Fed. Reg. Unknown — Final rule

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2006-08-21.xml --- 71 161 Monday, August 21, 2006 Contents Agency Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48548-48549 06-7068 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Forest Service See Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E6-13733 48529-48530 E6-13734 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48530-48531 E6-13722 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:

Fort Erwin, CA; brigade combat team transformation, 48542 06-7054 Census Census Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48533-48534 E6-13709 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48550 E6-13721 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48550-48551 06-7036 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge operations:

New York, 48477 E6-13776 Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center, 48480-48483 E6-13532 Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.: Pamunkey River, West Point, VA, 48477-48479 E6-13798 Regattas and marine parades: Ocean City Maryland Offshore Challenge, 48475-48477 E6-13805 PROPOSED RULES Drawbridge operations: Wisconsin, 48498-48500 E6-13777 Transportation Worker Identification Credential Program; maritime sector implementation:

Commercial driver's license hazardous materials endorsement, 48527-48528 06-7055 Commerce Commerce Department See Census Bureau See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48532-48533 E6-13707 CITA Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements NOTICES North American Free Trade Agreement; commercial availability— Cellulose acetate filament yarns, 48538-48539 06-7077 Defense Defense Department See Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48539-48541 06-7040 06-7041 06-7042 Meetings:

National Security Education Board, 48541 06-7039 Scientific Advisory Board, 48542 06-7038 Delaware Delaware River Basin Commission PROPOSED RULES Water Quality Regulations, Water Code, and Comprehensive Plan: Lower Delaware River; special protection waters classification, 48497-48498 E6-13699 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Registration revocations, restrictions, denials, reinstatements: Noramco Inc., 48557 E6-13724 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Sigma Aldrich Manufacturing LLC, 48556-48557 E6-13727 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48543 E6-13746 Meetings:

Historically Black Colleges and Universities, President's Board of Advisors, 48543-48544 06-7037 Employee Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Employee benefit plans; individual exemptions: Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund, 48768-48788 E6-13623 Southwest Gas Corp., 48788-48792 E6-13622 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery— Salary and bonus limitations; implementation, 48557-48559 06-7056 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Conflict of interests, 48447-48449 E6-13736 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

DOE draft strategic plan; comment request, 48544 E6-13735 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Berth 97-109 Container Terminal Project, CA, 48542-48543 E6-13755 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Superfund program: National oil and hazardous substances contingency plan priorities list, 48479-48480 E6-13745 PROPOSED RULES Air pollution control: Indian country; new sources and modification review, 48696-48750 06-6926 Solid waste:

Hazardous waste; alternative generator requirements applicable to academic laboratories, 48500-48501 E6-13854 NOTICES Meetings: Science Advisory Board, 48546-48547 E6-13744 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives: Aerospatiale, 48466-48470 E6-13651 Boeing Correction, 48466 E6-13652 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), 48463-48465 E6-13653 Sandel Avionics Inc., 48461-48463 E6-13447 Airworthiness standards: Special conditions— Airbus Model A380-800 airplanes, 48449-48461 E6-13779 E6-13789 E6-13796 Standard instrument approach procedures, 48470-48473 E6-13590 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives:

Boeing, 48493-48495 E6-13730 Bombardier, 48487-48490 E6-13713 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), 48490-48493 E6-13714 Class E airspace, 48495-48496 06-7063 NOTICES Aeronautical land-use assurance; waivers: Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, MI, 48573-48576 06-7060 06-7061 Freeman Municipal Airport, IN, 48576-48577 06-7065 Northeast Alabama Regional Airport, AL, 06-7057 06-7058 48577-48578 06-7059 Watertown Municipal Airport, WI, 48578 06-7066 Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48578-48579 06-7064 FCC Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Common carrier services, etc.: 698-746, 747-762, and 777-792 MHz bands, enhanced 911 emergency calling systems, and hearing aid-compatible telephones, 48506-48527 06-7051 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Electric utilities (Federal Power Act):

Electric energy, capacity, and ancillary services; wholesale sales; market-based rates, 48496-48497 E6-13703 NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 48544-48546 E6-13732 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, public transportation providers; western States guidance, 48579-48580 06-7053 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and threatened species:

Recovery Plans— Chittenango ovate amber snail, 48554-48555 E6-13717 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Molecular methods in immunohematology; workshop, 48551 E6-13695 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* California QUALCOMM Inc.; digital wireless telecommunication products manufacturing facilities, 48534 E6-13788 Colorado QUALCOMM Inc.; digital wireless telecommunication products manufacturing facilities, 48534-48535 E6-13787 North Carolina QUALCOMM Inc.; digital wireless telecommunication products manufacturing facilities, 48535-48536 E6-13786 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Recreation fee areas:

Homochito National Forest, MS; access fees, 48531 06-7034 GSA General Services Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48547 E6-13750 Privacy Act; systems of records, 48752-48765 06-7003 Health Health and Human Services Department See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See Indian Health Service See Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department NOTICES Meetings:

BioShield Project; stakeholders workshop, 48547-48548 06-7033 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Transportation Security Administration Indian Indian Affairs Bureau PROPOSED RULES Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act: Tribal energy resource agreements, 48626-48645 06-6852 Indian Indian Health Service NOTICES Inpatient and outpatient medical care; reimbursement rates (2006 CY), 48552 E6-13785 Inspector Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department NOTICES Social Security Act:

