking officials during the annual July 4th celebration. Due to these heightened security concerns, and the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during the annual July 4th celebration would have on the large number of spectators and high-ranking officials, and the surrounding area and communities, a security zone is prudent for this type of event. Discussion of Comments and Change The Coast Guard received no comments on the proposed rule during the comment period published in the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held. As a result, no change to the proposed regulatory text was made. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This security zone will encompass only a small portion of the waterway and vessels or persons may be allowed to enter this zone with permission of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Potomac River (including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin) from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2006. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for twenty-four hours and the security zone will only apply to 75 yards of the Potomac River (from the eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the shore), and not the entire width of the river. Smaller vessels not constrained by their draft, which are more likely to be small entities, may safely transit around the security zone. Additionally, before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected areas. Because the zone is of limited size, it is expected that there will be minimal disruption to the maritime community. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. However, we received no requests for assistance from any small entities. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g.), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This regulation establishes a security zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.T05-014 to read as follows: § 165.T05-014 Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC.

(a)*Definitions.* For purposes of this section, *Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland* means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act on his or her behalf.

(b)*Location.* The following area is a security zone: All waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, 75 yards from the eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the shore, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, totally including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)The general regulations governing security zones, found in § 165.33 of this part, apply to the security zone described in paragraph

(b)of this section.

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

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

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

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

(d)*Effective period.* This section will be effective from 12:01 a.m. through 11:59 p.m. local time on July 4, 2006. Dated: June 9, 2006. Brian D. Kelley, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6-9659 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 36 CFR Part 1253 [NARA-06-0004] RIN 3095-AB50 NARA Facility Locations and Hours AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NARA is revising its regulations on the locations and hours of NARA facilities to reflect the relocation of two facilities in the past fiscal year. This final rule will affect the public. DATES: *Effective Date:* Effective June 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura McCarthy at 301-837-3023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule was published in the May 12, 2006, **Federal Register** (71 FR 27653) for a 30-day comment period. Notification of user groups occurred following publication of the proposed rule. NARA received no comments on the proposed rule and therefore is issuing the final rule with no changes. This rule is effective upon publication for “good” cause as permitted by Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). NARA believes that delaying the effective date for 30 days is unnecessary as this rule represents minor technical amendments. Moreover, as the public benefits immediately with correct addresses and hours for the relocated NARA facilities, any delay in the effective date would be contrary to the public interest. This rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule applies to agencies and individual researchers. This regulation does not have any federalism implications. This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1253 Archives and records. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NARA amends part 1253 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 1253—LOCATIONS OF RECORDS AND HOURS OF USE 1. The authority citation for part 1253 continues to read as follows: Authority: 44 U.S.C. 2104(a). 2. Amend § 1253.6 by revising paragraph

(d)and

(l)to read as follows: § 1253.6 Records centers.

(d)NARA—Southeast Region (Atlanta) is located at 4712 Southpark Blvd., Ellenwood, GA 30294. The hours are 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. The telephone number is 404-736-2820.

(l)NARA—Pacific Region (Riverside) is located at 23123 Cajalco Road, Perris, CA 92570-7298. The hours are 8:45 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday for scheduled appointments. The telephone number is 951-956-2000. Dated: June 14, 2006. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States. [FR Doc. E6-9645 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 261 [SW-FRL-8185-4] Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Removal of Final Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Removal of final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)is removing its final rule to grant a petition submitted by Tokusen U.S.A, Inc. to exclude (or delist) a certain F006 filter cake generated by its Conway, Arkansas Plant from the lists of hazardous wastes. This rule removes the final rule published in 67 FR 79874 (December 31, 2002). The EPA has received data from the facility indicating that the waste currently generated is no longer representative of the waste for which the petition was submitted. EPA acknowledges these changes and has requested that Tokusen withdraw its petition. Tokusen may submit a new delisting petition for the waste stream at any time. DATES: Effective June 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Peace by mail at U.S. EPA Region 6, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section (6PD-C), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by phone at

(214)665-7430 or by e-mail at *peace.michelle@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 31, 2002, at 67 FR 79874, EPA finalized an exclusion from the list of hazardous wastes for Tokusen U.S.A., Inc in Conway, Arkansas. On November 8, 2004, EPA received information from the facility that the concentrations of zinc were elevated above the delisting exclusion concentrations. Tokusen withdrew its delisting petition, submitted October 24, 2001, for the F006 filter cake on January 6, 2006. The Tokusen U.S.A., Inc, Conway AR, exclusion found in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, Table 1 will be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f). Dated: June 2, 2006. Carl E. Edlund, Division Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922 and 6938. 2. Appendix IX to part 261, Table 1—Wastes is amended by removing the entry “Tokusen U.S.A, Inc. Conway, Arkansas” and its related text. [FR Doc. E6-9576 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 71 118 Tuesday, June 20, 2006 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 890 RIN: 3206-AK98 FEHB Coverage and Premiums for Active Duty Members of the Military AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comment. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management is issuing a proposed regulation to change the Federal Employee Health Benefits

