Unknown. Final rule

34,894 words·~159 min read·/register/2006/07/20/06-6327

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2006-07-20.xml --- 71 139 Thursday, July 20, 2006 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service See Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES Competitive impact statements and proposed consent judgments: Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd., 41237-41249 06-6361 McClatchy Co., and Knight-Ridder, Inc., 41249-41257 06-6362 National cooperative research notifications:

DVD Copy Control Association, 41257 06-6359 Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, Inc., 41257-41258 06-6360 Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc., 41258 06-6358 Army Army Department NOTICES Inventions, Government-owned; availability for licensing, 41209-41210 06-6363 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 41219-41220 E6-11521 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Meetings:

Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, 41226-41227 E6-11488 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration CITA Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements NOTICES Textile and apparel categories: Commercial availability actions— Encajes S.A. Colombia; polyester and nylon yarns; articles containing lace fabrics, 41208-41209 E6-11555 Cooperative Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 41197 E6-11535 Defense Defense Department See Army Department Education Education Department NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Elementary and secondary education— Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students Program, 41210 E6-11560 Energy Energy Department See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office PROPOSED RULES Consumer products; energy conservation program: Residential central air conditioners and heat pumps; test procedure, 41320-41344 06-6320 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air programs: Stratospheric ozone protection— Hydrochloroflurocarbons (HCFCs) production, import, and export; allowance system, 41163-41172 E6-11532 Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:

New York, 41162-41163 E6-11452 PROPOSED RULES Air programs: Stratospheric ozone protection— Hydrochloroflurocarbons (HCFCs) production, import, and export; allowance system, 41192-41196 E6-11531 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 41210-41216 E6-11524 E6-11527 E6-11528 Water pollution control: Marine sanitation device standard; petitions, determinations, etc.— Massachusetts, 41216-41217 E6-11530 Total maximum daily loads— Louisiana, 41217-41218 E6-11529 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:

Airbus, 41109-41113, 41118-41121 E6-11412 E6-11414 Boeing, 41113-41116 E6-11418 Honeywell International Inc., 41121-41125 E6-11540 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, 41116-41118 E6-11419 Airworthiness standards: Special conditions— Avidyne Corp., Inc.; various airplane models, 41104-41108 E6-11562 Cirrus Design Corp. Model SR22 airplanes, 41099-41101 E6-11483 Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques Engines, Inc., Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes, 41101-41104 E6-11474 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness standards:

Engine bird ingestion, 41184-41192 E6-11373 NOTICES Aeronautical land-use assurance; waivers: Cambridge Municipal Airport, OH, 41307 06-6379 Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.: City of Atlanta, GA, et al., 41307-41310 06-6378 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: National Environmental Policy Act implementing instructions for airport actions, 41310 E6-11564 FCC Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41218-41219 06-6400 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Flood insurance; communities eligible for sale:

Various States, 41172-41177 E6-11510 NOTICES Disaster and emergency areas: Delaware, 41227-41228 E6-11509 Louisiana, 41228 E6-11512 Maryland, 41228 E6-11507 Mississippi, 41228-41229 E6-11513 New Jersey, 41229 E6-11508 New York, 41229-41231 E6-11502 E6-11504 E6-11505 Ohio, 41231 E6-11506 Pennsylvania, 41231-41233 E6-11500 E6-11503 E6-11511 E6-11516 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Hamilton County, OH and Kenton County, KY, 41310 E6-11519 National Outdoor Advertising Control Program Assessment; comment request, 41258-41260 06-6355 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Motor carrier safety standards:

Driver qualifications; vision requirement exemptions, 41310-41313 E6-11556 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Exemption petitions, etc.: Amtrak, 41313 E6-11475 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Change in bank control, 41219 E6-11517 Permissible nonbanking activities, 41219 E6-11518 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Color additives: Mica-based pearlescent pigments, 41125-41127 E6-11536 NOTICES Meetings:

Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 41220 E6-11537 Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, 41220-41221 E6-11538 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards, 41221-41223 E6-11539 GIPSA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Agency designation actions: Texas, 41198 E6-11485 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings:

Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages Advisory Committee, 41223 06-6382 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Emergency Management Agency Interior Interior Department See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service See Reclamation Bureau IRS Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panels, 41316 E6-11544 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Frozen warmwater shrimp from— Brazil, 41199-41200 E6-11549 Ecuador, 41198-41199 E6-11546 Thailand, 41200-41201 E6-11561 Polyester staple fiber from— China, 41201-41205 E6-11547 Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from- Malaysia, 41205-41206 E6-11551 Justice Justice Department See Antitrust Division Labor Labor Department See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Coal leases, exploration licenses, etc.:

Montana, 41233-41234 E6-11468 Environmental statements; record of decision: Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan and Green River Resource Management Plan, WY, 41234 E6-11590 Morris Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation NOTICES National Outdoor Advertising Control Program Assessment; comment request, 41258-41260 06-6355 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

Crew exploration vehicle development, 41260-41261 E6-11522 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 41261-41263 06-6369 06-6370 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 41223-41225 E6-11559 06-6371 Meetings: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 41225 06-6372 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 41225-41226 06-6373 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management:

Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands squid, 41178 06-6375 Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— Tilefish, 41177-41178 06-6374 NOTICES Endangered and threatened species: Recovery plans— Steller sea lion, 41206-41207 E6-11554 Environmental statements; notice of intent: South Atlantic deepwater snapper grouper species; marine protected areas; establishment, 41207 E6-11552 Marine mammals: Taking and importing— El Salvador; yellowfin tuna harvested in Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean; affirmative finding renewed, 41207-41208 E6-11553 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

Minidoka Internment National Monument, ID; general management plan, 41234-41236 E6-11520 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 41263 E6-11515 Meetings: Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee, 41263-41264 E6-11514 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Combustion engineering plant; risk-inform requirements regarding exigent plant shutdown; consolidated line item process; technical specification improvement, 41264-41280 06-6364 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES Construction and occupational safety and health standards:

Roll-over protective structures; corrections and technical amendments, 41127-41161 06-6327 Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Notification and Federal Employees Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002; implementation and training, 41095-41099 E6-11541 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* Captive Nations Week (Proc. 8036), 41091-41092 06-6403 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Liberia; continuation of national emergency blocking property of certain persons and prohibiting the importation of certain goods (Notice of July 18, 2006), 41093-41094 06-6404 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:

Milltown Hill Project, OR, 41236-41237 06-6368 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 41280-41283 E6-11494 E6-11495 E6-11498 E6-11499 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 41283-41287 E6-11489 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 41287-41289 E6-11491 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 41289-41291 E6-11492 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 41291-41305 06-6366 NYSE Arca, Inc., 41305-41306 E6-11493 State State Department RULES Acquisition regulations:

Miscellaneous amendments Correction, 41177 E6-11558 NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Under Secretary for Political Affairs, 41306-41307 E6-11557 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Substance Abuse Treatment Center National Advisory Council, 41226 E6-11533 Women's Services Advisory Committee, 41226 E6-11534 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.:

BNSF Railway Co., 41313-41314 E6-11476 E6-11477 Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 41314 E6-11478 Textile Textile Agreements Implementation Committee See Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements Thrift Thrift Supervision Office PROPOSED RULES Mutual-to-stock conversions and mutual holding company structures; stock benefit plans, 41179-41184 E6-11278 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See Surface Transportation Board Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service See Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 41314-41316 E6-11479 E6-11481 E6-11482 MISSING FOR:

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission NOTICES Hearings, 41316-41317 E6-11542 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office, 41320-41344 06-6320 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 71 139 Thursday, July 20, 2006 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 724 RIN 3206-AK38 Implementation of Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002—Notification & Training AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)is issuing final regulations to carry out the notification and training requirements of the Notification and Federal Employees Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act). This rule will implement the notice and training provisions of the No FEAR Act. DATES: Effective September 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary D. Wahlert by telephone at

(202)606-2930; by FAX at

(202)606-2613; or by e-mail at *NoFEAR@opm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The United States and its citizens are best served when the Federal workplace is free of discrimination and retaliation. In order to maintain a productive workplace that is fully engaged with the many important missions before the Government, Congress noted that it is essential that the rights of employees, former employees and applicants for Federal employment under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws be steadfastly protected. Congress also stated that agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination. Congress has found that notification of present and former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment of their rights under antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws, combined with training of current employees, should increase Federal agency compliance with the laws. Congress entrusted the President with the authority to promulgate rules to carry out this title, and the President, in turn, delegated to OPM the authority to issue regulations to implement the notification and training provisions of Title II of the No FEAR Act, Public Law 107-174. These regulations carry out that authority. Introduction On February 28, 2005, OPM published at 70 FR 9544

(2005)a proposed rule implementing the notification and training provisions of the No FEAR Act and providing a 60-day comment period. On May 26, 2005, OPM at 70 FR 30380

(2005)extended the comment period to June 28, 2005. OPM received 18 comments from Federal agencies or departments, 6 comments from union representatives, and 15 comments from others, including the No FEAR Coalition. OPM commends and thanks all who have provided comments on this important topic, and OPM has carefully considered each comment. Comments on Definitions The proposed regulations defined the following terms that are used in the regulations: “antidiscrimination laws,” “whistleblower protection laws,” “notice,” and “training.” Several commenters suggested that the definition of antidiscrimination laws be expanded to cover matters under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(10) in order to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as a form of prohibited discrimination under the No FEAR Act. Some stated that Executive Order 13087 (amending Executive Order 11478, “Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. OPM notes that the No FEAR Act does not directly refer to 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(10) as a law covered by the Act or refer to Executive Order 13087 (or 11478) as being covered by the Act. The regulations address those matters directly identified in the No FEAR Act. Therefore, the suggestion is not adopted. Several commenters suggested that the definition of whistleblower protection laws be expanded to cover whistleblower protections under other laws, e.g., Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and others. The No FEAR Act does not directly refer to whistleblower protections other than those established by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, as amended. Again, the regulations address those matters directly identified in the No FEAR Act. Thus, the suggestion is not adopted. Comments on Notification Obligations The proposed regulations prescribed the “time, form, and manner” of the notices to employees, former employees, and applicants as required by section 202 of the No FEAR Act. The proposal included model paragraphs for agencies to use and proposed the time frames for the notification process. Several commenters asked that OPM clarify what is meant by “former employee” in terms of agencies’ obligation to notify former employees about their rights under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. In this regard, the commenters wanted to know how long after an employee left an agency would it be until the agency's obligation to notify him or her expires. OPM notes that the No FEAR Act makes no distinction about former employees and when they are to be notified, that is, there is no time limitation on former employees' rights to be notified under the Act. OPM also notes, however, that the proposed rule did not require agencies to contact former employees and applicants individually but could provide notice though other means, e.g., posting a notice on agencies' Web sites. The final rule has been revised to make this clearer by requiring that the initial notice be published in the **Federal Register** and the same notice be posted on each agency's Web site. Several commenters requested a clearer explanation of agency notice obligations and how they are to meet them. Some commenters requested that the regulations clarify agency responsibilities to post notices through the **Federal Register** process. One commenter suggested that OPM post a government-wide notice through this process on behalf of all agencies. OPM notes that the **Federal Register** process was identified as an approved means to meet notification obligations under the Act in those cases where the agency does not have a Web site and the regulations have been clarified in this regard. Because the notice obligation rests with individual agencies, however, OPM declines to adopt the suggestion that OPM post a government-wide notice. At a minimum, agencies are required to include in their notices the text required by these regulations but may also add additional text in light of their individual agency circumstances. The final regulation also draws distinctions between the notice for employees and notice for former employees and applicants. Finally, one commenter asked whether a single posting on an agency's Internet Web site would meet the initial notification requirements of section 724.202(e) of the proposed rule. OPM's response is that it would not. The final rules require that all agencies' initial notices be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, all agencies with Web sites are required to place the same notices on their sites where they are to remain until replaced or revised. Several commenters suggested that agencies be afforded discretion and flexibility to modify the proposed model notice language to fit their needs rather than be required to use the model language verbatim. Because the notice obligation applies governmentwide, OPM believes that the required information established by these regulations should be consistent governmentwide. This would eliminate any confusion that might be created if content varied from agency to agency. Therefore, OPM does not adopt the suggestion and agencies are required to use the model language contained in the regulations. While the required information would be consistent governmentwide, OPM notes that agencies have the authority under the regulations to provide additional information within the notice. One commenter noted that the proposed section 724.202(f) would require agencies to provide a notice in alternative, accessible formats if requested by employees, former employees and applicants. The commenter was concerned that this might be read to impose requirements beyond those covered in section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. OPM notes that section 508 is limited to electronic materials and the regulations address other materials such as (non-electronic) written notices. Therefore, OPM has not deleted the section but has modified it to state that agencies are obligated to provide requested notices in alternative, accessible formats to the extent required by law. Several commenters suggested that the model language describing the bases for prohibited discrimination be expanded to include sexual orientation. As noted previously in discussing the definition of antidiscrimination laws, OPM has decided not to expand the regulations beyond the express terms of the No FEAR Act; thus the suggestion is not adopted. Similar suggestions that the model language include references to types of whistleblowing other than that protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, as amended, are not adopted because OPM has decided not to expand the regulations as previously discussed. One commenter suggested as unnecessary the last sentence in the “Disciplinary Actions” portion of the model language that states agencies may not take unfounded disciplinary actions. OPM believes it is important to state clearly that the No FEAR Act does not change existing laws with respect to taking disciplinary actions. As the No FEAR Act states in section 102, increased accountability under the Act is not furthered “by taking unfounded disciplinary actions against managers or by violating the procedural rights of managers.” Thus, OPM does not adopt the suggestion. OPM also made a technical change to the “Disciplinary Actions” portion of the model language to clarify the circumstances in which disciplinary action may be appropriate. Accordingly, the final rule states that employees may be disciplined for conduct inconsistent with Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. Several commenters requested clarification of the relationship of the No FEAR Act notification process to the Office of Special Counsel