State Medicaid programs; false or fraudulent claims; evaluation guidelines, 48552-48554 E6-13749 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See National Park Service IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Income taxes: Separate limitations application to dividends from noncontrolled section 902 corporations Correction, 48474-48475 E6-13425 Stock dispositions; suspension of losses Correction, 48473-48474 E6-13399 PROPOSED RULES Income taxes:

Expenditures related to tangible property; deduction and capitalization; guidance, 48590-48623 06-6969 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48582-48586 E6-13701 E6-13702 E6-13711 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48536 E6-13706 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Pollution control; consent judgments:

Mid-Valley Pipeline Co., et al., 48555-48556 06-7028 Labor Labor Department See Employee Benefits Security Administration See Employment and Training Administration Legal Legal Services Corporation PROPOSED RULES Client grievance procedures, 48501-48506 E6-13700 Millennium Millennium Challenge Corporation NOTICES Millennium Challenge Act: Benin compact; correction, 48559-48560 E6-13697 Ghana compact, 48648-48693 06-6914 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.:

Continental Tire North America, Inc., 48580-48581 E6-13778 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands atka mackerel, 48485-48486 E6-13790 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollock, 48483-48485 06-7052 Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— Gulf of Mexico reef fish; correction, 48483 E6-13781 NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:

Pacific sardine harvest guideline; annual allocation alternatives; withdrawn, 48537 E6-13783 Marine mammals: Incidental taking; authorization letter, etc.— U. S. Navy; Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active sonar operations, 48537-48538 E6-13782 Scientific research permit applications, determinations, etc., 48538 E6-13784 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Native American human remains, funerary objects; inventory, repatriation, etc.: Department of Anthropology Museum, University of California, Davis, CA; correction, 48587 Z6-8447 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

Coal Creek, Cedar City, UT; flood-control improvements, 48531-48532 E6-13751 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Michigan Biotechnology Institute, 48560-48561 E6-13718 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: LCO 3.10.1, inservice leak and hydrostatic testing operation using consolidated line item improvement process; model safety evaluation, 48561-48564 E6-13715 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Tennessee Valley Authority, 48560 E6-13716 Nuclear Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board NOTICES Meetings:

Yucca Mountain, NV— Potential corrosion of material for packaging waste at proposed repository, 48564 06-7049 Safety case for proposed repository, 48564-48565 06-7050 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48565 E6-13723 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 48566-48567 E6-13728 International Securities Exchange, Inc., 48567-48569 E6-13725 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 48569-48571 E6-13726 NYSE Arca, Inc., 48571-48573 E6-13729 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad services abandonment:

Blue Mountain & Northern Railroad Co., 48581 E6-13669 Textile Textile Agreements Implementation Committee See Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Transit Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board Transportation Transportation Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Transportation Worker Identification Credential Program; maritime sector implementation:

Commercial driver's license hazardous materials endorsement, 48527-48528 06-7055 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 48581-48582 E6-13698 E6-13737 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 48590-48623 06-6969 Part III Interior Department, Indian Affairs Bureau, 48626-48645 06-6852 Part IV Millennium Challenge Corporation, 48648-48693 06-6914 Part V Environmental Protection Agency, 48696-48750 06-6926 Part VI General Services Administration, 48752-48765 06-7003 Part VII Labor Department, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 48768-48792 E6-13622 E6-13623 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. 71 161 Monday, August 21, 2006 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 5 CFR Part 3301 10 CFR Part 1010 RINs 1990-AA19 and 3209-AA15 Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of Energy and Residual Department Standards Regulation AGENCY:

Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (Department or DOE), with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), published an interim final rule on July 5, 1996, to establish standards of ethical conduct, applicable to employees of the Department, that supplement the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch issued by the Office of Government Ethics, and to revise the Department's residual standards regulation.

The rule requires Department employees to document notices of disqualification and withdrawals of such notices in writing. It also requires that Department employees obtain the written approval of their immediate supervisor and the Department's designated agency ethics official or such official's designee prior to engaging in certain outside employment. The Department now discusses comments received in response to the interim final rule, and adopts that rule as final with certain changes to the Department's residual standards previously issued.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue E. Wadel, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Standards of Conduct, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for General Law, GC-77, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone 202-586-1522. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Rulemaking History On August 7, 1992, the Office of Government Ethics published the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (Standards) (57 FR 35006).

The Standards, codified at 5 CFR Part 2635 and effective February 3, 1993, establish uniform standards of ethical conduct applicable to all executive branch personnel. With the concurrence of OGE, 5 CFR 2635.105 authorizes executive agencies to publish agency-specific supplemental regulations that the agency determines are necessary and appropriate, in view of its programs and operations, to fulfill the purposes of the Standards. The interim final rule published for comment on July 5, 1996 (61 FR 35085) by the Department, with OGE concurrence, established supplemental DOE regulations under 5 CFR 2635.105, and the Department, in the same rulemaking document, revised its residual standards regulation at 10 CFR part 1010.