(FEHB)Program regulations that govern continued coverage for employees who are called or ordered to serve in the uniformed services. These regulations provide extended FEHB coverage for up to 24 months to Federal employees called or ordered to active duty and who meet certain requirements, including serving in support of a contingency operation. Those employees who are called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation are also eligible for premium payments by their employing agency. The purpose of these regulations is to authorize Federal agencies to continue health benefits coverage for up to 24 months for those employees called or ordered to active duty, with certain employees qualifying for agency premium contributions. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael W. Kaszynski, Policy Analyst, Insurance Policy, OPM, Room 3425, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-0001. Phone number: 202-606-0004. E-mail: *mwkaszy@opm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Defense Authorization Act for 2005 (Pub. L. 108-375) amended FEHB law to provide up to 24 months of continued FEHB coverage for Federal employees who are called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation (5 U.S.C. 8905a), and to authorize agencies to pay the employee's share and the Government's share of premiums for up to 24 months (5 U.S.C. 8906 (e)(3)). The Act provides that this enhanced benefit is available for any employee who:

(1)Is enrolled in the FEHB Program;

(2)Is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces;

(3)Is called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation (as defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10 U.S.C.);

(4)Is placed on leave without pay or separated from service to perform active duty; and

(5)Serves on active duty for more than 30 consecutive days. The expanded authority for agency premium payments authorized by Public Law 108-375 is a valuable benefit that helps reservists and their families shoulder the cost of health care during a time when they need it most. Public Law 108-454, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, was enacted December 10, 2004. It amended 38 U.S.C. 4317(a)(1)(A) to extend from 18 to 24 months the length of an employee's health insurance coverage when the employee is absent because of service in the uniformed services. For FEHB purposes, this law applies to employees who are called to active duty but do not meet all the requirements of Public Law 108-375. Generally, these employees have orders that do not show that they are called to active duty in support of a contingency operation. As before, they do not meet the requirements of FEHB law for agency premium payment during active duty. These regulations propose to place into rulemaking the requirements of Public Law 108-375 and Public Law 108-454. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation affects only health insurance carriers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review This regulation has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 890 Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Health facilities, Health insurance, Health professionals, Hostages, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Military Personnel, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 890 as follows: PART 890—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 890 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8913; § 890.803 also issued under 50 U.S.C. 403p, 22 U.S.C. 4069c and 4069c-1; subpart L also issued under section 599C of Pub. L. 101-513, 104 Stat. 2064, as amended; § 890.102 also issued under sections 11202(f), 11232(e), 11246

(b)and

(c)of Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251; and section 721 of Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 2061, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 890.303 paragraph

(i)is revised to read as follows: § 890.303 Continuation of enrollment.

(i)Service in the uniformed services.

(1)The enrollment of an individual who separates, enters military furlough, or is placed in nonpay status to serve in the uniformed services under conditions that entitle him or her to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, may continue for the 24-month period beginning on the date that the absence to serve in the uniformed services begins, provided that the individual continues to be entitled to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority. As provided for by 5 U.S.C. 8905(a), the continuation of enrollment for up to 24 months applies to employees called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation on or after September 14, 2001. The enrollment of an employee who met the requirements of chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, on or after December 10, 2004, may continue for the 24-month period beginning on the date that the absence to serve in the uniformed services began, provided that the employee continues to be entitled to continued coverage under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority.

(2)An employee in nonpay status is entitled to continued coverage under paragraph

(e)of this section if the employee's entitlement to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, ends before the expiration of 365 days in nonpay status.

(3)If the enrollment of an employee had terminated due to the expiration of 365 days in nonpay status or because of the employee's separation from service, it may be reinstated for the remainder of the 24-month period beginning on the date that the absence to serve in the uniformed service began, provided that the employee continues to be entitled to continued coverage under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority. 3. Section 890.304 paragraphs (a)(1)(vi), (a)(1)(vii), and (a)(1)(viii) are revised to read as follows: § 890.304 Termination of enrollment.