(OSC)certification program which calls for agencies to inform employees about their whistleblower protection rights. During the development of the proposed regulations, OPM consulted OSC on this issue and we agreed there is overlap between the two notification programs, with the No FEAR Act notification obligation being broader. As a result, a properly completed notice under the No FEAR Act might also meet that agency's obligations under OSC's certification program. Agencies are cautioned, however, to verify with OSC that their specific No FEAR notification process in fact does meet the requirements of the OSC's program. An agency's OSC-approved notice that includes the minimum model language in these regulations would satisfy the notification requirements of the No Fear Act. One commenter suggested that the proposed model language stating that “you may pursue a discrimination complaint by filing a grievance through your agency's administrative or negotiated grievance procedures, if such procedures apply and are available” is in error. The commenter asserted that allegations of discrimination cannot be addressed by an agency's administrative grievance procedure. While OPM's former rules on administrative grievance procedures prohibited such coverage, OPM eliminated that restriction ten years ago (see 60 FR 47040, September 11, 1995), and some agencies do provide for such coverage in their administrative grievance procedure. Comments on Training Obligations The proposed regulations prescribed the requirements for Federal agencies to provide training under section 202 of the No FEAR Act to all their employees regarding their rights and remedies under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. The proposed regulations called for agencies to develop written plans for meeting their training obligations under the Act and prescribed time limits for providing the training. A commenter noted that some of the time frames in the regulations were expressed in “business days” while others used “calendar days” and suggested that the final rule use consistent terminology. OPM agrees that consistency within the regulations promotes better understanding and therefore adopts the suggestion. As a result, the time frames in the final regulations have been modified to use the term calendar days in all cases and the number of calendar days adjusted to reflect a comparable amount of actual time as proposed, *e.g.* , 90 calendar days instead of 60 business days. One commenter suggested that the word “content” be replaced in section 724.203(b) of the proposed regulations concerning training plans because the “content” of training is already set by the No FEAR Act itself, *i.e.* , training on the rights and remedies available under the Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws. OPM agrees and adopts the suggestion, changing “content” to “training materials” as a necessary element to be described in each agency's training plan. In another reference to the content of agency training, a second commenter noted that section 102(5)(B) of the No FEAR Act provides that “Federal agencies should ensure that managers have adequate training in the management of a diverse workforce and in dispute resolution and other essential communication skills.” This provision is part of a number of items in the Act reflecting the “Sense of Congress”; however, this language is not repeated in the Act's section 202(c) which independently prescribes the content of agency training. Training on dispute resolution and communications skills, for example, may be beneficial, and agencies are free to include such topics in their training programs. Such topics are not, however, required under the Act and OPM declines to require such training as part of agencies' obligation to train employees on the rights and remedies available under the Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws. In addition to the above specific issues, a number of commenters suggested that OPM review and/or approve agency training programs, provide an oversight/enforcement mechanism on training, and receive periodic reports from agencies. Some commenters suggested that the No FEAR Coalition be a part of an OPM review process of agency training plans. OPM notes that under section 724.302(a)(9) of the proposed rule, each agency will be required to report on their written plan developed under 724.203(a) of this final rule. Copies of the agency's report will be provided to Members of Congress, the Chair of the EEOC, the Attorney General and the Director of OPM. This reporting mechanism will provide an appropriate level of oversight; therefore the suggestions are not adopted. Several commenters suggested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Special Counsel develop training programs that agencies could use to meet their training obligations. OPM notes that the No FEAR Act did not task these agencies with that responsibility, and OPM will not do so. Agencies, however, may seek assistance and information from these agencies. One commenter recommended that the final rule clarify that, while agencies are required to train their employees, this requirement does not extend to contract employees. OPM believes that the language is clear on its face that only current Federal employees are to be trained; thus OPM does not adopt the recommendation. One commenter suggested that OPM require agencies to conduct face-to-face training as opposed to other types of training, e.g., computer-based training. OPM has determined that it is best left to agencies to decide the most appropriate method(s) of training for their employees. OPM therefore declines to adopt this suggestion. One commenter noted that the proposed regulations appeared to require agencies to incorporate No FEAR Act training into their new employee orientation programs if they have such programs. While agencies may do so (and OPM believes this may be an efficient vehicle for agencies to meet their training obligations), OPM did not intend to prevent agencies from conducting other training for new employees outside of the orientation process. OPM's intent instead is to ensure that if training is not done during a new employee orientation, it is completed within 90 calendar days after an employee enters on duty. Therefore, OPM has modified the regulation to clarify that agencies may train new employees on the rights and remedies under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws using new employee orientation programs or other training programs as long as the applicable training program is completed within 90 calendar days after an employee enters on duty. Many commenters expressed concern about the proposed requirement that agencies complete initial training of their employees under the No FEAR Act by September 30, 2005. Their concerns include the logistics of training large numbers of employees in a short time, the burden on small agencies with limited resources, and the Federal budget request cycle. A number of commenters suggested that September 30, 2006, would be a more feasible date for completing initial training. One commenter suggested moving the initial training date to 2007. Other commenters, including the No FEAR Coalition, however, expressed their deep concern about the amount of time already expended in developing the regulations governing training. In balancing these concerns, OPM notes the importance Congress has attached to the training obligation, and concludes that it is imperative that agencies be allowed sufficient time to develop and deliver to employees the quality training that they deserve and to which they are entitled under the Act. Therefore, OPM has decided to require that initial training be completed within 90 days of the effective date of these regulations. Several commenters expressed concern about the proposed rule's requirement for a two-year training cycle after the initial training is completed. Some recommended no additional training and another recommended a five-year cycle. OPM has taken into account comments on the initial training, e.g., the logistics of training large numbers of employees, the burdens on small agencies, and the Federal budget request cycle. OPM believes, however, that on-going training is essential to maintaining a workforce that is knowledgeable about its rights and remedies under these laws. Accordingly, OPM is retaining the two-year training cycle as proposed. Miscellaneous Comments One commenter suggested that OPM issue regulations concerning the discipline of employees for violations of Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. OPM notes that section 204 of Title II of the No FEAR Act requires the President or his designee

(OPM)to conduct a study of agency best practices in taking such disciplinary actions and then to develop advisory guidelines for agencies to follow in taking action. Because the No FEAR Act (through delegation by the President) already assigns this similar responsibility to OPM, the suggestion is not adopted. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulations pertain only to Federal employees and agencies. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review This final rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. E.O. 13132 This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Congressional Review Act This action pertains to agency management, personnel and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 724 Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Claims. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, OPM amends part 724 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 724—IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE II OF THE NOTIFICATION AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACT OF 2002 1. The authority citation for part 724 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 204 of Public Law 107-174; Presidential Memorandum dated July 8, 2003, “Delegation of Authority Under Section 204(a) of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2002.” Subpart A—Reimbursement of Judgment Fund 2. In § 724.102 of subpart A, add new definitions for *Antidiscrimination Laws, Notice, Training,* and *Whistleblower Protection Laws* in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 724.102 Definitions. *Antidiscrimination Laws* refers to 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9) as applied to conduct described in 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. *Notice* means the written information provided by Federal agencies about the rights and protections available under Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws. *Training* means the process by which Federal agencies instruct their employees regarding the rights and remedies applicable to such employees under the Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws. *Whistleblower Protection Laws* refers to 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8) or 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9) as applied to conduct described in 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). 3. A new subpart B to Part 724 is added to read as follows: Subpart B—Notification of Rights and Protections and Training Sec. 724.201 Purpose and scope. 724.202 Notice obligations. 724.203 Training obligations. § 724.201 Purpose and scope.

(a)This subpart implements Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 concerning the obligation of Federal agencies to notify all employees, former employees, and applicants for Federal employment of the rights and protections available to them under the Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws. This subpart also implements Title II concerning the obligation of agencies to train their employees on such rights and remedies. The regulations describe agency obligations and the procedures for written notification and training.

(b)Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR Act, neither that Act nor this notice creates, expands or reduces any rights otherwise available to any employee, former employee or applicant under the laws of the United States, including the provisions of law specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). § 724.202 Notice obligations.

(a)Each agency must provide notice to all of its employees, former employees, and applicants for Federal employment about the rights and remedies available under the Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws applicable to them.

(b)The notice under this part must be titled, “No FEAR Act Notice.”

(c)Each agency must provide initial notice within 60 calendar days after September 18, 2006. Thereafter, the notice must be provided by the end of each successive fiscal year and any posted materials must remain in place until replaced or revised.

(d)After the initial notice, each agency must provide the notice to new employees within 90 calendar days of entering on duty.

(e)Each agency must provide the notice to its employees in paper (e.g., letter, poster or brochure) and/or electronic form (e.g., e-mail, internal agency electronic site, or Internet Web site). Each agency must publish the *initial* notice in the **Federal Register** . Agencies with Internet Web sites must also post the notice on those Web sites, in compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. For agencies with components that operate Internet Web sites, the notice must be made available by hyperlinks from the Internet Web sites of both the component and the parent agency. An agency may meet its paper and electronic notice obligation to former employees and applicants by publishing the initial notice in the **Federal Register** and posting the notice on its Internet Web site if it has one.

(f)To the extent required by law and upon request by employees, former employees and applicants, each agency must provide the notice in alternative, accessible formats.

(g)Unless an agency is exempt from the cited statutory provisions, the following is the minimum text to be included in the notice. Each agency may incorporate additional information within the model paragraphs, as appropriate. Model Paragraphs No Fear Act Notice On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the “Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002,” which is now known as the No FEAR Act. One purpose of the Act is to “require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.” Public Law 107-174, Summary. In support of this purpose, Congress found that “agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination.” Public Law 107-174, Title I, General Provisions, section 101(1). The Act also requires this agency to provide this notice to Federal employees, former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment to inform you of the rights and protections available to you under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. Antidiscrimination Laws A Federal agency cannot discriminate against an employee or applicant with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status or political affiliation. Discrimination on these bases is prohibited by one or more of the following statutes: 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability, you must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEO)counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action, or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action, before you can file a formal complaint of discrimination with your agency. *See, e.g.* 29 CFR 1614. If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of age, you must either contact an EEO counselor as noted above or give notice of intent to sue to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC)within 180 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action. If you are alleging discrimination based on marital status or political affiliation, you may file a written complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel

(OSC)( *see* contact information below). In the alternative (or in some cases, in addition), you may pursue a discrimination complaint by filing a grievance through your agency's administrative or negotiated grievance procedures, if such procedures apply and are available. Whistleblower Protection Laws A Federal employee with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action must not use that authority to take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action against an employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that individual that is reasonably believed to evidence violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited by law and such information is specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs. Retaliation against an employee or applicant for making a protected disclosure is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). If you believe that you have been the victim of whistleblower retaliation, you may file a written complaint (Form OSC-11) with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505 or online through the OSC Web site— *http://www.osc.gov.* Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity A Federal agency cannot retaliate against an employee or applicant because that individual exercises his or her rights under any of the Federal antidiscrimination or whistleblower protection laws listed above. If you believe that you are the victim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, you must follow, as appropriate, the procedures described in the Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws sections or, if applicable, the administrative or negotiated grievance procedures in order to pursue any legal remedy. Disciplinary Actions Under the existing laws, each agency retains the right, where appropriate, to discipline a Federal employee for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection Laws up to and including removal. If OSC has initiated an investigation under 5 U.S.C. 1214, however, according to 5 U.S.C. 1214(f), agencies must seek approval from the Special Counsel to discipline employees for, among other activities, engaging in prohibited retaliation. Nothing in the No FEAR Act alters existing laws or permits an agency to take unfounded disciplinary action against a Federal employee or to violate the procedural rights of a Federal employee who has been accused of discrimination Additional Information For further information regarding the No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR part 724, as well as the appropriate offices within your agency (e.g., EEO/civil rights office, human resources office or legal office). Additional information regarding Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection and retaliation laws can be found at the EEOC Web site— *http://www.eeoc.gov* and the OSC Web site— *http://www.osc.gov* . Existing Rights Unchanged Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this notice creates, expands or reduces any rights otherwise available to any employee, former employee or applicant under the laws of the United States, including the provisions of law specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). § 724.203 Training obligations.

(a)Each agency must develop a written plan to train all of its employees (including supervisors and managers) about the rights and remedies available under the Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws applicable to them.

(b)Each agency shall have the discretion to develop the instructional materials and method of its training plan. Each agency training plan shall describe:

(1)The instructional materials and method of the training,

(2)The training schedule, and

(3)The means of documenting completion of training.

(c)Each agency may contact EEOC and/or OSC for information and/or assistance regarding the agency's training program. Neither agency, however, shall have authority under this regulation to review or approve an agency's training plan.

(d)Each agency is *encouraged* to implement its training as soon as possible, but *required* to complete the initial training under this subpart for all employees (including supervisors and managers) by December 17, 2006. Thereafter, each agency must train all employees on a training cycle of no longer than every 2 years.

(e)After the initial training is completed, each agency must train new employees as part of its agency orientation program or other training program. Any agency that does not use a new employee orientation program for this purpose must train new employees within 90 calendar days of the new employees' appointment. [FR Doc. E6-11541 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE194, Special Condition 23-134A-SC] Special Conditions; Cirrus Design Corporation SR22; Protection of Systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Amended final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These amended special conditions are issued to Cirrus Design Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth, Minnesota 55811, for a Type Design Change. This special condition amends special condition 23-134-SC, which was published February 4, 2003 (68FR 5538), for installation of an Electronic Flight Instrument System

(EFIS)manufactured by Avidyne Corporation on the SR22. This amendment covers additional electronic equipment, such as a digital autopilot and/or engine related systems designed to perform critical functions on the SR22 and other models listed on the same Type Data Sheet, A00009CH. The airplanes will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. The applicable regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to these airplanes. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is July 11, 2006. Comments must be received on or before August 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE194, Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. All comments must be marked: Docket No. CE194. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wes Ryan, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-110), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone

(816)329-4113. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures have been subject to the public comment process several times in the past without substantive comment. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE194.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background In February 2005, Cirrus Design Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth, Minnesota 55811 made application to the FAA for a change in Type Design for the SR22 airplane model listed on Type Data Sheet A00009CH. The proposed modification incorporates novel or unusual design features that are potentially vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, Cirrus Design Corporation must show that affected airplane models, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference on Type Data Sheet A00009CH, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” In addition, the type certification basis of airplane models that embody this modification will include § 23.1301 of Amendment 23-20; §§ 23.1309, 23.1311, and 23.1321 of Amendment 23-49; and § 23.1322 of Amendment 23-43; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. Discussion If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2) of Amendment 21-69. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features Cirrus Design Corporation plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane. Protection of Systems From High Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF)Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid-state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions. Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment. These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:

(1)The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below: Frequency Field strength (volts per meter) Peak Average 10 kHz-100 kHz 50 50 100 kHz-500 kHz 50 50 500 kHz-2 MHz 50 50 2 MHz-30 MHz 100 100 30 MHz-70 MHz 50 50 70 MHz-100 MHz 50 50 100 MHz-200 MHz 100 100 200 MHz-400 MHz 100 100 400 MHz-700 MHz 700 50 700 MHz-1 GHz 700 100 1 GHz-2 GHz 2000 200 2 GHz-4 GHz 3000 200 4 GHz-6 GHz 3000 200 6 GHz-8 GHz 1000 200 8 GHz-12 GHz 3000 300 12 GHz-18 GHz 2000 200 18 GHz-40 GHz 600 200 The field strengths are expressed in terms of peak root-mean-square

(rms)values. or,

(2)The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation. A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions. Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to one modification to the airplane models listed under the heading “Type Certification Basis.” Should Cirrus Design Corporation apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of one modification to several models of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of some airplane models, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for airplane models listed under the “Type Certification Basis” heading modified by Cirrus Design Corporation to add an EFIS. 1. *Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).* Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions, are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the airplane. 2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: *Critical Functions:* Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on July 11, 2006. Steve W. Thompson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11483 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE239; Special Condition No. 23-179-SC] Special Conditions: Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques

(SMA)Engines, Inc., Cessna Models 182Q and 182R; Diesel Cycle Engine Using Turbine

(Jet)Fuel AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with a Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques

(SMA)Model SR305-230 aircraft diesel engine (ADE). This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with the installation of a diesel cycle engine utilizing turbine

(jet)fuel. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for installation of this new technology engine. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter L. Rouse, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4135, fax 816-329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 19, 2004, SMA Engines, Inc., applied for a supplemental type certificate for the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 ADE, type certificated in the United States, type certificate number E00067EN, in the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes. The Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes, approved under Type Certificate No. 3A13, are four-place, single engine airplanes. In anticipation of the reintroduction of diesel engine technology into the small airplane fleet, the FAA issued Policy Statement PS-ACE100-2002-004 on May 15, 2004, which identified areas of technological concern involving introduction of new technology diesel engines into small airplanes. For a more detailed summary of the FAA's development of diesel engine requirements, refer to this policy. The general areas of concern involved the power characteristics of the diesel engines, the use of turbine fuel in an airplane class that has typically been powered by gasoline fueled engines, and the vibration characteristics and failure modes of diesel engines. These concerns were identified after review of the historical record of diesel engine used in aircraft and a review of the 14 CFR part 23 regulations, which identified specific regulatory areas that needed to be evaluated for applicability to diesel engine installations. These concerns are not considered universally applicable to all types of possible diesel engines and diesel engine installations. However, after review of the SMA installation, and applying the provisions of the diesel policy, the FAA proposed these fuel system and engine related special conditions. Other special conditions issued in a separate notice include special conditions for HIRF and application of § 23.1309 provisions to the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of § 21.101, SMA Engines, Inc., must show that the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 ADE meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-51 and CAR 3 thereto. In addition, the certification basis includes special conditions and equivalent levels of safety for the following: Special Conditions: • Engine torque (Provisions similar to § 23.361, paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(3)). • Flutter (Compliance with § 23.629, paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)). • Powerplant—Installation (Provisions similar to § 23.901(d)(1) for turbine engines). • Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel system with water saturated fuel (Compliance with § 23.951 requirements). • Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel system hot weather operation (Compliance with § 23.961 requirements). • Powerplant—Fuel system—Fuel tank filler connection (Compliance with § 23.973(f) requirements). • Powerplant—Fuel system—Fuel tank outlet (Compliance with § 23.977 requirements). • Equipment—General—Powerplant Instruments (Compliance with § 23.1305 requirements). • Operating Limitations and Information—Powerplant limitations—Fuel grade or designation (Compliance with § 23.1521(d) requirements). • Markings And Placards—Miscellaneous markings and placards—Fuel, oil, and coolant filler openings (Compliance with § 23.1557(c)(1) requirements). • Powerplant—Fuel system—Fuel Freezing. • Powerplant Installation—Vibration levels. • Powerplant Installation—One cylinder inoperative. • Powerplant Installation—High Energy Engine Fragments. Equivalent levels of safety for: • Cockpit controls—23.777(d). • Motion and effect of cockpit controls—23.779(b). • Ignition switches—23.1145. The type certification basis includes exemptions, if any; equivalent level of safety findings, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 ADE because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 ADE must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1). Novel or Unusual Design Features The Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 will incorporate an aircraft diesel engine utilizing turbine

(jet)fuel. Discussion of Comments A notice of proposed special conditions No. 23-06-01-SC for the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with a SMA Model SR305-230 ADE was published on February 17, 2006 (71 FR 8543). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with an SMA Model SR305-230 ADE. Should SMA apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. 3A13 to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1). Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with a SMA Model SR305-230 ADE. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101 and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with an SMA Model SR305-230 ADE. 1. Engine Torque (Provisions Similar to § 23.361, Paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(3))

(a)For diesel engine installations, the engine mounts and supporting structure must be designed to withstand the following:

(1)A limit engine torque load imposed by sudden engine stoppage due to malfunction or structural failure. The effects of sudden engine stoppage may alternately be mitigated to an acceptable level by utilization of isolators, dampers, clutches and similar provisions, so that unacceptable load levels are not imposed on the previously certificated structure.