The Department determined that the supplemental rule was a necessary supplement to the Standards because it addressed ethical issues unique to the Department, and was therefore necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the Standards. The rule, codified in new chapter XXIII of 5 CFR, consisting of part 3301, provided a 60-day comment period and invited comments by agencies and the public. Comments were received from two

(2)sources. In a separate rulemaking action, on June 3, 1998 (63 FR 30109), the Department published a final rule that revised the part 1010 authority citation, amended § 1010.102, and deleted old § 1010.105. The final rulemaking today makes no further changes to the current regulations at 10 CFR part 1010 and 5 CFR part 3301. On March 1, 2000, the National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA)was established as a separately organized entity within the Department of Energy. This rule applies to all Department employees, including those of NNSA. II. Summary of Comments Both sets of comments concerned 5 CFR 3301.103, which requires that Department employees obtain the written approval of their immediate supervisor and the Department's designated agency ethics official or that official's designee (ethics counselor) prior to engaging in certain outside employment. The comments addressed the prior approval requirement (§ 3301.103(a)) and the definition of “employment” (§ 3301.103(c)). No comments were received on § 3301.102 requiring Department employees to document notices of disqualification and withdrawals of such notices in writing. Additionally, no comments were received on the revisions to the Department's residual part 1010 standards regulation in its own CFR title and the addition of cross-references to the new provisions. Section 3301.103(a) Prior Approval Requirement The comments suggested the rule is overly broad and unenforceable. It was specifically stated that:

(a)The rule should cover only those employees in “sensitive” positions because they are the only employees whom the rule affects, thus preventing an otherwise unwarranted invasion of privacy;

(b)the rule should not apply to unpaid employment because unpaid employment would not “prejudice” an employee;

(c)the rule, interpreted broadly, would encompass many types of employment that are not the type the rule seeks to prohibit; and

(d)the rule is unenforceable because there would be no way of ensuring compliance with the rule. The Department has determined that it would not be prudent to narrow the scope of the rule and that, in light of the purpose of the rule, the fear it would be unenforceable is not valid. The rule is designed to help ensure that Department employees do not inadvertently violate the criminal statutes and Federal regulations governing outside activities of Federal employees. Determining whether certain outside employment is prohibited is very fact-specific, and does not depend upon an employee's position or on whether outside employment is unpaid. The Department does not believe it is possible to craft a straightforward regulation that would plainly address, in advance, the myriad of situations which could be considered to be employment and to identify which of those situations would be prohibited or in conflict with the Standards. It is the Department's view that whatever burden the prior approval requirement may impose upon some employees, it is more than compensated for by the prevention of violations of the applicable statutes and Federal regulations. It should be noted that the prior approval requirement is not designed to arbitrarily deny Department employees permission to engage in outside employment. In fact, the regulation makes clear that a request for approval will be granted unless it is determined that the outside employment involves conduct prohibited by statute or regulation. See 5 CFR 3301.103(b). In practice, since the interim final regulation has been promulgated, the vast majority of requests for approval to engage in outside employment have been routinely granted. The comments also maintained that the approval process contained in the rule, requiring approval to be in writing and obtained from an employee's immediate supervisor and ethics counselor, is unduly burdensome. It was specifically recommended that an employee's immediate supervisor be authorized to provide the necessary approval, and that verbal approval be allowed. The Department has not adopted these recommendations. DOE's ethics counselors are uniquely qualified to analyze, interpret, and apply the relevant statutes and regulations. Supervisors generally will not be able to make determinations regarding whether a specific fact situation may violate a statute or regulation. Further, the involvement of Department ethics counselors helps to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of those statutes and Federal regulations. Written approval is the most effective way of documenting the approval process and it protects both the Department and the employee. Written approval can, as a practical matter, be more effectively relied upon by the Department in the event an employee seeks clarification about advice provided to him or her regarding outside employment, and by the employee in the event there is a dispute concerning the legality of an employee's outside employment activities. Disciplinary action for violating the Standards or these supplemental regulations will not be taken against an employee who has in good faith relied upon the advice of an ethics counselor, provided the employee, in seeking such advice, has made full disclosure of all relevant facts and circumstances. Where the employee's conduct violates a criminal statute, reliance on the advice of an ethics counselor cannot ensure that the employee will not be prosecuted under that statute; however, good faith reliance on the advice of an ethics counselor is a factor that may be taken into account by the Department of Justice in the selection of cases for prosecution. See 5 CFR 2635.107(b). Finally, one of the comments noted professional employees are governed by professional ethics rules and, therefore, the imposition of additional limitations is unnecessary and likely to result in conflicting ethical regulations. All employees of the executive branch, whether or not professional, must comply with the Standards and any other applicable statutes and regulations. Professional ethical obligations an employee may be subject to may be considered by the employee in addition to the applicable statutes and regulations, but shall not, under any circumstances, relieve an employee of his or her obligations under applicable statutes and regulations. Section 3301.103(c) Definition of Employment The regulation defines “employment” to exclude “participating in the activities of a nonprofit, charitable, religious, public service or civic organization, unless such activities involve the provision of professional services or are for compensation.” One set of comments objected to the exclusion of “professional services” from this exception to the definition of “employment” for the following reasons:

(a)It would “automatically eliminate all of our professional workers from all public service work,” creating a socially undesirable outcome;

(b)it “constitutes an unfair labor practice, for, without any negotiation, it bars the union from using its professional members for standard collective bargaining activities;” and

(c)it is “unnecessary” because “professional service provided by DOE professionals to public organizations is not related at all to their positions as government employees.” Comments