(a)* * *

(1)* * *

(vi)The day he or she is separated, furloughed, or placed on leave of absence to serve in the uniformed services under conditions entitling him or her to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, for the purpose of performing duty not limited to 30 days or less, provided the employee elects in writing to have the enrollment so terminated.

(vii)For an employee who separates to serve in the uniformed services under conditions entitling him or her to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, for the purpose of performing duty not limited to 30 days or less, the date that is 24 months after the date that the absence to serve in the uniformed services began or the date entitlement to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, ends, whichever is earlier, unless the enrollment is terminated under paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section.

(viii)For an employee who is furloughed or placed on leave of absence under conditions entitling him or her to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, the date that is 24 months after the date that the absence to serve in the uniformed services began or the date entitlement to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, ends, whichever is earlier, but not earlier than the date the enrollment would otherwise terminate under paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section. 4. Section 890.502 paragraph

(f)is revised to read as follows: § 890.502 Employee withholdings and contributions.

(f)Uniformed services.

(1)Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, an employee whose coverage continues under § 890.303(i) is responsible for payment of the employee share of the cost of enrollment for every pay period for which the enrollment continues for the first 365 days of continued coverage as set forth under paragraph

(b)of this section. For coverage that continues after 365 days in nonpay status, the employee must pay, on a current basis, the full subscription charge, including both the employee and Government shares, plus an additional 2 percent of the full subscription charge.

(2)As provided by 5 U.S.C. 8906(e)(3), an employing agency may pay both the Government and employee contributions and any additional administrative expenses for the cost of coverage for the employee and the employee's family for a period of 24 months for employees called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation on or after September 14, 2001. Payment of these contributions and expenses is solely at the discretion of the employing agency. [FR Doc. E6-9666 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24710; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-29-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-802 and AT-802A 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 certain Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-802 and AT-802A airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively inspect the attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf for damage and/or cracks and replace damaged and/or cracked attach angles. Replacing the attach angles with steel attach angles would terminate the proposed repetitive inspection requirement. Reports of an uncommanded change in the engine power setting caused by separation of the hopper rinse tank shelf from the firewall prompted this proposed AD. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damage and/or cracks in the attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf, which could result in failure of the attach angles. This failure could lead to shelf movement under maneuver load and shifting of the engine power cables, which could result in an uncommanded engine power setting change. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 18, 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 Air Tractor, Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone:

(940)564-5616; facsimile:

(940)564-5612. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:

(210)308-3365; facsimile:

(210)308-3370. 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-2006-24710; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-29-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 We received reports of cracks in the aluminum attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf. The cracks caused the attach angles to fail, allowing the shelf to move during in-flight maneuvering. Movement of the shelf during in-flight maneuvering caused the engine power cables, which attach to the hopper rinse tank shelf by a bracket, to shift and resulted in an uncommanded engine power setting change. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the attach angles. This failure could cause the hopper rinse tank shelf to separate from the firewall, allowing the shelf to move under maneuver load. This movement could cause the engine power cables to shift and result in an uncommanded change to the engine power setting. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #248, dated August 31, 2005. The service information describes procedures for: • Inspecting the hopper rinse tank shelf attach angles for damage and/or cracks; and • Replacing all three attach angles with steel attach angles, part number (P/N) 60568-3, if any damage and/or cracks are found on any of the attach angles. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively inspect the attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf for damage and/or cracks and replace damaged and/or cracked attach angles. Replacing the attach angles with steel attach angles, P/N 60568-3, would terminate the proposed repetitive inspection requirement. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 219 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do each proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost for each airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work-hour × $80 an hour = $80 Not applicable $80 $80 × 219 = $17,520 We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost for each airplane 3 work-hours × $80 an hour = $240 $105 $240 + $105 = $345 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 adding the following new AD: **Air Tractor, Inc.** : Docket No. FAA-2006-24710; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-29-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive

(AD)action by August 18, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD affects Models AT-802 and AT-802A airplanes, all serial numbers beginning with 802/802A-0001 through 802/802A-0219, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of an uncommanded change in engine power setting caused by separation of a hopper rinse tank shelf from the firewall. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damage and/or cracks in the attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf, which could result in failure of the attach angles. This failure could lead to shelf movement under maneuver load and shifting of the engine power cables, which could result in an uncommanded engine power setting change. Compliance

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

(1)Visually inspect the three attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf for damage and/or cracks Initially inspect within the next 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after the effective date of this AD. Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS. Replacing all three attach angles with steel attach angles, part number (P/N) 60568-3 (or FAA-approved equivalent P/N), terminates the repetitive inspection requirement of this AD Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #248, dated August 31, 2005.