(b)The limit engine torque obtained in CAR 3.195(a)(1) and (a)(2) or 14 CFR 23.361(a)(1) and (a)(2) must be obtained by multiplying the mean torque by a factor of four in lieu of the factor of two required by CAR 3.195(b) and 14 CFR 23.361(c)(3). 2. Flutter—(Compliance With § 23.629 (e)(1) and (e)(2) Requirements) The flutter evaluation of the airplane done in accordance with 14 CFR 23.629 must include—

(a)Whirl mode degree of freedom, which takes into account the stability of the plane of rotation of the propeller and significant elastic, inertial, and aerodynamic forces, and

(b)Propeller, engine, engine mount, and airplane structure stiffness, and damping variations appropriate to the particular configuration, and

(c)Showing the airplane is free from flutter with one cylinder inoperative. 3. Powerplant—Installation (Provisions Similar to § 23.901(d)(1) for Turbine Engines) Considering the vibration characteristics of diesel engines, the applicant must comply with the following:

(a)Each diesel engine installation must be constructed and arranged to result in vibration characteristics that—

(1)Do not exceed those established during the type certification of the engine; and

(2)Do not exceed vibration characteristics that a previously certificated airframe structure has been approved for—

(i)Unless such vibration characteristics are shown to have no effect on safety or continued airworthiness, or

(ii)Unless mitigated to an acceptable level by utilization of isolators, dampers, clutches and similar provisions, so that unacceptable vibration levels are not imposed on the previously certificated structure. 4. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel System With Water Saturated Fuel (Compliance With § 23.951 Requirements) Considering the fuel types used by diesel engines, the applicant must comply with the following: Each fuel system for a diesel engine must be capable of sustained operation throughout its flow and pressure range with fuel initially saturated with water at 80 °F and having 0.75cc of free water per gallon added and cooled to the most critical condition for icing likely to be encountered in operation. Methods of compliance that are acceptable for turbine engine fuel systems requirements of § 23.951(c) are also considered acceptable for this requirement. 5. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel Flow (Compliance With § 23.955(c) Requirements) In lieu of 14 CFR 23.955(c), engine fuel system must provide at least 100 percent of the fuel flow required by the engine, or the fuel flow required to prevent engine damage, if that flow is greater than 100 percent. The fuel flow rate must be available to the engine under each intended operating condition and maneuver. The conditions may be simulated in a suitable mockup. This flow must be shown in the most adverse fuel feed condition with respect to altitudes, attitudes, and any other condition that is expected in operation. 6. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel System Hot Weather Operation (Compliance With § 23.961 Requirements) In place of compliance with § 23.961, the applicant must comply with the following: Each fuel system must be free from vapor lock when using fuel at its critical temperature, with respect to vapor formation, when operating the airplane in all critical operating and environmental conditions for which approval is requested. For turbine fuel, or for aircraft equipped with diesel cycle engines that use turbine or diesel type fuels, the initial temperature must be 110 °F, −0°, +5° or the maximum outside air temperature for which approval is requested, whichever is more critical. The fuel system must be in an operational configuration that will yield the most adverse, that is, conservative results. To comply with this requirement, the applicant must use the turbine fuel requirements and must substantiate these by flight-testing, as described in Advisory Circular AC 23-8B, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes. 7. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel Tank Filler Connection (Compliance With § 23.973(f) Requirements) In place of compliance with § 23.973(e) and (f), the applicant must comply with the following: For airplanes that operate on turbine or diesel type fuels, the inside diameter of the fuel filler opening must be no smaller than 2.95 inches. 8. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel Tank Outlet (Compliance With § 23.977 Requirements) In place of compliance with § 23.977(a)(1) and (a)(2), the applicant will comply with the following: There must be a fuel strainer for the fuel tank outlet or for the booster pump. This strainer must, for diesel engine powered airplanes, prevent the passage of any object that could restrict fuel flow or damage any fuel system component. 9. Equipment—General—Powerplant Instruments (Compliance With § 23.1305) In addition to compliance with § 23.1305, the applicant will comply with the following: The following are required in addition to the powerplant instruments required in § 23.1305:

(a)A fuel temperature indicator.

(b)An outside air temperature

(OAT)indicator.

(c)An indicating means for the fuel strainer or filter required by § 23.997 to indicate the occurrence of contamination of the strainer or filter before it reaches the capacity established in accordance with § 23.997(d). Alternately, no indicator is required if the engine can operate normally for a specified period with the fuel strainer exposed to the maximum fuel contamination as specified in MIL-5007D and provisions for replacing the fuel filter at this specified period (or a shorter period) are included in the maintenance schedule for the engine installation. 10. Operating Limitations and Information—Powerplant Limitations—Fuel Grade or Designation (Compliance With § 23.1521 Requirements) All engine parameters that have limits specified by the engine manufacturer for takeoff or continuous operation must be investigated to ensure they remain within those limits throughout the expected flight and ground envelopes (e.g., maximum and minimum fuel temperatures, ambient temperatures, as applicable, etc.). This is in addition to the existing requirements specified by 14 CFR 23.1521(b) and (c). If any of those limits can be exceeded, there must be continuous indication to the flight crew of the status of that parameter with appropriate limitation markings. Instead of compliance with § 23.1521(d), the applicant must comply with the following: The minimum fuel designation (for diesel engines) must be established so that it is not less than that required for the operation of the engines within the limitations in paragraphs

(b)and

(c)of § 23.1521. 11. Markings and Placards—Miscellaneous Markings and Placards—Fuel, Oil, and Coolant Filler Openings (Compliance With § 23.1557(c)(1) Requirements) Instead of compliance with § 23.1557(c)(1), the applicant must comply with the following: Fuel filler openings must be marked at or near the filler cover with— For diesel engine-powered airplanes—

(a)The words “Jet Fuel”; and

(b)The permissible fuel designations, or references to the Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)for permissible fuel designations.

(c)A warning placard or note that states the following or similar: “Warning—this airplane equipped with an aircraft diesel engine, service with approved fuels only.” The colors of this warning placard should be black and white. 12. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel-Freezing If the fuel in the tanks cannot be shown to flow suitably under all possible temperature conditions, then fuel temperature limitations are required. These will be considered as part of the essential operating parameters for the aircraft and must be limitations. A minimum takeoff temperature limitation will be determined by testing to establish the minimum cold-soaked temperature at which the airplane can operate. The minimum operating temperature will be determined by testing to establish the minimum operating temperature acceptable after takeoff from the minimum takeoff temperature. If low temperature limits are not established by testing, then a minimum takeoff and operating fuel temperature limit of 5 °F above the gelling temperature of Jet A will be imposed along with a display in the cockpit of the fuel temperature. Fuel temperature sensors will be located in the coldest part of the tank if applicable. 13. Powerplant Installation—Vibration Levels Vibration levels throughout the engine operating range must be evaluated and:

(1)Vibration levels imposed on the airframe must be less than or equivalent to those of the gasoline engine; or

(2)Any vibration level that is higher than that imposed on the airframe by the replaced gasoline engine must be considered in the modification and the effects on the technical areas covered by the following paragraphs must be investigated: 14 CFR 23.251; 23.613; 23.627; 23.629 (or CAR 3.159, as applicable to various models); 23.572; 23.573; 23.574 and 23.901. Vibration levels imposed on the airframe can be mitigated to an acceptable level by utilization of isolators, dampers, clutches, and similar provisions, so that unacceptable vibration levels are not imposed on the previously certificated structure. 14. Powerplant Installation—One Cylinder Inoperative It must be shown by test or analysis, or by a combination of methods, that the airframe can withstand the shaking or vibratory forces imposed by the engine if a cylinder becomes inoperative. Diesel engines of conventional design typically have extremely high levels of vibration when a cylinder becomes inoperative. No unsafe condition will exist in the case of an inoperative cylinder before the engine can be shut down. The resistance of the airframe structure, propeller, and engine mount to shaking moment and vibration damage must be investigated. It must be shown by test or analysis, or by a combination of methods, that shaking and vibration damage from the engine with an inoperative cylinder will not cause a catastrophic airframe, propeller, or engine mount failure. 15. Powerplant Installation—High Energy Engine Fragments It may be possible for diesel engine cylinders (or portions thereof) to fail and physically separate from the engine at high velocity (due to the high internal pressures). This failure mode will be considered possible in engine designs with removable cylinders or other non-integral block designs. The following is required:

(1)It must be shown by the design of the engine that engine cylinders, other engine components or portions thereof (fragments) cannot be shed or blown off of the engine in the event of a catastrophic engine failure; or

(2)It must be shown that all possible liberated engine parts or components do not have adequate energy to penetrate engine cowlings; or

(3)Assuming infinite fragment energy, and analyzing the trajectory of the probable fragments and components, any hazard due to liberated engine parts or components will be minimized and the possibility of crew injury eliminated. Minimization must be considered during initial design and not presented as an analysis after design completion. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 11, 2006. Steve W. Thompson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11474 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE244, Special Condition 23-184A-SC] Special Condition; Avidyne Corporation, Inc.; Various Airplane Models; Protection of Systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Amended final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These amended special conditions are issued to Avidyne Corporation, 55 Old Bedford Road, Lincoln, MA 01773. This is an amendment to special condition 23-184-SC, which was published on May 23, 2006 (71 FR 29574), for installation of an EFIS manufactured by Avidyne on various models. The original issue left off the Cirrus Design Corporation SR22, which was the first model to be certified under the STC. The airplanes listed under this multi-model approval will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. These novel and unusual design features include the installation of the Entegra II Avionics System, consisting of:

(2)Model 700-0003-( ) Integrated Flight Displays (IFD),

(2)Model 700-00011-( ) Magnetometer/OAT sensors, and

(1)Model 700-00085-000 Keyboard/Controller. These components are all manufactured by Avidyne Corporation, Inc. The applicable regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to these airplanes. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is May 10, 2006. Comments must be received on or before August 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE244, Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. All comments must be marked: Docket No. CE244. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wes Ryan, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-110), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone

(816)329-4123. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE244.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background In early 2006, the Avidyne Corporation, 55 Old Bedford Road, Lincoln, MA 01773, made an application to the FAA for a new Supplemental Type Certificate for airplane models listed under the type certification basis. The models are currently approved under the type certification basis listed in the paragraph headed “Type Certification Basis.” The proposed modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as a digital avionics system, that may be vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, Avidyne Corporation, must show that affected airplane models, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions, of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Numbers listed below or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the original “type certification basis” and can be found in the Type Certificate Numbers listed below. In addition, the type certification basis of airplane models that embody this modification will include §§ 23.1301, 23.1309, 23.1311, and 23.1321, 23.1322 of Amendment 23-49; exemptions, if any; and the terms of this special condition adopted by this rulemaking action. Final Special Conditions [Approved model list—Part 23 Class I & II (AC 23.1309-1C] Aircraft make Aircraft model(s) Type certificate No. Certification basis (see note 1) Aerostar Aircraft Corporation PA-60-600 (Aerostar 600), PA-60-601 (Aerostar 601), PA-60-601P (Aerostar 601P), PA-60-602P (Aerostar 602P) A17WE 14 CFR Part 23. Cessna Aircraft Company 172R, 172S 182S, 182T, T182T 3A12 3A1314 CFR Part 23. 14 CFR Part 23. 206H, T206H A4CE 14 CFR Part 23. T303 A34CE 14 CFR Part 23. 310, 310A (USAF U-3A), 310B, 310C, 310D, 310E (USAF U-3B), 310F, 310G, 310H, 310I, 310J, 310J-1, 310K, 310L, 310N, 310P, E310H, E310J, T310P, 310Q, T310Q, 310R, T310R 3A10 CAR 3. 320, 320-1, 320A, 320B, 320C, 320D, 320E, 320F 340, 340A, 335, 340, 340A 3A25 CAR 3. 336 A2CE CAR 3. 337, 337A (USAF O2B), 337B, 337C, 337D, 337E, 337F, 337G, 337H, M337B (USAF O2A), P337H, T337B, T337C, T337D, T337E, T337F, T337G, T337H, T337H-SP A6CE CAR 3, 14 CFR Part 23. Cirrus Design Corporation SR20, SR22 A00009CH 14 CFR Part 23. Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing LC40-550FG, LC42-550FG A00003SE 14 CFR Part 23. Commander Aircraft 112, 114, 112TC, 112B, 112TCA, 114A, 114B, 114TC A12SO CAR 3. de Havilland Inc DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, DHC-2 Mk. III A-806 CAR 3. Diamond Aircraft Industries DA 20-A1, DA20-C1 A40 TA4CH A47CE 14 CFR Part 23. 14 CFR Part 21, 14 CFR Part 23. A42 A57CE 14 CFR Part 21, 14 CFR Part 23. Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc Bee Dee M-4, M-5-180C, MXT-7-160, M-4, M-5-200, MX-7-180A, M-4C, M-5-210C, MXT-7-180, M-4S, M-5-210TC, MX-7-180B, M-4T, M-5-220C, MXT-7-420, M-4-180C, M-5-235C, M-7-235B, M-4-180S, M-6-180, M-7-235A, M-4-180T, M-6-235, M-7-235C M-4-210 M-7-235 MX-7-180C, M-4-210C, MX-7-235, M-7-260, M-4-210S MX-7-180 MT-7-260, M-4-210T, MX-7-420, M-7-260C,M-4-220, MXT-7-180, M-7-420AC, M-4-220C, MT-7-235, MX-7-160C, M-4-220S, M-8-235, MX-7-180AC, M-4-220T, MX-7-160 3A23 CAR 3. Mooney Aircraft Corp M20, M20A, M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K, M20L, M20M, M20R, M20S 2A3 CAR 3. M22 A6SW CAR 3. Partenavia Costruzioni Aeronauticas S.p.A P 68, P 68B, P 68C, P 68C-TC, P 68 “OBSERVER”, AP68 TP series 300, P68TC “OBSERVER”, AP68TP 600, P68 “OBSERVER 2” A31EU 14 CFR Part 23. The New Piper Aircraft, Inc PA-28-160, PA-28-150, PA-28-180, PA-28S-160, PA-28S-180, PA-28-235, PA-28-140 2 PCLM, PA-28-140 4 PCLM, PA-28R-180, PA-28R-200, PA-28R-200, PA-28-180, PA-28-235, PA-28-151, PA-28-181, PA-28-181, PA-28-161, PA-28-161, PA-28-161, PA-28R-201, PA-28R-201T, PA-28-236, PA-28RT-201, PA-28RT-201, PA-28RT-201T, PA-28-201T A-32-260, PA-32-300, PA-32S-300, PA-32R-300, PA-32RT-300, PA-32RT-300T, PA-32R-301, PA-32R-301, PA-32R-301T, PA-32-301, PA-32-301T, PA-32R-301T A3SO CAR 3. PA-30, PA-39, PA-40 A1EA CAR 3. PA-34-200, PA-34-200T, PA-34-220T, PA-34-220T, PA-34-220T A7SO CAR 3. PA-44-180, PA-44-180, PA-44-180T A19SO 14 CFR Part 23. PA-46-310P, PA-46-350P, PA-46-500TP A25SO 14 CFR Part 23. Raytheon Aircraft Company A36, B36TC, G36 3A15 CAR 3. 58 and 58A 3A16 CAR 3. 58P and 58PA, 58TC and 58TCA A23CE 14 CFR Part 23. REVO, Incorporated Lake LA-4, LA-4A, LA-4P, Lake LA-4-200, Lake 250 1A13 CAR 3, 14 CFR Part 23. SOCATA—Groupe AEROSPATIALE TB 20, TB 10, TB 21, TB9, TB 200 A51EU 14 CFR Part 23. Twin Commander 500, 520, 560, 560-A 6A1 CAR 3. Final Special Conditions [Approved model list—Part 23 class III] Aircraft make Aircraft model(s) Type certificate No. Certification basis (see note 1) Aerostar Aircraft Corporation PA-60-700P (Aerostar 700P) A17WE 14 CFR Part 23. Cessna Aircraft Company 208, 208A, 208B 401, 401A, 401B, 402, 402A, 402B, 402C, 411, 411A, 414, 414A, 421, 421A, 421B, 421C, 425 A37CE A7CE 14 CFR Part 23. CAR 3. 404, 406 A25CE 14 CFR Part 23. 441 A28CE 14 CFR Part 23. de Havilland Inc (Twin Otter) DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, DHC-6-300 A9EA CAR 3. Fairchild SA26-T, SA26-AT, SA226-T, SA226-AT, SA226-T(B), SA227-AT, SA227-TT A5SW CAR 3. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd MU-2B, MU-2B-10, MU-2B-20, MU-2B-15, MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-25, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-26 A2PC CAR 3. MU-2B-25, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-26, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-26A, MU-2B-36A, MU-2B-40, MU-2B-60 A10SW CAR 3. Partenavia Costruzioni Aeronauticas S.p.A “SPARTACUS”, AP68TP 600 “VIATOR”, VA300 A31EU 14 CFR Part 23. Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A P-180 A59EU 14 CFR Part 23. Pilatus Aircraft Limited PC-12, PC-12/45 A78EU 14 CFR Part 23. PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, PC-6/C1-H2 7A15 CAR 3. The New Piper Aircraft, Inc PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31-325, PA-31-350 A20SO CAR 3. PA-31P, PA-31T, PA-31T1, PA-31T2, PA-31T3, PA-31P-350 A8EA CAR 3. PA-42, PA-42-720, PA-42-720R, PA-42-1000 A23SO 14 CFR Part 23. Raytheon Aircraft Company A100 (U-21F), A100A, A100C, B100 A14CE 14 CFR Part 23. F90 A31CE 14 CFR Part 23. E50 (L-23D, RL-23D), C50, F50, D50 (L-23E), G50, D50A H50, D50B, J50, D50C, D50E, D50E-5990 5A4 CAR 3. 60, A60, B60 A12CE 14 CFR Part 23. 65, 65-A90-1, A65, 65-A90-2, A65-8200, 65-A90-3, 65-80, 65-A90-4, 65-A80, 65-A80-8800, 65-B80, 65-88, 65-90, 65-A90, 70, B90, C90, C90A, E90, H90 3A20 CAR3, 14 CFR Part 23. SOCATA—Groupe AEROSPATIALE TBM 700 A60EU 14 CFR Part 23. Twin Commander 560-F, 681, 680, 690, 680E, 685, 680F, 690A, 720, 690B, 680FL, 690C, 680FL(P), 690D, 680T, 695, 680V, 695A, 680W, 695B 2A4 CAR 3. 500-A, 500-B, 500-U, 560-E, 500-S 6A1 CAR 3. 700 A12SW 14 CFR Part 23. Note 1: The Certification Basis listing refers to the Certification Basis listed on the Type Certificate Data Sheet for each model. The modified aircraft will be compliant with the latest amendment of the regulations applicable to the modification. In particular, the revised Certification Basis will incorporate §§ 23.1301, 23.1309, 23.1311, 23.1321, 23.1322, 23.1353 at amendment 49, and the terms of this Special Condition. Also, each model will be added to the Approved Model List