(a)and

(b)exhibit a clear misunderstanding of the language of the rule. The definition of employment does not prohibit professionals from engaging in public service work or bar the union from using its professional members for standard collective bargaining activities; rather, it simply states that if an employee's involvement in public service work includes the provision of professional services, or is for compensation, then the employee may not rely on the exception and must, as is required for any other type of outside employment, receive prior written approval. Further, determining whether certain outside employment is prohibited is very fact-specific and does not necessarily depend upon the relationship between an employee's position and an employee's outside activity. III. Matters of Regulatory Procedure Review Under Executive Order 12866 Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 13258, Amending Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (67 FR 9385, February 28, 2002). Accordingly, today's action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Review Under Executive Order 12988 Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) instructs each agency to adhere to certain requirements in promulgating new regulations. These requirements, set forth in section 3(a) and (b), include eliminating drafting errors and needless ambiguity, drafting the regulations to minimize litigation, providing clear and certain legal standards for affected legal conduct, and promoting simplification and burden reduction. Agencies are also instructed to make every reasonable effort to ensure that regulations describe any administrative proceeding to be available prior to judicial review and any provisions for the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Department has determined that today's regulatory action meets the requirements of section 3(a) and

(b)of Executive Order 12988. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order on Federalism 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it would not preempt State law and would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. Review Under Executive Order 13084 Under Executive Order 13084 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 1998), DOE may not issue a discretionary rule that significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments and imposes substantial direct compliance costs. This rule would not have such effects. Accordingly, Executive Order 13084 does not apply to this rulemaking. Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act The authorizing legislation for this rulemaking does not require notice and comment rulemaking. Moreover, this final rule relates solely to internal agency organization, management, or personnel, and as such, is not subject to the requirement for a general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Consequently, this rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603). Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act This final rule adopts as final the Department's interim regulations on standards of conduct. It will not change the environmental effects of the regulations being amended. The Department has therefore determined that the rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found at paragraph A.5 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to rulemakings interpreting or amending an existing rule that do not change the environmental effect thereof. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for executive agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines, and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule does not impose a “collection of information” requirement, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires each Agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory action on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. The Department has determined that today's regulatory action does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector. Congressional Notification The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 requires agencies to report to Congress on the promulgation of certain final rules prior to their effective dates. 5 U.S.C. 801. That reporting requirement does not apply to this final rule because it falls within a statutory exception for rules relating to agency management or personnel. 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B). List of Subjects 5 CFR Part 3301 Conduct standards, Conflicts of interests, Ethical conduct, Government employees. 10 CFR Part 1010 Conduct standards, Conflicts of interests, Ethical conduct, Government employees. Issued in Washington, DC, on August 2, 2006. David R. Hill, General Counsel, Department of Energy. Approved: August 10, 2006. Robert I. Cusick, Director, Office of Government Ethics. Accordingly, the interim final rule adding 5 CFR part 3301 and revising 10 CFR part 1010, that was published at 61 FR 35085 on July 5, 1996, is adopted as a final rule with the changes published at 63 FR 30109 on June 3, 1998. [FR Doc. E6-13736 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM343; Special Conditions No. 25-322-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus Model A380-800 Airplane, Airplane Jacking Loads AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. Many of these novel or unusual design features are associated with the complex systems and the configuration of the airplane, including its full-length double deck. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards regarding airplane jacking loads. 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. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane. DATES: *Effective Date:* The effective date of these special conditions is July 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Thorson, FAA, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1357; facsimile

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Airbus applied for FAA certification/validation of the provisionally-designated Model A3XX-100 in its letter AI/L 810.0223/98, dated August 12, 1998, to the FAA. Application for certification by the Joint Aviation Authorities