(2)If you find any damage and/or cracks on any of the three attach angles during any inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, replace all three attach angles with steel attach angles, P/N 60568-3 (or FAA-approved equivalent P/N) Before further flight after the inspection in which damage and/or cracks are found. Replacing all three attach angles with steel attach angles, P/N 60568-3 (or FAA-approved equivalent P/N), terminates the repetitive inspection requirement of paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #248, dated August 31, 2005.

(3)You may replace the aluminum attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf with steel attach angles, P/N 60568-3 (or FAA-approved equivalent P/N), at any time to terminate the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD As of the effective date of this AD Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #248, dated August 31, 2005.

(4)Do not install aluminum attach angles on the hopper rinse tank shelf attach angles As of the effective date of this AD Not applicable.

(f)14 CFR 21.303 allows for replacement parts through parts manufacturer approval (PMA). The phrase “or FAA-approved equivalent P/N” in this AD is intended to allow for the installation of parts approved through identicality to the design of the replacement parts. 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. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(g)The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:

(210)308-3365; facsimile:

(210)308-3370, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(h)To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Air Tractor Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone:

(940)564-5616; facsimile:

(940)564-5612. 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-2006-24710; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-29-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 13, 2006. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-9639 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25079; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-065-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310-300 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Airbus Model A310-300 airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the existing non-return valve

(NRV)of the auxiliary center tanks

(ACTs)of the fuel system with a new, improved NRV. This proposed AD results from a report that it was not possible to transfer fuel from ACTs 1 and 2 during flight, and no electronic centralized aircraft monitor warnings were triggered. Investigation revealed a faulty static inverter and blown fuse, resulting in failure of certain fueling bus bars and subsequent failure of the automatic ACT fuel transfer. We are proposing this AD to prevent these failures, combined with failure of the NRV to close. If the NRV is open during flight, the fuel supply to the engines may be reduced during cross-feed operation to the extent that fuel starvation could occur and result in engine flameout. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

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

(425)227-1622; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-25079; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-065-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Direction Ge ne rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A310-300 series airplanes. The DGAC advises of receiving a report that it was not possible to transfer fuel from auxiliary center tanks

(ACTs)1 and 2 during flight, and no electronic centralized aircraft monitor warnings were triggered. Investigation revealed a faulty static inverter and blown fuse, resulting in failure of certain fueling bus bars and subsequent failure of the automatic ACT fuel transfer. In addition, there are known problems with certain non-return valves

(NRVs)used throughout the fuel system, which could result in intermittent failure of the NRV to close. If the NRV is open during flight, the fuel supply to the engines may be reduced during cross-feed operation to the extent that fuel starvation could occur and result in engine flameout. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-28-2158, dated September 1, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the existing NRV with a new, improved NRV. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-197, dated December 7, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. The Airbus service bulletin refers to Lucas Air Equipment Service Bulletin C23AE01-28-01, Revision 1, dated July 20, 1994, as an additional source of service information for replacing the NRV. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the Airbus service information described previously. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed replacement would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $368 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $4,928, or $448 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25079; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-065-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 20, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-304, -308, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with auxiliary center tanks (ACTs); except those on which Airbus Modification 8928 has been done in production. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that it was not possible to transfer fuel from ACTs 1 and 2 during flight, and no electronic centralized aircraft monitor warnings were triggered. Investigation revealed a faulty static inverter and blown fuse, resulting in failure of certain fueling bus bars and subsequent failure of the automatic ACT fuel transfer. We are issuing this AD to prevent these failures, combined with failure of the non-return valve

(NRV)to close. If the NRV is open during flight, the fuel supply to the engines may be reduced during cross-feed operation to the extent that fuel starvation could occur and result in engine flameout. Compliance

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

(f)Within 15,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Replace the existing NRV with a new, improved NRV by doing all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2158, dated September 1, 2005. Note 1: The Airbus service bulletin refers to Lucas Air Equipment Service Bulletin C23AE01-28-01, Revision 1, dated July 20, 1994, as an additional source of service information for replacing the NRV. Parts Installation

(g)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a NRV having part number C23AE0102, unless it has been modified according to paragraph

(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information

(i)French airworthiness directive F-2005-197, dated December 7, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 14, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-9631 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 199 [DoD-OS-2006-0054] RIN 0720-AA98 (previously 0720-AA94) TRICARE Program; Routine Care Not Directly Related to Study, Grant or Research Program AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule amends the exclusion of services and supplies provided as part of or under a research study, grant or research program to add coverage for routine patient care that would have been necessary in the absence of the study as well as care of complications that result from participation in the trial. DATES: Written comments received at the address indicated below by August 21, 2006 will be accepted. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: René Morrell, Medical Benefits and Reimbursement Systems, TRICARE Management Activity, telephone