(AML)using a prototyping approach, where the model is only added to the Supplemental Type Certificate as installations are accomplished and evaluated on each model. This combined special condition is being issued simply to avoid having to re-issue a repeated Special Condition document for each model listed on this multi-model approval. Discussion If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101 (b)(2) of Amendment 21-69. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of Sec. 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features Avidyne Corporation plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include Electronic Flight Instrument Systems (EFIS), which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane. Protection of Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields

(rms)values. or,

(2)The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation. A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” refers to functions, whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions. Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to one modification to the airplane models listed under the heading “Type Certification Basis.” Should Avidyne Corporation, apply to extend this modification to include additional airplane models, the special conditions would extend to these models as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of one modification to several models of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of some airplane models, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for airplane models listed under the “Type Certification Basis” heading modified by Avidyne Corporation, to add an EFIS. *1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).* Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions, are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the airplane. 2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: *Critical Functions:* Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on July 14, 2006. Patrick R. Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11562 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23690; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-133-AD; Amendment 39-14684; AD 2006-15-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 Series Airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding two existing airworthiness directives

(AD)that apply to certain Airbus Model A300 B2, A300 B4, and A300-600 series airplanes. One AD currently requires an inspection for cracks of the lower outboard flange of gantry No. 4 in the main landing gear

(MLG)bay area, and repair if necessary. The other AD currently requires, among other actions, repetitive inspections of the gantry lower flanges, and repair if necessary. This new AD requires new repetitive inspections for cracks in the lower flange of certain gantries, and repair if necessary, which ends the existing inspection requirements. This new AD also provides for optional terminating actions for the new repetitive inspections. This AD results from a report of a large fatigue crack along the outboard flange of beam No. 4 and a subsequent determination that existing inspections are inadequate. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the lower flanges of gantries 1 through 5 inclusive in the MLG bay area, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 24, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0379, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated October 4, 2005; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6152, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated October 4, 2005; listed in the AD as of August 24, 2006. On October 19, 2004 (69 FR 55329, September 14, 2004), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6128, excluding Appendix 01, dated March 5, 2001. On January 22, 2004 (69 FR 867, January 7, 2004), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus All Operators Telex A300-53A0371, Revision 01, dated September 10, 2003; and Airbus All Operators Telex A300-53A6145, Revision 01, dated September 10, 2003. On July 30, 1998 (63 FR 34589, June 25, 1998), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus All Operators Telex

(AOT)53-11, dated October 13, 1997. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1622; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2003-26-10, amendment 39-13408 (69 FR 867, January 7, 2004), and AD 2004-18-13, amendment 39-13792 (69 FR 55329, dated September 14, 2004). The existing ADs apply to certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes, and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes). That supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on May 17, 2006 (71 FR 28615). That supplemental NPRM proposed to continue to require an inspection for cracks of the lower outboard flange of gantry No. 4 in the main landing gear

(MLG)bay area, and repair if necessary. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections of the gantry lower flanges, and repair if necessary. In addition, that supplemental NPRM proposed to require new repetitive inspections for cracks in the lower flange of certain gantries, and repair if necessary, which ends the existing inspection requirements. That supplemental NPRM also proposed optional terminating actions for the new repetitive inspections. That supplemental also revised the original NPRM by including additional airplanes that were excluded from the applicability. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment that has been received on the supplemental NPRM. Request To Refer to Latest Service Bulletin Airbus states that it has issued Service Bulletins A300-53-0360, Revision 01, dated May 31, 2006; and A300-53-6132, Revision 01, dated June 7, 2006; whose original issues are listed in paragraph (m)(2) of the supplemental NPRM. We infer that Airbus is requesting that Revision 01 of Service Bulletins A300-53-0360 and A300-53-6132 be referred to in paragraph (m)(2) of the AD. We agree. We have reviewed Revision 01 of both service bulletins. Revision 01 of both service bulletins revises three illustrations. The reinforcement procedures in Revision 01 of both service bulletins are identical to that in the original issues of the service bulletins. No additional work is required for airplanes modified in accordance with the original issues of the service bulletins. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (m)(2) of this AD to refer to Revision 01 of both service bulletins and added a new paragraph

(p)to the AD (subsequent paragraphs have been redesignated) to give credit for accomplishing the original issues of both service bulletins. Explanation of Change Made to the Supplemental NPRM Paragraphs (g), (i)(4), and

(n)of the supplemental NPRM specify making repairs using a method approved by either the FAA or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile

(DGAC)(or its delegated agent). The European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)has assumed responsibility for the airplane modes that would be subject to this AD. Therefore, we have revised those paragraphs of this AD to specify making repairs using a method approved by either the FAA, the DGAC (or its delegated agent), or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment that has been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD will affect about 165 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Not all actions must be completed on all airplanes. Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost One-time inspection (required by AD 2003-26-10) 1 $80 None $80 23 $1,840. One-time inspection (required by AD 2004-18-13) 4 80 None $320 43 $13,760. Repetitive inspections (required by AD 2004-18-13) 12 80 None $960, per inspection cycle 78 $74,880, per inspection cycle. Repetitive inspections (new proposed actions) 16 80 None $1,280, per inspection cycle 78 $99,840, per inspection cycle. Estimated Costs for Optional Actions Optional action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Reinforcement specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0380, dated August 5, 2005 807 $80 Between $87,100 and $121,560 depending on kit purchased Between $151,660 and $186,120 depending on airplane configuration 23 Reinforcement specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6153, dated August 24, 2005 807 80 Between $82,460 and $87,070 depending on kit purchased Between $147,020 and $151,630 depending on airplane configuration 120 Reinforcement specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0360, Revision 01, dated May 31, 2002 Between 24 and 128 depending on airplane configuration 80 Between $250 and $1,000 depending on kit purchased Between $2,170 and $11,240 depending on airplane configuration 23 Reinforcement specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6132, Revision 01, dated June 7, 2006 109 80 Between $260 and $950 depending on kit purchased Between $8,980 and $9,670 depending on airplane configuration 120 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

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

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under 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 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendments 39-13408 (69 FR 867, January 7, 2004) and 39-13792 (69 FR 55329, September 14, 2004, and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-15-04 Airbus:** Amendment 39-14684. Docket No. FAA-2006-23690; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-133-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective August 24, 2006.

(b)This AD supersedes ADs 2003-26-10 and 2004-18-13. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category. Table 1.—Applicability Affected Airbus Airplanes

(1)All Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, and B2-203 airplanes.

(2)All Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.

(3)All Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

(4)All Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

(5)All Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

(6)All Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of a large fatigue crack along the outboard flange of beam No. 4. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the lower flanges of the left and right gantries 1 through 5 inclusive in the main landing gear

(MLG)bay area, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2003-26-10 One-Time Inspection

(f)For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10147 has not been done: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD: Do a one-time detailed inspection for cracking of the lower outboard flange of gantry No. 4 in the MLG bay area per paragraph 4.2.1 of Airbus All Operators Telex

(AOT)A300-53A0371, Revision 01 (for Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes); or AOT A300-53A6145, Revision 01 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); both dated September 10, 2003; as applicable.

(1)Before the accumulation of 8,000 total flight cycles since the date of issuance of the original Airworthiness Certificate or the date of issuance of the Export Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever is first.

(2)Within 30 days after January 22, 2004 (the effective date AD 2003-26-10). Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.” Repair

(g)Repair any cracking found during the inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD before further flight, per a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile

(DGAC)(or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)(or its delegate agent). Restatement of Requirements of AD 2004-18-13 One-Time Inspection and Corrective Action

(h)For Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, and B2-203 airplanes, and Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, on which Airbus Modification 3474 has been done: Prior to the accumulation of 16,300 total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after July 30, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-13-37), whichever occurs later, perform a one-time ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the gantry lower flanges in the MLG bay area, in accordance with Airbus AOT 53-11, dated October 13, 1997.

(1)If any cracking is detected, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with the AOT.

(2)If no cracking is detected, no further action is required by this paragraph. Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

(i)For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622R, C4-605R Variant F airplanes, and F4-605R airplanes, on which Airbus Modification 12169 has not been done in production: Perform the requirements of paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), and (i)(4) of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6128, dated March 5, 2001.

(1)At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, perform initial ultrasonic inspections or high-frequency eddy current

(HFEC)inspections for cracks of the lower flanges of gantries 3, 4, and 5 between fuselage frames FR47 and FR54, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, including the Synoptic Chart contained in Figure 2, sheets 1 through 5 inclusive, of the service bulletin.

(i)In accordance with the thresholds specified in the Synoptic Chart contained in Figure 2, sheets 1 through 5 inclusive, of the service bulletin; or

(ii)Within 200 flight cycles after October 19, 2004 (the effective date AD 2004-18-13).

(2)Perform repetitive ultrasonic inspections or high-frequency eddy current inspections for cracks of the lower flanges of gantries 3, 4, and 5 between fuselage frames FR47 and FR54, in accordance with the thresholds and Accomplishment Instructions, including the Synoptic Chart contained in Figure 2, sheets 1 through 5 inclusive, of the service bulletin.

(3)Perform repairs and reinforcements, in accordance with the thresholds and the Accomplishment Instructions, including the Synoptic Chart contained in Figure 2, sheets 1 through 5 inclusive, of the service bulletin, except as specified in paragraph (i)(4) of this AD.

(4)If a new crack is found during any action required by paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2) or (i)(3) of this AD and the Synoptic Chart contained in Figure 2, sheets 1 through 5 inclusive, of the service bulletin specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Prior to further flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; the DGAC (or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)(or its delegate agent). Credit for Inspections Accomplished in Accordance With AOT

(j)Any inspection accomplished before October 19, 2004, in accordance with Airbus AOT 53-11, dated October 13, 1997, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding inspection specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, for that inspection area only. Operators must do the applicable inspections in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD for the remaining inspection areas. New Requirements of This AD Repetitive Inspections

(k)At the later of the applicable times specified in the “Threshold (FC)” and “Grace Period” columns of Tables 1 and 2 in paragraph 1.E of the applicable service bulletin in Table 2 of this AD: Do an ultrasonic inspection or HFEC inspection, including rework of the pressure diaphragm, for cracks in the lower flanges of the left and right gantries 1 through 5 inclusive between FR47 and FR54, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin in Table 2 of this AD. Repeat the inspection at the applicable times specified in the “Interval (FC)” column of Tables 1 and 2 in paragraph 1.E of the applicable service bulletin in Table 2 of this AD. Accomplishment of the initial inspection ends the inspections required by paragraphs (f), (h), and

(i)of this AD. Table 2.—Service Bulletins Airbus Service Bulletin— For airplanes identified in—

(1)A300-53-0379, Revision 01, dated October 4, 2005 Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD inclusive.

(2)A300-53-6152, Revision 01, dated October 4, 2005 Paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) of this AD inclusive. Corrective Action

(l)If any crack is detected during any ultrasonic or HFEC inspection required by paragraph

(k)of this AD, before further flight, repair the crack in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin in Table 2 of this AD, except as provided by paragraph

(n)of this AD. Optional Terminating Actions

(m)Accomplishment of the actions specified in Table 3 of this AD ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(k)of this AD. Table 3.—Optional Termianting Actions Before or at the same time with— Reinforce— By doing all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of— For airplanes identified in—

(1)The actions required by paragraph

(k)of this AD and the action specified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD The flanges of the left and right portals 1 through 5 inclusive between FR47 and FR54 of the landing gear, including a rotating probe inspection for cracks of holes and repair if necessary Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0380, dated August 5, 2005, except as provided by paragraph

(n)of this AD Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD inclusive. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6153, dated August 24, 2005, except as provided by paragraph

(n)of this AD Paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) of this AD inclusive.

(2)The actions required by paragraph

(k)of this AD Portals 3, 4, and 5 of the plates/skin Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0360, Revision 01, dated May 31, 2006, except as provided by paragraph

(n)of this AD Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD inclusive. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6132, Revision 01, dated June 7, 2006, except as provided by paragraph

(n)of this AD Paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) of this AD inclusive. Repair of Certain Cracks

(n)Where the applicable service bulletin recommends contacting Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the crack in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; the DGAC (or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)(or its delegate agent). Credit for Original Service Bulletins

(o)Accomplishing the inspections and repair before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0379, dated May 9, 2005; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6152, dated May 9, 2005; as applicable; is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs

(k)and

(l)of this AD.