(JAA)of Europe had been made on January 16, 1998, reference AI/L 810.0019/98. In its letter to the FAA, Airbus requested an extension to the 5-year period for type certification in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(c). The request was for an extension to a 7-year period, using the date of the initial application letter to the JAA as the reference date. The reason given by Airbus for the request for extension is related to the technical challenges, complexity, and the number of new and novel features on the airplane. On November 12, 1998, the Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, granted Airbus' request for the 7-year period, based on the date of application to the JAA. In its letter AI/LE-A 828.0040/99 Issue 3, dated July 20, 2001, Airbus stated that its target date for type certification of the Model A380-800 had been moved from May 2005, to January 2006, to match the delivery date of the first production airplane. In a subsequent letter (AI/L 810.0223/98 issue 3, dated January 27, 2006), Airbus stated that its target date for type certification is October 2, 2006. In accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(d)(2), Airbus chose a new application date of December 20, 1999, and requested that the 7-year certification period which had already been approved be continued. The FAA has reviewed the part 25 certification basis for the Model A380-800 airplane, and no changes are required based on the new application date. The Model A380-800 airplane will be an all-new, four-engine jet transport airplane with a full double-deck, two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 1.235 million pounds with a typical three-class layout of 555 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model A380-800 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-98. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus A380-800 airplane because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane 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. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 93-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101. Discussion of Novel or Unusual Design Features The A380 has a multi-leg landing gear arrangement consisting of a nose gear, two wing mounted gear, and two body mounted gear. This arrangement is different from the simpler, conventional landing gear arrangement envisioned by the jacking load requirements of 14 CFR 25.519. Those regulations assume a landing gear arrangement comprising a three point suspension system (two main gear and a nose or tail gear) in which load sharing between the landing gear can be determined without considering the flexibility of the airframe. For a five point suspension system, like that of the A380, calculations that consider airplane flexibilities are necessary to determine load sharing between landing gear units accurately. (The flexibility of the individual landing gear oleos and of the airplane itself affect how the weight of the airplane is distributed among the individual landing gear units.) Special conditions are necessary to allow a rational analysis of the jacking condition for the main and body landing gear. (This analysis will include the case of bogie gears where one leg of a bogie is jacked and the other leg is supported on a tripod—which is not addressed by § 25.519.) The applicant has proposed a rational jacking analysis, which makes reasonable or conservative assumptions about the runway configuration and ground wind speeds. Discussion of Comments Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-06-04-SC, pertaining to airplane jacking loads for the Airbus A380 airplane, was published in the **Federal Register** on March 28, 2006. A single comment which supports the intent and language of the special conditions, as proposed, was received from the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA). Accordingly, the special conditions are adopted as proposed. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Airbus A380-800 airplane. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these 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 the Airbus A380-800 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. 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 Airbus A380-800 airplane. Part I In lieu of compliance with 14 CFR 25.519(b)(1), for jacking by the landing gear at the maximum ramp weight of the airplane, the airplane structure may be designed to withstand the maximum limit loads arising from conditions a. and b. below. a. The loads arising from jacking by the landing gear may be derived from a rational analysis under both of the following conditions: 1. A ramp crown defined by a 1.5% gradient, the crest of the gradient to be in the most adverse position for the loading of the undercarriage unit in question; and the maximum allowable steady wind for jacking operations from any horizontal direction; and the most adverse combination of oleo leg pressures within service tolerances; and jack(s) at the maximum possible overshoot. 2. A ramp crown defined by a 1.5% gradient, the crest of the gradient to be in the most adverse position for the loading of the undercarriage unit in question; and twice the maximum allowable steady wind for jacking operations from any horizontal direction; and a nominal distribution of oleo leg pressures; and jacking performed in accordance with recommended procedures. b. The limit horizontal load at the jacking point undercarriage unit may not be less than the higher of that derived from the above rational analysis or 0.33 times the limit static vertical reaction found with the undercarriage unit in question supported at the jacking points with the aircraft in the unjacked position. This load must be applied in combination with the vertical loads arising from the analysis of

(a)above. Part II Jacking equipment used for the airplane jacking operation must be controlled by a specification that assures that jacking operations are conducted in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of this special condition. Jacking instructions must be developed and incorporated in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to assure that the proper jacking equipment is used and that the jacking operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the provisions of this special conditions. The jacking instructions may be by means of placards conspicuously located near the jacking points or by other suitable means acceptable to the Administrator. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 20, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13789 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM342; Special Condition No. 25-323-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus Model A380-800 Airplane, Extendable Length Escape System AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. Many of these novel or unusual design features are associated with the complex systems and the configuration of the airplane, including its full-length double deck. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards regarding extendable length escape slides. 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. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane. DATES: *Effective Date:* The effective date of these special conditions is July 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Thorson, FAA, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1357; facsimile

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Airbus applied for FAA certification/validation of the provisionally-designated Model A3XX-100 in its letter AI/L 810.0223/98, dated August 12, 1998, to the FAA. Application for certification by the Joint Aviation Authorities