(303)676-3618. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TRICARE supplements the availability of health care in military hospitals and clinics. This proposed rule revises the exclusion of services and supplies provided as part of or under a research study, grant or research program to allow coverage of routine care not directly associated with the research study or grant. Research Study, Grant or Research Program By law, under 10 U.S.C. 1079(a)(13), TRICARE may cost share only medically or psychologically necessary services or supplies. The regulation and program policies currently exclude cost-sharing of services and supplies provided as part of or under a research study, grant or research program, because the medical efficacy and safety of such services and supplies, and as such, the medical necessity, has not yet been established. For people with serious or life-threatening diseases, curative treatment is often not available. A clinical trial or research study offers the potential to provide curative treatment. By participating in a clinical trial, people with serious or life-threatening diseases may benefit from curative treatment. This change will assist eligible TRICARE beneficiaries who participate in clinical trials by providing coverage for medically necessary routine care not directly associated with the treatment under investigation and providing coverage for complications arising from participation in clinical trials. This exclusion removal applies only to clinical trials that are Phase II, Phase III, or Phase IV patient research studies approved by centers or cooperative groups that are funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ), or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In general, there are two types of costs associated with a clinical trial—routine medically necessary patient care costs and research costs. Routine patient care costs can include (but are not limited to) doctor office visits, hospital stays, clinical laboratory tests ( *e.g.,* blood tests, CT scans, bone scans) and X-rays. These are the type of costs that will be covered by TRICARE. Research costs are divided into treatment costs and administrative costs. Treatment costs include test performed purely for research purposes, additional research physician and nurse time, and the additional cost of the experimental therapy or treatment itself. Administrative costs include the costs associated with recruiting patients, data collection and management, and statistical analysis of results. These types of administrative costs are almost always paid for by the clinical trial sponsor. All types of research costs will continue to be excluded from TRICARE coverage. This change will make coverage for medically necessary services not directly associated with the treatment under investigation consistent with both the statute and medically necessary services and supplies authorized as an exception to the TRICARE exclusion for unproven medical treatments and procedures under the regulation. Under 32 CFR 199.4(g)(15), unproven drugs, devices, and medical treatments or procedures are excluded. However, coverage is authorized under paragraph (g)(15)(iii) of this section when treatment is not related to the unproven drug, device or medical treatment or procedure, *e.g.,* medically necessary in the absence of the unproven treatment. Treatment is also authorized which is necessary follow-up to the unproven drug, device or medical treatment or procedure but which might have been necessary in the absence of the unproven treatment. This change is also consistent with the coverage of Medicare and private insurance carriers. Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866 requires that a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis be performed on any economically significant regulatory action, defined as one that would result in an annual effect of $100 million or more on the national economy or which would have other substantial impacts. The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)requires that each Federal Agency prepare and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a Regulation which would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This is neither a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12886, nor would it have a significant impact on small entities. The changes set forth in the proposed rule are minor revisions to the existing regulation and affect only a small portion of the population who participate in research studies or grants. In addition, the proposed rule does not impose new information collection requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3511). List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 199 Claims, Dental health, Health care, Health insurance, Individuals with disabilities, Military personnel. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 199—TRICARE PROGRAM; ROUTINE CARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO STUDY, GRANT OR RESEARCH PROGRAM. 1. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55. 2. Section 199.4 is proposed to be amended by adding new paragraph (g)(14)(i) and by reserving paragraph (g)(14)(ii) to read as follows: § 199.4 Basic program benefits.

(g)* * *

(14)* * *

(i)*Care excluded.* This exclusion from benefits includes the investigational item or treatment itself, services and supplies customarily provided by the research sponsors free of charge for any enrollee in the trial, services and supplies provided solely to satisfy data collection and analysis and that are not used in the direct clinical management of the patient, and services and supplies provided to determine eligibility to participate in the study or research program. However, TRICARE may cover routine care not directly associated with the study or grant provided the research study or program is a Phase II, Phase III, or Phase IV patient research study approved by centers or cooperative groups that are funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Agency for Health Care Research and quality (AHRQ), or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under those circumstances, TRICARE coverage is authorized for:

(A)Treatment that is not directly associated with the study or grant, e.g., medically necessary in the absence of the study or grant.

(B)Services and supplies that are medically necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of complications arising from participation in the research study or program.

(ii)[Reserved] Dated: June 13, 2006. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-5489 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 32

Traces to 32 documents

U.S. Code