(p)Accomplishing the reinforcement before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0360, dated May 3, 2002; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6132, dated February 5, 2002; is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. No Inspection Report

(q)Although the service bulletins in this AD specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (r)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, 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

(s)French airworthiness directive F-2005-091 R1, issued September 28, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(t)You must use the applicable service bulletins identified in Table 4 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents in Table 5 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)On October 19, 2004 (69 FR 55329, September 14, 2004), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6128, excluding Appendix 01, dated March 5, 2001.

(3)On January 22, 2004 (69 FR 867, January 7, 2004), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus All Operators Telex A300-53A0371, Revision 01, dated September 10, 2003; and Airbus All Operators Telex A300-53A6145, Revision 01, dated September 10, 2003.

(4)On July 30, 1998 (63 FR 34589, June 25, 1998), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus All Operators Telex

(AOT)53-11, dated October 13, 1997.

(5)Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Table 4.—All Material Incorporated by Reference Service Bulletin Revision level Date Airbus All Operators Telex A300-53A0371 01 September 10, 2003. Airbus All Operators Telex A300-53A6145 01 September 10, 2003. Airbus All Operators Telex

(AOT)53-11 Original October 13, 1997. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0379, excluding Appendix 01 01 October 4, 2005. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6128, excluding Appendix 01 Original March 5, 2001. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6152, excluding Appendix 01 01 October 4, 2005. Table 5.—New Material Incorporated by Reference Service Bulletin Revision level Date Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0379, excluding Appendix 01 01 October 4, 2005. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6152, excluding Appendix 01 01 October 4, 2005. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11412 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-20731; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-260-AD; Amendment 39-14685; AD 2006-15-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-200, -300, and -400 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-200, -300, and -400 series airplanes. This AD requires replacing the existing fueling float switch in the auxiliary fuel tank with a new, improved fueling float switch, installing a new liner system inside the float switch conduit, and performing related investigative and other specified actions. This AD results from reports of chafing of the direct-current-powered float switch wiring insulation in the center fuel tank. We are issuing this AD to prevent contamination of the fueling float switch of the auxiliary fuel tank by moisture or fuel, and chafing of the float switch wiring against the float switch conduit in the fuel tank, which could present an ignition source inside the fuel tank that could cause a fire or explosion. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 24, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Vevea, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)917-6514; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737-200, -300, and -400 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 31, 2005 (70 FR 16445). That NPRM proposed to require replacing the existing fueling float switch in the auxiliary fuel tank with a new, improved fueling float switch, installing a new liner system inside the float switch conduit, and performing related investigative and other specified actions. New Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1192, Revision 2, dated April 27, 2006. (The NPRM refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1192, Revision 1, dated August 21, 2003, as the appropriate source of service information for the proposed actions.) Revision 2 adds a new Part B, which describes procedures for adding environmental protection to the splice and conduit. We have revised paragraph

(f)of this AD to refer to Revision 2 as the appropriate source of service information for the actions required by that paragraph. Also, we have revised paragraph

(h)of this AD to give credit for actions previously accomplished in accordance with Revision 1 of the service bulletin. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Support for the Proposed AD Two commenters, Boeing and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), support the proposed AD. Request to Correct Subject Part Number (P/N) Continental Airlines (Continental) notes that the P/N specified in paragraph

(g)of the proposed AD is different than the P/N specified in paragraph

(j)of AD 2004-15-04, amendment 39-13738 (69 FR 44580, July 27, 2004). (The NPRM explains that AD 2004-15-04 requires actions on the fueling float switches in the center and wing fuel tanks which are similar to the actions proposed for the auxiliary fuel tanks.) Similarly, BMI submits a single page from Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1192, Revision 1, marked to indicate that the float switch P/N is F8300-146. We infer that Continental and BMI are asking us to revise paragraph

(g)of the proposed AD to correct the float switch P/N. We agree. We made a typographical error in the P/N in paragraph

(g)of the NPRM. There is no float switch that has P/N 8300-146. We have revised paragraph

(g)of this AD to correct the P/N to F8300-146. Request To Address Defective Parts Manufacturing Authority

(PMA)Parts The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests that we revise the proposed AD to cover possible defective PMA alternative parts, rather than just a single P/N, so that those defective PMA parts also are subject to the proposed AD. The MARPA also asks that we determine whether one known PMA part contains the same defect as the original equipment manufacturer's

(OEM)part. The MARPA notes that the proposed AD does not address the possibility that PMA parts may be installed in lieu of the part referenced in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1192. The commenter indicates that Ametek Aerospace has received a PMA for a float switch having P/N F8300-146 which may be installed in lieu of the OEM part. The MARPA states that, by referring solely to the Boeing service bulletin, the proposed AD would not apply to this or any other PMA alternative, though the commenter assumes a PMA part would contain the same defect as the OEM part. The commenter states that this loophole could create a safety issue by allowing defective parts to remain in service. We concur with the MARPA's general comment that, if we know that an unsafe condition also exists in PMA parts, the AD should address those parts, as well as the OEM parts. However, we find that we may have caused confusion for the commenter with the typographical error addressed previously under “Request to Correct Subject Part Number (P/N).” The typographical error appears to have caused the commenter to think that there are two float switches of similar design—one produced by the OEM having P/N 8300-146, and the one produced by Ametek Aerospace having P/N F8300-146. This is not the case. We are aware of only one float switch of this design, and this is the float switch having P/N F8300-146 produced by Ametek Aerospace. Thus, the part to which the commenter refers is already subject to the requirements of this AD. However, the commenter's remarks are timely in that the Transport Airplane Directorate currently is in the process of reviewing this issue as it applies to transport category airplanes. We acknowledge that there may be other ways of addressing this issue to ensure that unsafe PMA parts are identified and addressed. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue, including input from industry, and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our policy regarding addressing PMA parts in ADs needs to be revised. We consider that to delay this AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. We have not changed the final rule in this regard. Request To Provide Information for Maintaining Configuration Continental recommends installing identification sleeves on the wiring near the float switch connector at the auxiliary fuel tank. Continental states that such identification sleeves would assist operators in maintaining the configuration after the proposed actions have been done. The commenter notes that, while the proposed AD changes float switch wiring routing and conduit P/Ns, a maintenance person could unintentionally change this configuration at some point in the future. The commenter suggests that the sleeves be marked with a cautionary message that refers to the service bulletin number or other identifying number. The commenter states that similar identification sleeves are used for the wiring installation for the isolated fuel quantity transmitter on Model 737 airplanes. We agree with the commenter's intent. But we do not agree that any change is necessary. The design of the float switch, conduit, liner, and wiring system will be listed as a critical design configuration control limitation (CDCCL) for the fuel system on Model 737 series airplanes. This will ensure that operators do not modify the fuel system without appropriate design review. Boeing states that it will also ensure that maintenance instructions will require that the conduit liner be replaced with a new liner whenever the wiring is removed from the float switch conduit for any reason. Request To Revise Statement Regarding Parts Continental requests that note

(a)be removed from Section 2.C., “Parts Necessary for Each Airplane,” of the service bulletin. The commenter specifically objects to the instruction in note (a), “Keep the existing part if there are other uses for it.” We infer that the commenter is concerned that an existing float switch removed from the auxiliary fuel tank could be used again. We do not agree that any change is necessary. Note

(b)of the same section states, “You cannot use the existing part to replace the new or changed part.” This addresses the concern that the part could be reinstalled in the affected area of an airplane subject to this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Request To Provide for Removed Fuel Tanks The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member Delta Airlines, states no objections to the proposed AD, but suggests adding a statement that no action is required for airplanes that are included in the applicability statement but that have had the auxiliary fuel tank removed. We acknowledge the commenter's suggestion, but do not agree that any change is necessary. The applicability statement in paragraph

(c)of this AD already states that this AD applies to “Boeing Model 737-200, -300, and -400 series airplanes * * * equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks.” Request To Revise Costs of Compliance Continental states that doing the actions in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin took approximately 40 work hours (20 elapsed hours) per airplane, excluding the time needed to gain access and close up. We infer that Continental is asking that we revise the Costs of Compliance to reflect the work hours that it found were necessary. We do not agree. We recognize that the time necessary to do the actions required by an AD may vary somewhat from operator to operator. It is not possible for us to account for all of the potential variances. The estimate of 38 work hours specified in this AD is consistent with the estimate specified in the service bulletin. We find no change is needed in this regard. Clarification of AD Requirements As we noted previously, Revision 2 of the service bulletin adds a new Part B, which describes procedures for adding environmental protection to the splice and conduit. Revision 2 of the service bulletin recommends that the actions in Part B be accomplished but does not provide a compliance time for those actions. We find that the actions specified in Part B are not necessary to address the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. Thus, this AD requires accomplishing only Part A of the service bulletin. We have revised paragraph

(f)of this AD accordingly. We also added Note 1 to this AD to clarify that this AD does not require the actions in Part B. Clarification of AMOC Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD will affect about 103 airplanes worldwide and 44 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions will take about 38 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $1,634 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this AD for U.S. operators is $180,576, or $4,104 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

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

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-15-05 Boeing** : Amendment 39-14685. Docket No. FAA-2005-20731; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-260-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective August 24, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-200, -300, and -400 series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD was prompted by reports of chafing of the direct-current-powered float switch wiring insulation in the center fuel tank. We are issuing this AD to prevent contamination of the fueling float switch of the auxiliary fuel tank by moisture or fuel, and chafing of the float switch wiring against the float switch conduit in the fuel tank, which could present an ignition source inside the fuel tank that could cause a fire or explosion. Compliance

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

(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace the existing fueling float switch in the auxiliary fuel tank with a new, improved fueling float switch, install a new liner system inside the float switch conduit, and perform related investigative and other specified actions, by doing all of the actions in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1192, Revision 2, dated April 27, 2006. Note 1: This AD does not require doing the actions in Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1192, Revision 2, dated April 27, 2006. Parts Installation

(g)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a fueling float switch having P/N F8300-146 on the auxiliary fuel tank of any airplane. Actions Accomplished Previously

(h)Replacements and conduit liner system installations accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1192, dated March 27, 2003; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1192, Revision 1, dated August 21, 2003; are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 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 14 CFR 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Material Incorporated by Reference

(j)You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1192, Revision 2, dated April 27, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11418 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD; Amendment 39-14687; AD 2006-15-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2B Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

(MHI)MU-2B series airplanes. This AD requires you to incorporate text from the service information into the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). This AD results from a recent safety evaluation that used a data-driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and maintenance of the MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe operation. Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. Field reports indicate an unsafe condition of improper rigging and/or adjustment of the propeller feathering linkage. Service centers found the unsafe condition during inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct improper rigging of the propeller feathering linkage. The above issue, if uncorrected, could result in degraded performance and poor handling qualities with consequent loss of control of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective on August 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: For service information related to this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., 4951 Airport Parkway, Suite 800, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone:

(972)934-5480; facsimile: ( 972) 934-5488. 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 20590-001 or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is FAA-2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193; telephone:

(817)222-5284; facsimile:

(817)222-5960. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On March 16, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain MHI MU-2B series airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14425). The NPRM proposed to require you to incorporate text from the service information into the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved AFM. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal and FAA's response to that comment: Comment Issue: Issuance of an AD Requiring a Procedure That Has Been in the AFM for Almost 10 Years Ralph Sorrells, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America (MHIA), Inc. contends that while MHIA does not object to the issuance of an AD to ensure that the feathering valve linkage inspection revision is included in the AFMs, MHIA does not understand why this condition would now merit an AD requiring the MU-2B operators to follow a procedure that has been in their AFMs for almost 10 years. This condition has not been the subject of a service difficulty report. Field reports have indicated that some MU-2B aircraft being inspected by service centers require re-rigging and/or adjustment of the propeller feathering linkage. Typically, misadjustment of the feathering linkage could result in the inability of the linkage to pull the feather valve to function as designed. The inability to feather the propeller could result in asymmetric drag and control difficulties that are outside the operational envelope of the aircraft. For type certificate data sheet

(TCDS)A2PC, Service Bulletin No. 229, dated February 20, 1996, was issued by MHI, Ltd. and mandated by issuance of the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau

(JCAB)AD No. TCD 4379-96, dated February 20, 1996, to ensure the continued airworthiness of the airplanes in Japan. For TCDS A10SW, Service Bulletin No. 090/76-003, dated January 22, 1997, was issued by MHI, Ltd. and the compliance was mandatory. At that time, issuance of an AD by FAA was not warranted, based on the information and lack of risk assessment tools. Recent accidents and the service history of the MU-2B series airplanes prompted FAA to conduct an MU-2B Safety Evaluation. Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. Part of this evaluation was evaluating the JCAB ADs for which there were no FAA ADs. In conducting this evaluation, the team employed new analysis tools that provided a much more detailed root cause analysis of the MU-2B problems than was previously possible. The results of this evaluation warranted the issuance of this AD. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. The Agency is committed to updating the aviation community of expected costs associated with the MU-2B series airplane safety evaluation conducted in 2005. As a result of that commitment, the accumulating expected costs of all ADs related to the MU-2B series airplane safety evaluation may be found in the Final Report section at the following Web site: *http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/cos/mu2_foia_reading_library/. * Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 397 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the AFM insertion: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work-hour × $80 = $80 Not applicable $80 $31,760 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD: 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD” in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2006-15-07 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, LTD.:** Amendment 39-14687; Docket No. FAA-2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective on August 24, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Type certificate Models Serial Nos.

(1)A2PC MU-2B, MU-2B-10, MU-2B-15, MU-2B-20, MU-2B-25, and MU-2B-26 008 through 312, 314 through 320, and 322 through 347.

(2)A2PC MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36 501 through 651, 653 through 660, and 662 through 696.

(3)A10SW MU-2B-25, MU-2B-26, MU-2B-26A, and MU-2B-40 313SA, 321SA, and 348SA through 459SA.

(4)A10SW MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A, and MU-2B-60 652SA, 661SA, and 697SA through 1569SA. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a recent safety evaluation that used a data-driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and maintenance of the MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe operation. Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect and correct improper rigging of the propeller feathering linkage. The above issue if uncorrected could result in degraded performance and poor handling qualities with consequent loss of control of the airplane. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures Incorporate the following information into the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM):

(1)For airplanes listed in Type Certificate No. A2PC insert pages 3 and 4 from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

(MHI)MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 229, dated February 20, 1996.

(2)For airplanes listed in Type Certificate No. A10SW insert page 3 of 3 from MHI MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 090/76-003, dated January 22, 1997.

(3)For all of the above airplanes the logbook entry required after each pilot check on page 3 of MHI MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 090/76-003, dated January 22, 1997, and page 4 of MHI MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 229, dated February 20, 1996, is not required. Within 100 hours time-in-service after August 24, 2006 (the effective date of this AD) The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may insert the information into the AFM as specified in paragraph

(e)of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). Note: The language in the service information states the procedure is an “inspection,” but the procedure is a “pilot check.” Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150, Fort Worth ACO, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193; telephone:

(817)222-5284; facsimile:

(817)222-5960, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(g)Japan Civil Aviation Bureau Airworthiness Directive No. TCD 4379-96, dated February 20, 1996, addresses the subject of this AD.