(JAA)of Europe had been made on January 16, 1998, reference AI/L 810.0019/98. In its letter to the FAA, Airbus requested an extension to the 5-year period for type certification in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(c). The request was for an extension to a 7-year period, using the date of the initial application letter to the JAA as the reference date. The reason given by Airbus for the request for extension is related to the technical challenges, complexity, and the number of new and novel features on the airplane. On November 12, 1998, the Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, granted Airbus' request for the 7-year period, based on the date of application to the JAA. In its letter AI/LE-A 828.0040/99 Issue 3, dated July 20, 2001, Airbus stated that its target date for type certification of the Model A380-800 had been moved from May 2005, to January 2006, to match the delivery date of the first production airplane. In a subsequent letter (AI/L 810.0223/98 issue 3, dated January 27, 2006), Airbus stated that its target date for type certification is October 2, 2006. In accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(d)(2), Airbus chose a new application date of December 20, 1999, and requested that the 7-year certification period which had already been approved be continued. The FAA has reviewed the part 25 certification basis for the Model A380-800 airplane, and no changes are required based on the new application date. The Model A380-800 airplane will be an all-new, four-engine jet transport airplane with a full double-deck, two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 1.235 million pounds with a typical three-class layout of 555 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model A380-800 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-98. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus A380-800 airplane because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane 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. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 93-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(a)(2), Amendment 21-69, effective September 16, 1991. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101. Discussion of Novel or Unusual Design Features The Airbus Model A380-800 airplane has 16 emergency exits and 16 escape slides to be used for evacuation of passengers in case of emergency. Of these, 14 are fixed-length escape slides, and two (at door M1) are extendable length escape slides. The extendable length escape slides have a 16-foot extension packed at the toe. Typically, airplanes have fixed length escape slides. However, it was not possible to use fixed length escape slides for the A380 door M1 because of the extreme difference between normal sill height and high sill height associated with collapse of some of the landing gear in an emergency. Some combinations of landing gear collapse could cause the airplane to tip back on its tail. On the door, there is an electronic sensor that evaluates the attitude of the airplane and determines whether the extension is needed. During normal operation, the extension remains packed at the toe end of the escape slide. When the extension is needed, the system sends a signal to a squib that allows the extension to be inflated during deployment. If the system detects that the slide extension has failed to deploy, a warning is activated that tells the flight attendants that the slide should not be used. The warning will also activate—if after initial deployment of the slide without the extension deploying—the attitude of the airplane changes to the extent that the extension should be deployed. The slide system design cannot accommodate deploying the extension after deployment of the main body of the slide. The performance requirements for escape systems are contained in 14 CFR 25.810 and address several abnormal operating conditions as well as failure conditions and reliability. The requirements of § 25.810 remain applicable for the slide in the unextended mode, and for the most part, in the extended mode. The special conditions indicate where the requirements differ from the requirements of § 25.810 for the slide in the extended mode. The extension is intended only for use at high sill heights. A typical fixed-length slide operating at high sill height does not satisfy all of the performance requirements of § 25.810, but its variations in performance are understood and largely predictable. Certain performance criteria are valid regardless of sill height, whereas other aspects of performance can be expected to decline at higher sill heights. With an extendable slide, there is a step change in configuration and potentially a step change in performance. Therefore, special conditions are needed to ensure acceptable performance in the extended mode. Section 25.810 specifies the basic performance requirements for escape slides including wind testing, repeatability testing, and testing at adverse sill heights. Section 25.1309(a) requires that systems perform under foreseeable operating conditions, such as extreme temperatures, and a demonstration that the system design is appropriate for its intended function. Standards for the equipment itself are contained in Technical Standard Order C69c and contribute to a satisfactory installation. Existing 14 CFR part 25 regulations governing the certification of the A380 do not adequately address certification requirements of an extendable length escape slide. The FAA is proposing special conditions to ensure that an extendable length escape slide performs adequately in both the unextended and the extended configuration. Technical Standard Order C69c addresses many detailed aspects of escape slide performance that are not specified in 14 CFR 25 but are generally considered essential to assuring adequate escape slide performance. These special conditions supplement the requirements of 14 CFR 25, for the slide in its extended mode. However, because of the novel nature of this design, the special conditions will require that the escape slide receive TSO authorization or satisfy an equivalent standard. Wind tests are typically conducted only on fixed length slides at normal sill height. Since the regulations require that the 25 knot standard is met at the most critical wind angle, escape slides usually exceed 25 knots performance at other than the critical angle. The same is expected to be true of the slide in its extended mode, but some reduction in the required wind velocity is appropriate since the slide will be in an abnormal condition. Available data indicates that a value of 22 knots is appropriate to cover the slide in its extended mode at normal sill height. This corresponds to roughly 75% of the wind energy required for the slide in its normal attitude and will ensure that the slide can function in its extended mode at least as well as a fixed length slide under similar abnormal conditions. The special conditions also specify a rate for evacuation of passengers which is consistent with that of fixed length escape slides. Discussion of Comments Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-06-03-SC, pertaining to the extendable length escape system for the Airbus A380 airplane, was published in the **Federal Register** on March 29, 2006. Comments were received from The Boeing Company and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA). *Requested change No. 1:* ALPA states, “The proposed language of * * * Special Condition [3] appears to address only one aspect of the current rule (wind velocity). The remaining elements of 25.810(a)(1)(iv) should continue to apply.” ALPA adds, “Given that FAR part 25.810 provides that non-extendable slides have a 25 knot wind requirement at the most critical angle (with all gear extended), those same requirements must exist for the A380 extendable slide in its normal configuration or an equivalent wind requirement in its extended configuration.” According to the commenter, “* * * aircraft may be operated in winds greater than 25 knots, which suggests that a zone of risk remains unaddressed * * *. The special condition should intend to ensure the slide is able to perform the same point as required for other slides in service, which means that the slide and door sill should be configured as expected in actual service, and then the 25 knot wind should be applied at the most critical angle. *FAA response:* The purpose of Special Condition 3 is to specify a reasonable criterion for the slide in an abnormal condition. There is no such criterion for typical fixed length escape slides, but they can be presumed to have less tolerance to wind when at adverse attitude than at normal attitude. Therefore, applying the same criterion to the slide in both the unextended and extended modes would be beyond what is done for a typical slide. The specific 22 knot criterion was arrived at empirically and is consistent with, if not beyond, the capabilities of a typical slide when at adverse attitude. Regarding the other aspects of § 25.810(a)(1)(iv), see the FAA response to Requested change No. 2. *Requested change No. 2:* The Boeing Company also comments on proposed Special Condition 3, suggesting that the text be changed to be similar to that in § 25.810(a)(1)(iv). *FAA response:* The FAA agrees and has changed the wording to align more closely with the language of § 25.810(a)(1)(iv). *Requested change No. 3:* ALPA points out that proposed Special Condition 5 specifies that a slide extension warning be available for ten minutes after the airplane comes to rest, but does not specify a minimum activation time for the warning. ALPA suggests that the special condition require that “* * * the ‘slide extension’ warning must be such that the cabin crew is immediately made aware of a non usable slide * * *.” *FAA response:* The FAA agrees and, accordingly, has changed the wording of Special Condition 5. *Requested change No. 4:* The Boeing Company comments on proposed Special Condition 2, as follows: “The required evacuation rate of 45 persons per minute should be specified as the combined *average* rate of all test runs to ensure that it will not be applied as a minimum threshold for each test run. *FAA response:* Special Condition 2 requires that Airbus demonstrate that the extendable length escape slide can achieve an evacuation rate of 45 persons per minute, but does not specify that any and every evacuation test must achieve that rate. Using the average of tests may be one way to demonstrate the specified rate, but it is not necessary to specify that as the only means. *Requested change No. 5:* Boeing further comments that proposed Special Condition 2 should specify that, “with the exception of the sill height and the required average evacuation rate for this test series, all the other test conditions in Technical Standard Order TSC-C69C, paragraph 5.4, (Basic Test Conditions), apply.” *FAA response:* This matter is addressed in Special Condition 1, which specifies that “The extendable escape slide must receive TSO C69c authorization or the equivalent.” Except for the changes discussed above, the special conditions are adopted as proposed. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Airbus A380-800 airplane. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these 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 the Airbus A380-800 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. 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 Airbus A380-800 airplane. In addition to the provisions of 14 CFR part 25, the following special conditions apply: 1. The extendable escape slide must receive TSO C69c authorization or the equivalent. 2. In addition to the requirements of § 25.810(a)(1)(iii) for usability in conditions of landing gear collapse, the deployed escape slide in the extended mode must demonstrate an evacuation rate of 45 persons per minute per lane at the sill height corresponding to activation of the extension. 3. In lieu of the requirements of § 25.810(a)(1)(iv), the escape slide must be capable of being deployed in the extended mode, and with the assistance of one person, remain usable in 22 knot winds directed from the critical angle, with the airplane on all its landing gear. 4. Pitch sensor tolerances and accuracy must be taken into account when demonstrating compliance with § 25.1309(a) for the escape slide in both the extended and unextended modes. 5. There must be a “slide extension” warning such that the cabin crew is immediately made aware of a non usable slide (i.e., the main slide has deployed and the door sill height is such that the extension should be deployed but cannot be deployed), even if this is due to the airplane attitude changing during the evacuation. The ability to provide such a warning must be available for ten minutes after the airplane is immobilized on the ground. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 20, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13780 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM319; Special Conditions No. 25-321-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus Model A380-800 Airplane, Crashworthiness AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. Many of these novel or unusual design features are associated with the complex systems and the configuration of the airplane, including its full-length double deck. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards regarding crash survivability. 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. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane. DATES: *Effective Date:* The effective date for these special conditions is July 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Thorson, FAA, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1357; facsimile