(h)For service information related to this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., 4951 Airport Parkway, Suite 800, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone:

(972)934-5480; facsimile:

(972)934-5488. 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 20590-001 or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is FAA-2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 11, 2006. Steven W. Thompson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11419 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23675; Directorate Identifier 2001-NM-320-AD; Amendment 39-14686; AD 2006-15-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2-203 and A300 B4-203 Airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes); and Model A310-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and all Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive inspections of the pitch trim system to detect continuity defects in the autotrim function, and follow-on corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, this new AD requires replacing the flight augmentation computers

(FACs)with new improved FACs. This AD also revises the applicability of the existing AD. This AD results from the development of a final action intended to address the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent a sudden change in pitch due to an out-of-trim condition combined with an autopilot disconnect, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 24, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of August 24, 2006. On December 20, 2000 (65 FR 68876, November 15, 2000), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in the AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-2797; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2000-23-07, amendment 39-11977 (65 FR 68876, November 15, 2000). The existing AD applies to certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and all Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 25, 2006 (71 FR 4062). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the pitch trim system to detect continuity defects in the autotrim function, and follow-on corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require replacing the flight augmentation computers

(FACs)with new improved FACs on certain airplanes. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. Request To Revise Applicability: Paragraph (c)(1) The commenter, Airbus, requests that we revise paragraph (c)(1) of the NPRM to retain the applicability of the existing AD for A300 B2-203 and A300 B4-203 airplanes. The applicability of AD 2000-23-07 for those airplanes is: Model A300 B2-203 and A300 B4-203 airplanes in a forward facing cockpit version, as listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22A0115, Revision 02, dated March 7, 2000. The applicability specified in paragraph (c)(1) of the NPRM omitted the restriction “in a forward facing cockpit version.” The commenter asserts that the mandatory actions for those airplanes are restated from AD 2000-23-07, so no new requirements for those airplanes are introduced in this AD. We agree that this AD adds no new requirements for those airplanes. In the revised applicability for those airplanes, the forward-facing-cockpit restriction is removed because it is included in the service bulletin effectivity. We have not revised the applicability specified in the NPRM. Request To Revise Applicability: Paragraph (c)(3) The same commenter found a typographical error in the NPRM. Paragraph (c)(3), which identifies affected A310-200 and -300 series airplanes by their associated modification number, should have referred to Modification 12931 instead of Modification 12932. We acknowledge this error and have revised this final rule accordingly. Additional Changes to NPRM The requirements of paragraph

(f)of the NPRM would apply to “airplanes subject to the requirements of AD 2000-23-07,” which include: • Model A300 B2-203 and A300 B4-203 airplanes in a forward-facing cockpit configuration; • All Model A310-200 and -300 series airplanes; and • Model A300-600 series airplanes, except those with Modification 12277 installed in production. We have revised this description to clarify the affected airplanes. Once an AD is superseded, no airplane is subject to its requirements, and it may not be possible for operators to obtain a copy to identify the affected airplanes and requirements. Because AD compliance records must be maintained permanently and transferred with airplanes, operators must always be able to determine whether a particular AD has been accomplished, even after it has been superseded. Therefore, we have revised paragraph

(f)in this final rule to more precisely describe the airplanes affected by that requirement. We have also clarified paragraph

(g)in this final rule by introducing the paragraph with the airplanes affected by this new requirement. Those airplanes are also identified in Table 1 of the AD. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 86 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Cost Estimates Action Service bulletins Work hours Hourly labor rate Parts cost Total per airplane Inspection, per inspection cycle A300-22A6042, A300-22A0115, A310-22A2053 1 $65 None $65, per inspection cycle. FAC replacement A300-22-6050, A310-22-2058 9 65 $2,677 $3,262. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

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

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-11977 (65 FR 68876, November 15, 2000) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-15-06 Airbus:** Amendment 39-14686. Docket No. FAA-2006-23675; Directorate Identifier 2001-NM-320-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective August 24, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2000-23-07. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the following Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category.

(1)Model A300 B2-203 and A300 B4-203 airplanes, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22A0115, Revision 02, dated March 7, 2000.

(2)Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, A300 B4-605R, B4-622R, A300 F4-605R, F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, except those modified in production by Airbus Modification 12932.

(3)Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, except those modified in production by Airbus Modification 12931. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from the development of final action intended to address the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent a sudden change in pitch due to an out-of-trim condition combined with an autopilot disconnect, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance

(f)For Model A300 B2-203 and A300 B4-203 airplanes in a forward-facing cockpit configuration; all Model A310-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A300-600 series airplanes, except those with Modification 12277 installed in production: At the applicable time specified by paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, perform an inspection of the autotrim function by testing the flight control computer (FCC)/flight augmentation computer

(FAC)integrity in logic activation of the autotrim, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22A6042, Revision 01 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); A300-22A0115, Revision 02 (for Model A300 series airplanes); or A310-22A2053, Revision 01 (for Model A310 series airplanes); all dated March 7, 2000; as applicable. If any discrepancy is found, prior to further flight, perform all applicable corrective actions (including trouble-shooting; replacing the FCC and/or FAC, as applicable; retesting; checking the wires between certain FCC and FAC pins; and repairing damaged wires) in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours. Replacement of both FACs in accordance with paragraph

(g)of this AD terminates the inspection requirements of this paragraph.

(1)For airplanes on which the pitch trim system test has been performed in accordance with the requirements of AD 2000-02-04, amendment 39-11522: Inspect within 500 flight hours after accomplishment of the test required by that AD, or within 20 days after December 20, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-23-07), whichever occurs later.

(2)For all other airplanes: Inspect within 20 days after December 20, 2000. New Requirements of this AD FAC Replacement

(g)For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this AD: At the time specified in Table 1 of this AD, replace the two FACs with new FACs in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6050, dated October 8, 2004; or A310-22-2058, dated April 6, 2005; as applicable. Table 1.—Compliance Times To Replace FACs Airplane model/series Configuration Required compliance time after the effective date of this AD A300-600 Without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6041, Revision 01, dated February 21, 2001, or previous version, or Modification 12277 24 months. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6050, dated October 8, 2004, or Modification 12932 With accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6041, Revision 01, dated February 21, 2001, or previous version, or Modification 12277 36 months. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6050, dated October 8, 2004, or Modification 12932 A310 Without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2052, Revision 01, dated November 8, 2001, or previous version, or Modification 12277 24 months. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2058, dated April 6, 2005, or Modification 12931 With accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2052, Revision 01, dated November 8, 2001, or previous version, or Modification 12277 36 months. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2058, dated April 6, 2005, or Modification 12931 Part Installation

(h)On or after the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, any FAC having part number (P/N) B471AAM7 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes) or FAC P/N B471ABM4 (for Model A310 series airplanes), unless the FAC is in compliance with this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(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.

(j)The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directives F-2005-111 R1, dated December 21, 2005, and F-2000-115-304 R5, dated July 6, 2005. Material Incorporated by Reference

(k)You must use the documents identified in Table 2 of this AD, as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 2.—Documents Incorporated by Reference Airbus Service Bulletin Revision Date A300-22-6050 Original October 8, 2004. A300-22A0115 02, including Appendix 01 March 7, 2000. A300-22A6042 01, including Appendix 01 March 7, 2000. A310-22-2058 Original April 6, 2005. A310-22A2053 01, including Appendix 01 March 7, 2000.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents identified in Table 3 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Table 3.—New Documents Incorporated by Reference Airbus Service Bulletin Revision Date A300-22-6050 Original October 8, 2004. A310-22-2058 Original April 6, 2005.

(2)On December 20, 2000 (65 FR 68876, November 15, 2000), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents identified in Table 4 of this AD. Table 4.—Documents Previously Incorporated by Reference Airbus Service Bulletin Revision Date A300-22A0115 02, including Appendix 01 March 7, 2000. A300-22A6042 01, including Appendix 01 March 7, 2000. A310-22A2053 01, including Appendix 01 March 7, 2000.

(3)Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11414 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23706; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-03-AD; Amendment 39-14688; AD 2006-15-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. TPE331 Series Turboprop Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for Honeywell International Inc. TPE331 series turboprop engines with certain part numbers of Woodward fuel control unit

(FCU)assemblies installed. This AD requires initial and repetitive dimensional inspections of the fuel control drive, for wear or damage. This AD results from reports of loss of the fuel control drive, leading to engine overspeed, overtorque, overtemperature, uncontained rotor failure, and asymmetric thrust in multi-engine airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent destructive overspeed that could result in uncontained rotor failure, and damage to the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from Honeywell Engines, Systems & Services, Technical Data Distribution, M/S 2101-201, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2170; telephone:

(602)365-2493 (General Aviation);

(602)365-5535 (Commercial); fax:

(602)365-5577 (General Aviation and Commercial). You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5246; fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed airworthiness directive (AD). The proposed AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. TPE331 series turboprop engines with certain part numbers of Woodward FCU assemblies installed. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on March 8, 2006 (71 FR 11546). That action proposed to require initial and repetitive dimensional inspections of the drive splines between the fuel pump and fuel control governor, for wear or damage. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Clarification of Discussion Paragraph Honeywell International Inc. points out that in the discussion section of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we stated that installation of an improved fuel control will eliminate the overspeed condition by better accommodating a drive spline failure. Honeywell suggests that we change the discussion to state that replacing an affected fuel control assembly with an improved fuel control assembly will only reduce the possibility of an overspeed, rather than eliminate it altogether. We agree that Honeywell's suggestion has some logic from a risk management perspective. We recognize that the improved fuel control may not eliminate the possibility of a drive spline failure or the resulting engine overspeed condition, but we intend that it will eliminate a destructive overspeed due to this spline failure. We have, however, changed paragraph

(d)of the final rule (the statement of the unsafe condition) to clarify that we expect that the AD will prevent destructive overspeed that could result in uncontained rotor failure, and damage to the airplane. Suggestion to Specifically Reference Pump Splines Honeywell International Inc. also suggests that we add the words “or pump” after “fuel control” in both paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(2) of the proposed rule. Honeywell points out that the proposed inspections also include the fuel pump spline as well as the fuel control splines. We agree that the required inspections include the fuel pump spline and that if the fuel pump spline fails inspection, the fuel pump would require repair or replacement. Therefore, we have added references to the fuel pump in paragraphs (f), (g), and

(l)of the final rule. We have also split the repair and replace requirement in paragraphs

(f)and

(g)into one sub-paragraph for the fuel pump, (f)(2) and (g)(2), and one for the fuel control assembly, (f)(3) and (g)(3), which we now refer to as the fuel control unit

(FCU)assembly. We made these changes to keep clear that the replacement requirements of the AD call for “modified” FCU assemblies for multi-engine airplanes. Fuel pump assemblies whose splines fail dimensional inspection may be replaced with serviceable fuel pump assemblies. Request To Add the Word “Governor” Honeywell International Inc. also requests that we add the word “governor” to describe the splined driveshafts between the fuel pump and the FCU. Honeywell points out that the proposal could be read so as not to include a required inspection of the quill shaft internal to the fuel control. We agree, and have added a definition of the term “fuel control drive” to paragraph

(k)of the final rule that includes the change of “fuel control” to “fuel control governor.” Claim That Destructive Overspeed Is Still Possible An FAA-approved repair station, Turbine Standard, Ltd, claims that destructive engine overspeed is really only possible on the ground with the prop “on the start locks” and will continue to be possible with the new modified fuel control assembly. The commenter states that according to Honeywell's Operating Information Letters OI331-12R4, dated March 29, 2006, and OI331-18R2, dated March 29, 2006, the possibility of uncontained separation of the engine's high speed rotating components still exists, at certain conditions. Furthermore, the commenter appears to question the need for this AD by pointing out that wear of the FCU and fuel pump drive can be adequately managed by following the recommended maintenance program for the engine and that any FCUs that showed heavy spline wear were addressed by a previous AD, AD 94-26-07. We do not agree. The proposed rule and this AD address a continuing problem that has caused 51 known incidents over the past 30 years. We believe that the fuel pump and fuel control spline failures represent a serious unsafe condition that requires mandatory inspections and replacement of existing fuel control designs to warrant AD action rather than reliance on recommended maintenance practices. Even after issuing AD 94-26-07, we continue to receive reports of fuel control drive failures, overspeed, and destructive overspeed events. With a modified FCU installed, AD 94-26-07 will no longer apply. Whether destructive overspeeds will continue to be possible with the new modified fuel control assembly, we recognize that this failure condition is rare and only exists under certain high-temperature and high-altitude ground start conditions, with certain older design engines while the prop is “on the locks”. When this set of rare conditions is coupled with the fuel control drive low failure rate, a destructive overspeed is improbable. We consider the modified FCU assembly to be safe. Claim That Asymmetric Thrust Would be More Prevalent Turbine Standard, Ltd also claims that the modified fuel control assembly installed on an engine on a multi-engine airplane would actually make asymmetric thrust more likely in the event of a fuel pump or fuel control drive spline failure. The commenter explains that after the failure of a fuel control drive on a modified fuel control assembly, the modified fuel control would deliver only 180 PPH of fuel flow, which is below flight idle fuel flow. Since fuel flows for take off thrust are normally very high and the failure mode of an unmodified fuel control unit typically delivers more fuel flow, the commenter concludes that the aircrew would be in a worse situation with a modified fuel control after suffering drive spline failure than with a non-modified fuel control. We do not agree. While it is true that the fuel flow after drive spline failure with a modified fuel control unit may result in a more pronounced asymmetric thrust condition at takeoff, we believe that after considering all ground and flight conditions, the modified FCU assembly is much safer than the applicable FCU assembly on the multi-engine aircraft. In addition, with a modified fuel control, the failure mode would produce a clearly evident decrease in thrust that a trained aircrew can easily recognize and safely handle, even on takeoff. AD Does Not Address Recommendations to the Pilot on Negative Torque Sensing Turbine Standard, Ltd also claims that the proposed AD does not address recommendations to the pilot if the engine starts to experience “negative torque sensing” during flight. The commenter reasons that after the failure of a fuel control drive spline, the modified fuel control assembly will deliver 180 PPH of fuel flow, which may be below flight idle fuel flow, and the engine may experience negative torque sensing (NTS). In addition, “negative torque sensing” at higher than normal engine speeds for long periods, might damage the propeller. We do not agree that the AD needs to include mandatory instructions to the aircrew concerning NTS. The commenter is correct that during flight with the modified FCU assembly installed, the engine may experience NTS after failure of a fuel control drive. We believe that having the pilot shut down the engine as soon as possible after drive spline failure by recognizing an unresponsive power lever, consistent with the safe operation of the airplane, is the best action. We have changed paragraph

(o)of the final rule to reference Honeywell's operating information letters. Claim That the Modified FCU Assembly Is Not Necessary Lastly, Turbine Standard, Ltd claims that the modified FCU assembly is not necessary because of the propeller governor response to an engine overspeed, if the airplane is equipped with torque and temperature limiting

(TTL)devices. The commenter believes that fuel bypassing the TTL devices and the propeller governor should maintain engine speed at its set point after a fuel control drive failure. We do not agree. Engine testing shows that the TTL devices cannot bypass sufficient fuel and the propeller governor cannot maintain speed consistently enough to ensure a safe operation of the TPE331 engine. In addition, since the TTL devices are optional devices for some aircraft, the TTL's marginal and temporary benefit is not a safe alternative. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate this AD will affect 3,250 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate it will take about one work-hour per engine to replace the FCU assembly during a normal scheduled overhaul. We also estimate it will take about three work-hours to perform a dimensional inspection of the fuel control drive. The average labor rate is $65 per work-hour. A replacement FCU assembly will cost about $9,700 per engine. We estimate that on each engine, one FCU assembly inspection will be performed, and each engine will have the FCU assembly replaced. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $32,370,000. The Agency is committed to updating the aviation community of expected costs associated with the MU-2B series airplane safety evaluation conducted in 2005. As a result of that commitment, the accumulating expected costs of all ADs related to the MU-2B series airplane safety evaluation may be found at the following Web site: *http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/cos/mu2_foia_reading_library/* . 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

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

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2006-15-08 Honeywell International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett Engine Division; Garrett Turbine Engine Company; and AiResearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona):** Amendment 39-14688; Docket No. FAA-2006-23706; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-03-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective August 24, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. TPE331-1, -2, -2UA, -3U, -3UW, -5, -5A, -5AB, -5B, -6, -6A, -10, -10AV, -10GP, -10GT, -10P, -10R, -10T, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, -11U, -12JR, -12UA, -12UAR, and -12UHR turboprop engines with the part numbers (P/Ns) of Woodward fuel control unit

(FCU)assemblies listed in this AD, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, the following airplanes: Manufacturer Model AERO PLANES, LLC (formerly McKinnon Enterprises) G-21G. ALLIED AG CAT PRODUCTIONS (formerly Schweizer) G-164 Series. AYRES S-2R Series. BRITISH AEROSPACE LTD (formerly Jetstream) 3101 and 3201 Series, and HP.137 JETSTREAM MK.1. CONSTRUCCIONES AERONAUTICAS, S.A.