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Airbus applied for FAA certification/validation of the provisionally-designated Model A3XX-100 in its letter AI/L 810.0223/98, dated August 12, 1998, to the FAA. Application for certification by the Joint Aviation Authorities

(JAA)of Europe had been made on January 16, 1998, reference AI/L 810.0019/98. In its letter to the FAA, Airbus requested an extension to the 5-year period for type certification in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(c). The request was for an extension to a 7-year period, using the date of the initial application letter to the JAA as the reference date. The reason given by Airbus for the request for extension is related to the technical challenges, complexity, and the number of new and novel features on the airplane. On November 12, 1998, the Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, granted Airbus' request for the 7-year period, based on the date of application to the JAA. In its letter AI/LE-A 828.0040/99 Issue 3, dated July 20, 2001, Airbus stated that its target date for type certification of the Model A380-800 had been moved from May 2005, to January 2006, to match the delivery date of the first production airplane. In a subsequent letter (AI/L 810.0223/98 issue 3, dated January 27, 2006), Airbus stated that its target date for type certification is October 2, 2006. In accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(d)(2), Airbus chose a new application date of December 20, 1999, and requested that the 7-year certification period which had already been approved be continued. The FAA has reviewed the part 25 certification basis for the Model A380-800 airplane, and no changes are required based on the new application date. The Model A380-800 airplane will be an all-new, four-engine jet transport airplane with a full double-deck, two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 1.235 million pounds with a typical three-class layout of 555 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model A380-800 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-98. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus A380-800 airplane because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane 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. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 93-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design features, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101. Discussion of Novel or Unusual Design Features With its complex configuration, including a full-length double deck, the Model A380 airplane has a novel and unusual design relative to large transport category airplanes which have been previously certificated under 14 CFR part 25. The A380 should provide a level of crash survivability which is at least equivalent to that demonstrated for such conventional large transport airplanes. However, its size and configuration could cause the airplane to be subject to effects of scale that decrease the ability of the occupants to survive a crash landing, compared to the occupants of those conventional airplanes. Currently, 14 CFR 25.561 contains design load conditions covering emergency landings or minor crash landings for the local structures which support passengers, equipment, cargo, and other large items of mass in the passenger compartment. However, neither 14 CFR 25.561 nor any other part 25 requirements address the structural capability of the airframe as a whole in a crash landing. Service experience indicates that-even without specific regulatory requirements-the airframes of conventional transport category airplanes show reasonable structural capability in crash landings. Therefore, in the past we have not considered it necessary to specify design load conditions addressing the structural capability of the airplane as a whole in a crash landing. The FAA, however, has no information to indicate whether an airplane the size and configuration of the A380 would provide reasonable airframe structural capability in a crash landing without a specific regulatory requirement. Therefore, the FAA is proposing special conditions which specify testing and analysis to ensure that the Model A380 provides a level of crash survivability equivalent to that of conventional large transport category airplanes. These special conditions address only the vertical loading of the fuselage. The longitudinal loading is not significantly different from that of a conventional transport category airplane and thus is adequately addressed by part 25. For the special conditions, it is necessary to establish a reference point to compare the structural capability of the A380 airplane with the structural capability of current generation airplanes in a crash. This reference point is referred to as the “Limit of Reasonable Survivability.” It is defined—in terms of the vertical descent rate—as the level of structural degradation that would lead, either directly or by exceedance of physiological limits of the occupants, to a significant reduction in the probability of survival in an otherwise survivable incident. (An incident can be unsurvivable due to a non-structural cause, such as a fire. An otherwise survivable incident, then, is one in which no fire or other cause makes the incident unsurvivable.) We intend that this Limit of Reasonable Survivability be determined first for the current generation of the applicant's airplanes and then for the A380 to show that the latter has equal or better characteristics at the same vertical descent rate. The special conditions contain a provision to ensure that the supporting airframe structure is strong and rigid enough to provide survivable living space and to hold seats, overhead bins, and other items of mass in place, even if the local attachment hardware is designed to exceed the minimum strength required by § 25.561. To provide this protection, the special conditions specify that the airframe structure must be able to support the loads imposed by items of mass, assuming that their local supporting structure does not fail, thus relieving the load on the supporting airframe structure. This assumption will ensure that the airframe structure will not collapse, even if the strength of the local attachment for items of mass exceeds the strength required by § 25.561. Since it is the airframe as a whole and its survivable living space that are the subject of these special conditions, the FAA does not intend to increase the strength requirements of § 25.561 by special condition. Therefore, the special conditions state explicitly that the attachments of items of mass need not be designed for static emergency landing loads in excess of those specified in § 25.561. Since larger airframe structures typically have more volume within which to absorb energy, they normally provide occupants with reasonable protection from crash loads. Therefore, the effects of the A380 design on occupant loads are not expected to be significant. In order to confirm that this assumption is correct, these special conditions require an assessment of the effect of the design on the occupant loads. For the purposes of these special conditions, an analytical tool known as the Dynamic Response Index