(CASA)C-212 Series. DEHAVILLAND DH104 Series 7AXC (DOVE). DORNIER 228 Series. FAIRCHILD SA226 and SA227 Series (SWEARINGEN MERLIN and METRO SERIES). GRUMMAN AMERICAN G-164 Series. MITSUBISHI MU-2B Series (MU-2 Series). PILATUS PC-6 Series (FAIRCHILD PORTER and PEACEMAKER). POLSKIE ZAKLADY LOTNICZE SPOLKA (formerly Wytwornia Sprzetu Komunikacyjnego) PZL M18, PZL M18A, PZL M18B. PROP-JETS, INC. 400. RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT (formerly Beech) C45G, TC-45G, C-45H, TC-45H, TC-45J, G18S, E18S-9700, D18S, D18C, H18, RC-45J, JRB-6, UC-45J, 3N, 3NM, 3TM, B100, C90 and E90. SHORTS BROTHERS and HARLAND, LTD. SC7 (SKYVAN) Series. THRUSH (ROCKWELL COMMANDER) S-2R. TWIN COMMANDER (JETPROP COMMANDER) 680, 690 and 695 Series. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of loss of the fuel control drive, leading to engine overspeed, overtorque, overtemperature, uncontained rotor failure, and asymmetric thrust in multi-engine airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent destructive overspeed that could result in uncontained rotor failure, and damage to the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Initial Inspection of Engines With Affected FCU Assemblies

(f)At the next scheduled inspection of the fuel control drive, but within 1,000 hours-in-service after the effective date of this AD:

(1)Perform an initial dimensional inspection of the fuel control drive for wear or damage. Information on spline inspection can be found in Section 72-00-00 of the applicable maintenance manuals.

(2)Repair or replace the fuel pump, if the spline fails the dimensional inspection, with any serviceable fuel pump.

(3)Repair or replace the FCU assembly, if the splines fail the dimensional inspection, with a serviceable modified FCU assembly. Repetitive Inspections of Engines With Affected FCU Assemblies

(g)Thereafter, within 1,000 hours since-last-inspection:

(1)Perform repetitive dimensional inspections of the fuel control drive, for wear or damage. Information on spline inspection can be found in Section 72-00-00 of the applicable maintenance manuals.

(2)Repair or replace the fuel pump, if the spline fails the dimensional inspection, with any serviceable fuel pump.

(3)Repair or replace the FCU assembly if the splines fail the dimensional inspection, with a serviceable modified FCU assembly. TPE331-1, -2, and -2UA Series Engines

(h)For TPE331-1, -2, and -2UA series engines, replace Woodward FCU assemblies, P/Ns 869199-13/ -20/ -21/ -22/ -23/ -24/-25/ -26/ -27/ -28/ -29/ -31/ -32/ -33/ -34, and -35, with a serviceable, modified FCU assembly the next time the FCU assembly is removed for cause that requires return, or when the FCU assembly requires overhaul, but not later than December 31, 2012. Information on replacement FCU assembly P/Ns, configuration management, rework, and replacement information, can be found in Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)No. TPE331-A73-0271, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2006. TPE331-3U, -3UW, -5, -5A, -5AB, -5B, -6, -6A, -10AV, -10GP, -10GT, -10P, and -10T Series Engines

(i)For TPE331-3U, -3UW, -5, -5A, -5AB, -5B, -6, -6A, -10AV, -10GP, -10GT, -10P, and -10T series engines, replace Woodward FCU assemblies, P/Ns 893561-7/ -8/ -9/ -10/ -11/ -14/ -15/ -16/ -20/ -26/ -27, and -29, and P/Ns 897770-1/ -3/ -7/ -9/ -10/ -11/ -12/ -14 / -15/ -16/ -25/ -26, and -28, with a serviceable, modified FCU assembly the next time the FCU assembly is removed for cause that requires return, or when the FCU assembly requires overhaul, but not later than December 31, 2012. Information on replacement FCU assembly P/Ns, configuration management, rework, and replacement information, can be found in Honeywell ASB No. TPE331-A73-0262, Revision 2, dated June 17, 2005. TPE331-10, -10R, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, -11U, -12JR, -12UA, -12UAR, and -12UHR Series Engines

(j)For TPE331-10, -10R, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, -11U, -12JR, -12UA, -12UAR, and -12UHR series engines, replace Woodward FCU assemblies, P/Ns 897375-2/ -3/ -4/ -5/ -8/ -9/ -10/ -11/ -12/ -13/ -14/ -15/ -16/ -17/ -19/ -21/ -24/ -25/ -26, and -27, and P/Ns 897780-1/ -2/ -3/ -4/ -5/ -6/ -7/ -8/ -9/ -10/ -11/ -14/ -15/ -16/ -17/ -18/ -19/ -20/ -21/ -22/ -23/ -24/ -25/ -26/ -27/ -30/ -32/ -34/ -36/ -37, and -38, and P/Ns 893561-17/ -18, and -19, with a serviceable, modified FCU assembly the next time the FCU assembly is removed for cause that requires return, or when the FCU assembly requires overhaul, but not later than December 31, 2012. Information on replacement FCU assembly P/Ns, configuration management, rework, and replacement information, can be found in Honeywell ASB No. TPE331-A73-0254, Revision 2, dated June 17, 2005. Definitions

(k)For the purposes of this AD:

(1)A “serviceable, modified FCU assembly” for engines affected by paragraph (h), (i), or

(j)of this AD, is an FCU assembly with a P/N not listed in this AD.

(2)The “fuel control drive” is a series of mating splines located between the fuel pump and fuel control governor, consisting of the following four drive splines: The fuel pump internal spline, the fuel control external “quill shaft” spline, and the stub shaft internal and external splines.

(3)A “removal for cause that requires return”, for engines affected by paragraph (h), (i), or

(j)of this AD, is an FCU assembly that has displayed an unserviceable or unacceptable operating condition requiring the FCU to be removed from service and sent to a repair or overhaul shop. Optional Method of Compliance for TPE331 Series Engines Installed On Single-Engine Airplanes

(l)As an optional method of compliance to paragraph (h), (i), or

(j)of this AD, for TPE331 series engines installed on single-engine airplanes, having an affected Woodward FCU assembly perform the following steps as necessary:

(1)Continue repetitive dimensional inspections of the fuel control drive, for wear or damage as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(2)Repair or replace the fuel pump or FCU assembly if the splines fail the dimensional inspection, with any serviceable fuel pump or FCU assembly. Terminating Action

(m)Performing an FCU assembly replacement as specified in paragraph (h), (i), or

(j)of this AD, is terminating action for the initial and repetitive inspections required by this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(n)The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(o)Information pertaining to operating recommendations for applicable engines after a fuel control drive failure is contained in OI 331-12R5 dated July 10, 2006, for multi-engine airplanes and in OI 331-18R3 dated July10, 2006, for single-engine airplanes. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 14, 2006. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11540 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. 1998C-0431] (formerly 98C-0431) Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Mica-Based Pearlescent Pigments AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule; response to objections; removal of stay. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is responding to two objections that it received on the final rule that amended the color additive regulations to provide for the safe use of mica-based pearlescent pigments as color additives in ingested drugs. After reviewing the objections, the agency has concluded that the objections do not raise issues of material fact that justify a hearing or otherwise provide a basis for revoking the amendment to the regulations. FDA is also establishing a new effective date for this color additive regulation, which was stayed by the filing of objections. DATES: The final rule that published in the **Federal Register** of July 22, 2005 (the July 2005 final rule) (70 FR 42271), with an effective date of August 23, 2005, was stayed by the filing of objections as provided for under section 701(e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 371(e)(2)) as of August 22, 2005. This final rule is newly effective as of July 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aydin Örstan, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-255), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1301. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction In the July 2005 final rule, FDA amended the color additive regulations to provide for the safe use of mica-based pearlescent pigments prepared from synthetic iron oxide, mica, and titanium dioxide to color ingested drugs. The preamble to the final rule advised that objections to the final rule and requests for a hearing were due by August 22, 2005, and that the rule would be effective on August 23, 2005, except that any provisions may be stayed by the filing of proper objections. II. Objections and Requests for a Hearing Sections 701(e)(2) and 721(d) of the act (21 U.S.C. 371(e)(2) and 379e(d)) collectively provide that, within 30 days after publication of an order relating to a color additive regulation, any person adversely affected by such an order may file objections, “specifying with particularity the provisions of the order deemed objectionable, stating the grounds therefor, and requesting a public hearing upon such objections.” FDA may deny a hearing request if the objections to the regulation do not raise genuine and substantial issues of fact that can be resolved at a hearing (21 CFR 12.24(b)(1)). (See also *Community Nutrition Institute* v. *Young* , 773 F.2d 1356, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 1985), *cert. denied* , 475 U.S. 1123 (1986).) Objections and requests for a hearing are governed by part 12 (21 CFR part 12) of FDA's regulations. Under § 12.22(a), each objection must meet the following conditions:

(1)Must be submitted on or before the 30th day after the date of publication of the final rule,

(2)must be separately numbered,

(3)must specify with particularity the provision of the regulation or proposed order objected to,

(4)must specifically state the provision of the regulation or proposed order on which a hearing is requested (failure to request a hearing on an objection constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection), and

(5)must include a detailed description and analysis of the factual information to be presented in support of the objection if a hearing is requested (failure to include a description and analysis for an objection constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection). Following publication of the final rule for the use of mica-based pearlescent pigments to color ingested drugs, FDA received two submissions within the 30-day objection period. One submission objected to the use of pearlescent pigments in food. The submission did not request a hearing. The second submission objected to the final rule on three grounds:

(1)The subject pearlescent pigments would have iron contaminants,

(2)these iron contaminants would cause stability issues for active ingredients in drugs, and

(3)the use of iron-containing pearlescent pigments to color drugs would limit the availability of medications for those who are monitoring their iron intake. This submission requested a hearing on these issues. III. Standards for Granting a Hearing Specific criteria for determining whether to grant or deny a request for a hearing are set out in § 12.24(b). Under that regulation, a hearing will be granted if the material submitted by the requester shows, among other things, that:

(1)There is a genuine and substantial factual issue for resolution at a hearing (a hearing will not be granted on issues of policy or law);

(2)the factual issue can be resolved by available and specifically identified reliable evidence (a hearing will not be granted on the basis of mere allegations or denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions);

(3)the data and information submitted, if established at a hearing, would be adequate to justify resolution of the factual issue in the way sought by the requester (a hearing will be denied if the data and information submitted are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate);

(4)resolution of the factual issue in the way sought by the person is adequate to justify the action requested (a hearing will not be granted on factual issues that are not determinative with respect to the action requested, e.g., if the action would be the same even if the factual issue were resolved in the way sought);

(5)the action requested is not inconsistent with any provision in the act or any regulation particularizing statutory standards (the proper procedure in those circumstances is for the person requesting the hearing to petition for an amendment or waiver of the regulation involved); and

(6)the requirements in other applicable regulations, e.g., 21 CFR 10.20, 12.21, 12.22, 314.200, 514.200, and 601.7(a), and in the notice issuing the final regulation or the notice of opportunity for a hearing are met. A party seeking a hearing is required to meet a “threshold burden of tendering evidence suggesting the need for a hearing” ( *Costle* v. *Pacific Legal Foundation* , 445 U.S. 198, 214-215 (1980), reh. denied, 446 U.S. 947 (1980), citing *Weinberger* v. *Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc.* , 412 U.S. 609, 620-621 (1973)). An allegation that a hearing is necessary to “sharpen the issues” or to “fully develop the facts” does not meet this test ( *Georgia Pacific Corp.* v. *EPA* , 671 F.2d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 1982)). If a hearing request fails to identify any factual evidence that would be the subject of a hearing, there is no point in holding one. In judicial proceedings, a court is authorized to issue summary judgment without an evidentiary hearing whenever it finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). The same principle applies to administrative proceedings (see § 12.28). A hearing request must not only contain evidence, but that evidence should raise a material issue of fact concerning whether a meaningful hearing might be held ( *Pineapple Growers Association* v. *FDA* , 673 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1982)). Where the issues raised in the objection are, even if true, legally insufficient to alter the decision, the agency need not grant a hearing (see *Dyestuffs and Chemicals, Inc.* v. *Flemming* , 271 F.2d 281 (8th Cir. 1959), *cert. denied* , 362 U.S. 911 (1960)). FDA need not grant a hearing in each case where an objector submits additional information or posits a novel interpretation of existing information (see *United States* v. *Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co.* , 455 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971)). In other words, a hearing is justified only if the objections are made in good faith and if they “draw in question in a material way the underpinnings of the regulation at issue” ( *Pactra Industries* v. *CPSC* , 555 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1977)). Finally, courts have uniformly recognized that a hearing need not be held to resolve questions of law or policy (see *Citizens for Allegan County, Inc.* v. *FPC* , 414 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1969); *Sun Oil Co.* v. *FPC* , 256 F.2d 233, 240 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied* , 358 U.S. 872 (1958)). Even if the objections raise material issues of fact, FDA need not grant a hearing if those same issues were adequately raised and considered in an earlier proceeding. Once an issue has been raised and considered, a party is estopped from raising the same issue in a later proceeding without new evidence. The various judicial doctrines dealing with finality can be validly applied to the administrative process. In explaining why these principles “self-evidently” ought to apply to an agency proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote: “The underlying concept is as simple as this: Justice requires that a party have a fair chance to present his position. But overall interests of administration do not require or generally contemplate that he will be given more than a fair opportunity.” *Retail Clerks Union, Local 1401* v. *NLRB* , 463 F.2d 316, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1972). (See also *Costle* v. *Pacific Legal Foundation* , supra at 215-220; *Pacific Seafarers, Inc.* v. *Pacific Far East Line, Inc.* , 404 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1968), *cert. denied* , 393 U.S. 1093 (1969).) In summary, a hearing request must present sufficient credible evidence to raise a material issue of fact, and the evidence must be adequate to resolve the issue as requested and to justify the action requested. One of the objections to the final rule on mica-based pearlescent pigments did not request a hearing. Therefore, FDA will rule upon the objection under §§ 12.24 through 12.28 (as cited in § 12.30(b)). IV. Analysis of Objections FDA addresses each of the two submissions in the following paragraphs, as well as the evidence and information filed in support of each, comparing each submission and the information submitted in support of it to the standards for ruling on objections and granting a hearing in § 12.24. The first submission objected to the use of pearlescent pigments in food. This submission did not request a hearing. FDA notes that the final rule that is the subject of the objection provides for the safe use of mica-based pearlescent pigments to color ingested drugs, not foods. The objection to the use of pearlescent pigments in food is outside the scope of the July 2005 final rule. Therefore, FDA is denying this objection. The second submission asserted that the subject pearlescent pigments would be contaminated with iron salts and that these contaminants would cause stability issues for active ingredients in drugs that could interfere with drug efficacy. The submission also asserted that the iron contaminants would increase exposure to iron. Furthermore, the submission was concerned that the use of iron-containing pearlescent pigments to color drugs would limit the availability of medications for those who are monitoring their iron intake. This submission requested a hearing on these issues. Although this submission claimed that the subject pearlescent pigments would be contaminated with iron salts, the submission did not provide any factual information to support this claim. The July 2005 final rule was in response to a color additive petition (CAP 8C0257) that FDA had received from the manufacturer of the subject pearlescent pigments. During its review of the petition, FDA determined what specifications would be necessary to ensure the safe use of pearlescent pigments in ingested drugs and incorporated these specifications in the new § 73.1128 (21 CFR 73.1128). FDA also reviewed the results of analyses of several batches of pearlescent pigments and determined that they complied with the specifications in the new regulation. In the preamble to the final rule, FDA discussed the manufacturing process of the subject pearlescent pigments. FDA noted that the starting materials for these pigments included soluble iron salts and that the manufacturing incorporated a heating (calcination) step at temperatures up to 900 °C. FDA also noted that during calcination, the starting iron salts are converted into iron oxide. The submission also asserted that the iron contaminants would destabilize active ingredients in drugs, which would affect drug efficacy. As noted previously in this document, the submission did not provide any factual information to support the claim that the subject pearlescent pigments would contain iron contaminants. The third assertion in the submission was that the iron oxide in the subject pearlescent pigments is “expected to limit availability of medications for the persons who must monitor iron intake.” However, the submission did not provide any factual information to support this claim. FDA notes that, as indicated in the preamble to the July 2005 final rule, the bioavailability of these pigments and/or their individual components when ingested is expected to be low. This submission did not provide any factual information to modify FDA's conclusion that the subject pearlescent pigments present no toxic potential when ingested at levels estimated by the agency, based on their proposed use in coloring ingested drugs. Namely, this submission did not provide specifically identified reliable evidence that can lead to resolution of a factual issue in dispute (§ 12.24(b)(2)). A hearing will not be granted on the basis of mere allegations or denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions (§ 12.24(b)(2)). Therefore, FDA is denying this objection. V. Summary and Conclusions The agency is denying the objections to the final rule in the two submissions received on the following bases. The objection to the use of pearlescent pigments in food is outside the scope of the July 2005 final rule, which amended the color additive regulations to provide for the safe use of mica-based pearlescent pigments to color ingested drugs. The objections in the second submission that the subject pearlescent pigments would contain iron contaminants, that the iron contaminants would cause stability issues for active ingredients in drugs, and that the use of the pigments to color ingested drugs will limit availability of medications for the persons who must monitor their iron intake, are not supported by any factual information. The filing of the objections served to stay automatically the effectiveness of § 73.1128. Section 701(e)(2) of the act states: “Until final action upon such objections is taken by the Secretary * * *, the filing of such objections shall operate to stay the effectiveness of those provisions of the order to which the objections are made.” Section 701(e)(3) of the act further stipulates that “As soon as practicable * * *, the Secretary shall by order act upon such objections and make such order public.” The agency has completed its evaluation of the objections and concludes that a continuation of the stay of this regulation is not warranted. In the absence of any other objections and requests for a hearing, the agency, therefore, further concludes that this document constitutes final action on the objections received in response to the regulation as prescribed in section 701(e)(2) of the act. Therefore, the agency is acting to end the stay of the regulation by establishing a new effective date of July 20, 2006 for this regulation listing mica-based pearlescent pigments prepared from synthetic iron oxide, mica, and titanium dioxide to color ingested drugs. As announced in the July 22, 2005, final rule, the previous effective date of the regulation was August 23, 2005. Therefore, under sections 701 and 721 of the act, notice is given that the objections filed in response to the July 2005 final rule do not form the basis for further stay of this final rule or require amendment of the regulations. Accordingly, the stay of § 73.1128 that FDA is announcing in this document is removed effective July 20, 2006. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73 Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Medical devices. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e) and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (section 1410.10 of the FDA Staff Manual Guide), notice is given that objections and a request for a hearing were filed in response to the July 22, 2005, final rule. Notice is also given that the agency is denying these objections. Accordingly, the amendments issued thereby are effective July 20, 2006. Dated: July 14, 2006. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E6-11536 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1926 and 1928 [Docket No. S-270-A] RIN 1218-AC15 Roll-Over Protective Structures AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Final rule; corrections and technical amendments. SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, OSHA published a direct final rule in the **Federal Register** reinstating its original construction and agriculture standards that regulate the testing of roll-over protective structures (“ROPS”) used to protect employees who operate wheel-type tractors. OSHA received one comment to the direct final rule; this comment recommended a number of clarifications to the original ROPS standards published in the direct final rule. In the present notice, the Agency is making corrections and technical amendments to the ROPS standards in response to this comment, as a result of editorial errors found in the ROPS standards published in the direct final rule, and to improve consistency among the figures generated for these standards. The Agency finds that these corrections and technical amendments do not change the substantive requirements of the ROPS standards. DATES: The corrections and technical amendments specified by this rulemaking become effective on July 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *Press inquiries:* Kevin Ropp, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:

(202)693-1999. *General and technical information:* Matthew Chibbaro, Acting Director, Office of Safety Systems, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2255. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 29, 2005, OSHA published a direct final rule in the **Federal Register** reinstating its original construction and agriculture standards that regulate the testing of roll-over protective structures (“ROPS”) used to protect employees who operate wheel-type tractors (see 70 FR 76979). The Agency received only one public comment (Ex. 3-1) on the direct final rule, which it determined was not a significant adverse comment. The commenter recommended several clarifications to the ROPS standards published in the direct final rule. The table below describes the clarifications recommended by the commenter who responded to the direct final rule, and OSHA's response to these recommendations. This response provides the Agency's rationale for accepting a recommendation or excluding it from further consideration. Accordingly, OSHA is making a number of corrections and technical amendments to the ROPS standards for construction (§ 1926.1002) and agriculture (§§ 1928.52 and 1928.53) based on the commenter's recommendations. Recommendation OSHA's response Figure W-15: • 05T needs to be 0.5T and 09T needs to be 0.9T • (50 DEG ± 5 DEG) (1270 plus/minus 127 mm) needs to be (50 inches plus/minus 5 inches) (1270 plus/minus 127 mm) • Path of travel should also state center of tractor OSHA added the decimal points as recommended. However, instead of revising “DEG” to “INCHES,” OSHA is replacing the entire caption with “45 in. min. (1143 mm)” to make this figure consistent with Figure C-10. Regarding the third recommendation, OSHA is adding a caption to the figure indicating the center of the tractor on the path of travel. For consistency, OSHA added this caption as well to Figure C-10. However, this caption applies only to the linear center of the tractor, which does not necessarily represent the tractor's center of gravity. Figure W-16: Under 1926.1002(i)(1)(i), Dimension D equals 2 inches (51 mm) inside of the frame upright to the vertical centerline of the seat. However, because Dimension G is 24 inches (610 mm), Dimension D should be 12 inches (305 mm) OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment. Dimension D represents the minimum deflection from the true horizontal permitted during side-load testing, which must be at least 2 inches (51 mm). Dimension G is the minimum design limit for the width of a ROPS (i.e., the ROPS must have a width of at least 24 inches). Therefore, the dimensions in Figure W-16 are correct. Figure W-17: Under 1926.1002(i)(1)(i), Dimension F equals not less than 0 inches (0 mm) and not more than 12 inches (305 mm) measured at the centerline of the seat backrest to the crossbar along the line of load application. Clarify whether the distance between the seat backrest and the frame cannot be more than 12 inches after impact OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment. Dimension F represents two values: 12 inches is the pre-load design dimension and 0 is the maximum deflection permitted during rear-load testing (i.e., the distance between the two lines circumscribed by Dimension F can be no greater than 12 inches during testing). Therefore, the dimensions in Figure W-17 are correct and clear. Figure W-18: Figure W-18 does not have any dimension specifications or an explanation of what it is and what it does OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment. The figure legend states that the figure represents a method for measuring instantaneous deflection, which is explained in § 1926.1002(g)(1)(ii) and (g)(2)(v). Figure W-19: • 08L <sup>max</sup> needs to be 0.8L <sup>max.</sup> • Load L, lb

(kg)− Define as L = static load, lb

(kg)• Deflection D, in.

(mm)− Define as D = deflection under L, in.

(mm)OSHA added the decimal point as recommended. However, OSHA is not revising “Load L, lb (kg)” or “Deflection D, in. (mm)” because these terms are defined in the regulatory text at § 1926.1002(j)(3). Figure W-20: • EU = OQD/12 ft-lb − Add an explanation that dividing by 12 converts [to] in-lb • Load L, lb

(kg)− Define L = static load, lb

(kg)• Deflection D, in.

(mm)− Define D = deflection under L, in.

(mm)OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment. OSHA does not believe it is necessary to specifically explain that dividing by 12 converts ft-lbs to in-lbs. See OSHA's response above for Figure W-19 regarding the comment on defining “Load L, lb (kg)” and “Deflection D, in. (mm).” Figure W-21: Add the weight of the pendulum (4,410 lbs (2,000 kg)) and the height of the pendulum (18-22 ft (5.5-6.7 m)) on the drawing OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment because the information in the figure is provided in § 1926.1002(h)(1)(ii). Figure W-24: • Correct the first notation to read: H = 4.92 + 0.00190 W or H′ = 125 + 0.107 W′ • Correct the second notation to read: W = tractor weight as specified by 29 CFR 1926.1002(e)(1) and (e)(3), in lb. (W′, kg) OSHA is adding the decimal points in the notation “H = 4.92 + 0.00190W or H′ = 125 + 0.107W′,” as well as correcting the second notation to read “W = tractor weight as specified by 29 CFR 1926.1002(e)(1) and (e)(3) in pounds (W′ in kg).” Figures C-2, C-3, C-8, C-9, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16: Define SRP as “Seat Reference Point.” OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment. Both 1928.52(d)(iv) and 1928.53(d)(iv) define this term, and OSHA believes these definitions are sufficient. Figure C-4: This drawing does not have any dimension specifications or an explanation of what it is and what it does See OSHA's response above for Figure W-18. In this case, the method is explained in §§ 1928.52(d)(3)(i)(E) and 1928.53(d)(3)(i)(E). Figure C-5: • Load L, lb

(kg)− Define as L = static load, lb

(kg)• Deflection D, in.

(mm)− Define as D = deflection under L, in.

(mm)See OSHA's response above for Figure W-19. In this case, the terms are defined in §§ 1928(d)(2)(ii) and 1928(d)(2)(ii). Figure C-6: Add the weight of the pendulum (4,410 lbs (2,000 kg)) and the height of the pendulum (18-22 ft (5.5-6.7 m)) on the drawing See OSHA's response above for Figure W-21. In this case, the information is provided in §§ 1928.52(d)(3)(i)(B) and 1928.53(d)(3)(i)(B). Figure C-7: • The second notation should read: W = tractor weight (see 29 CFR 1928.51(a) in lb. (W′, kg) • Clarify whether impact energy is in ft-lbs × 1000 instead of lb × 1000 OSHA is substituting Figure W-24 for this figure, but is correcting the notation in the new figure to read “W = tractor weight as specified by 29 CFR 1928.51(a) in pounds (W′ in kg).” This correction clarifies that impact energy is in ft-lbs. 29 CFR 1928.53(d)(2)(ii): Revise the notation to read W = Tractor weight (see 29 CFR 1928.51(a)) in lb (W′ in kg) OSHA is revising this notation as recommended. *Other corrections and technical amendments.* In addition to the revisions described in the table above, OSHA carefully reviewed the direct final rule and found that several additional corrections should be made to the original ROPS standards published in the direct final rule. In this regard, the Agency is making the following two corrections to § 1926.1002(h)(1)(v): Correcting the typographical error in the first sentence from “f” to “of”; and, in the second sentence, correcting the reference to Figure W-23 to “Figure W-18.” A number of figures appear in the original ROPS standards. These figures are: W-14 through W-24 of § 1926.1002; W-25 through W-28 of § 1926.1003; C-1 through C-11 of § 1928.52; and C-12 through C-16 of § 1928.53. After publishing the direct final rule for ROPS in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 76979), the Agency reproduced the figures in these ROPS standards using state-of-the-art computer-design technology to obtain images that are clearer and more comprehensible than the images used in the direct final rule. Therefore, OSHA is replacing the figures published in the direct final rule with these newly generated figures. In the process of generating the new figures, the Agency made stylistic, editorial, and technical corrections to them. The following table describes the technical corrections made to the figures. Figures Correction W-15 Added the same legend as the legend to Figure C-10; added the caption “CENTER OF TRACTOR” as in Figure C-10. C-4 Replaced the legend with the legend to Figure W-18. C-5 Substituted Figure W-19 for this figure. C-6 Added the phrase “PIN MARKING POSITION OF” to the caption “CENTER OF GRAVITY” as in Figure W-21. C-7 Substituted Figure W-24 for this figure. C-8, C-15, and W-22 Revised the caption addressing the beam under the tractor to read, “BEAM CLAMPED IN FRONT OF BOTH REAR WHEELS AFTER ANCHORING, 6 IN. (15 CM) SQUARE.” C-10 Added the captions “PATH OF TRAVEL” and “RAMP” as in Figure W-15; added the phrase “TEST TRACTOR” to the caption “REAR WHEEL TREAD” as in Figure W-15. *Exemption from notice and comment procedures.* OSHA has determined that the corrections and technical amendments made by this rulemaking are not subject to the procedures for public notice-and-comment rulemaking specified under Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), or Section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)), because these corrections and technical amendments do not affect the substantive requirements or coverage of the ROPS standards for the construction and agriculture industries. This rulemaking does not modify or revoke existing rights and obligations, and new rights and obligations have not been established by this rulemaking. Under this rulemaking, the Agency is merely correcting or clarifying the existing regulatory requirements of the ROPS standards. Therefore, OSHA finds that public notice-and-comment procedures are unnecessary within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and § 1911.5. List of Subjects *29 CFR Part 1926* Construction industry, Motor vehicle safety, Occupational safety and health. *29 CFR Part 1928* Agriculture, Motor vehicle safety, Occupational safety and health. Authority and Signature This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. The Agency is issuing this notice under the following authorities: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701 *et seq.* ); Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2002 (67 FR 65008); and 29 CFR part 1911. Signed at Washington, DC on July 12, 2006. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor. Amended Standards Based on the explanations provided by the preamble to this document, OSHA is amending 29 CFR parts 1926 and 1928 as follows: PART 1926—[AMENDED] Subpart W—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart W of part 1926 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable. 2. Revise paragraph (h)(1)(v) of § 1926.1002 to read as follows: § 1926.1002 Protective frames (roll-over protective structures, known as ROPS) for wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors used in construction.

(h)* * *

(1)* * *

(v)Means shall be provided for indicating the maximum instantaneous deflection along the line of impact. A simple friction device is illustrated in Figure W-18. 3. In Appendix A to subpart W, remove existing Figures W-14 through W-28 and add in their place new Figures W-14 through W-28. [insert figures W-14 through W-28] PART 1928—[AMENDED] Subpart C—[Amended] 4. The authority citation to part 1928 continues to read as follows: BILLING CODE 4510-26-P ER20JY06.009 ER20JY06.010 ER20JY06.011 ER20JY06.012 ER20JY06.013 ER20JY06.014 ER20JY06.015 ER20JY06.016 ER20JY06.017 ER20JY06.018 ER20JY06.019 ER20JY06.020 ER20JY06.021 ER20JY06.022 ER20JY06.023 BILLING CODE 4510-26-C Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017) or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008) as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. Section 1928.21 also issued under Section 29, Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-615, 104 Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 553)). 5. Revise paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of § 1928.53 to read as follows: § 1928.53 Protective enclosures for wheel-type agricultural tractors—test procedures and performance requirements.

(d)* * *

(2)* * *

(ii)The following definitions shall apply: *W* = Tractor weight (see 29 CFR 1928.51(a)) in lb ( *W* ′ in kg); *E* is = Energy input to be absorbed during side loading in ft-lb ( *E* ′ is in J [joules]); *E* is = 723 + 0.4 *W* ( *E* ′ is = 100 + 0.12 *W* ′); *E* ir = Energy input to be absorbed during rear loading in ft-lb ( *E* ′ ir in J); *E* ir = 0.47 *W* ( *E* ′ ir = 0.14 *W* ′); *L* = Static load, lbf [pounds force],

(N)[newtons]; *D* = Deflection under *L* , in. (mm); *L-D* = Static load-deflection diagram; *L* max = Maximum observed static load; *Load Limit* = Point on a continuous *L-D* curve where the observed static load is 0.8 *L* max on the down slope of the curve (see Figure C-5); *E* u = Strain energy absorbed by the protective enclosure in ft-lbs (J); area under the *L-D* curve; *FER* = Factor of energy ratio; *FER* is = *E* u / *E* is ; and *FER* ir = *E* u / *E* ir . 6. In Appendix B to subpart C, remove existing Figures C-1 through C-16 and add in their place new Figures C-1 through C-16. BILLING CODE 4510-26-P ER20JY06.024 ER20JY06.025 ER20JY06.026 ER20JY06.027 ER20JY06.028 ER20JY06.029 ER20JY06.030 ER20JY06.031 ER20JY06.032 ER20JY06.033 ER20JY06.034 ER20JY06.035 ER20JY06.036 ER20JY06.037 ER20JY06.038 ER20JY06.039 [FR Doc. 06-6327 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 31

Traces to 31 documents

U.S. Code