(DRI)is used to make the assessment. The DRI was developed through research and is documented in USAA VSCOM TR 89-D-22B, “Aircraft Crash Survival Design Guide, Volume II, Aircraft Design Crash Impact Conditions and Human Tolerance.” The DRI approximates the effect of an impact on spinal load. Based on the results of the assessment using DRI, any additional, detailed occupant load considerations can be established. Discussion of Comments Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-05-14-SC, pertaining to crashworthiness requirements for the Airbus A380 airplane, was published in the ** Federal Register ** on August 9, 2005 (70 FR 46102). Comments were received from the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), and the Boeing Company. *Requested change 1:* ALPA addresses the first sentence in Section b. of the special conditions which specifies that, “The occupants will be protected from the release of seats, overhead bins, and other items of mass due to structural deformation of the supporting structure * * * .” ALPA states, “Unless there is a procedure/system in place in revenue service that prevents the seat and bin from being loaded in excess of their rated limit, seats and bins under the requirements of Section b. must be tested within the full range of likely loads, not simply up to their rated limit. Overhead bins are notorious for failing in crash scenarios where the remainder of the cabin remains intact. In addition, the seat requirements for testing with only a 50th percentile male should be reconsidered to evaluate the full range of occupants, or at least the 5th to 95th percentile of humans.” *FAA response:* Accommodating the changes requested by ALPA would be beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The purpose of the special condition is to assure that the large size and full length double deck configuration of the A380 design do not degrade the survivability characteristics of the A380 fuselage shell compared to designs for conventional large transport category airplanes. The purpose is not to create a higher safety standard for the A380. To accomplish a proper comparison, the mass of items and the weight of passengers are defined in the same way as they would be for conventional airplane designs. Overhead bins are required to be evaluated for the rated bin load, and seats are required to be evaluated for the mass of a 50th percentile male occupant. To adopt a procedure to prevent a seat or bin from being loaded in excess of its rated design or to adopt a higher passenger weight for the evaluation of seat strength would represent a difference from the certification criteria used for conventional large transport category airplane designs. Since the A380 is not unique or unusual with regard to these certification criteria, the requested changes are considered to be beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, we have made no changes to the special conditions, as proposed. *Requested change 2:* AFA recommends deleting Section c. of the special condition and all reference to use of the DRI as a measure of “physiological limits” of a crash. Instead, AFA suggests relying on Sections a., b., and d. for demonstrations of survivability. AFA supports its recommendation with a detailed analysis of the development and use of the DRI and reaches the following conclusion: “The DRI is useful, preferably with other criteria, to predict *minor to moderate injury* in ejection seats with occupants who are well restrained in the vertically seated posture, and possibly in crashes. The DRI has never shown the ability to predict survival (or anything else) in a crash that could *cause severe but not fatal injury* .” *FAA response:* The DRI is being used as a metric to compare the occupant dynamic response in the Model A380 with that in other airplane designs; it is not being used as a criterion of injury. Section c. of the special condition states that the “Dynamic Response Index experienced by the occupants will be no more severe than that experienced on conventional large transport airplanes.” This comparison does not involve establishing an injury criterion for DRI. The FAA considers the DRI to be an appropriate metric for the comparative analysis required by the special condition. Since it is only the vertical loading that is simulated in the analysis, the one degree of freedom spring-mass model on which DRI is based is acceptable to the FAA. Accordingly, no change has been made to Section c. of the special condition, as proposed. *Requested change 3:* AFA states, “The proposed special condition[s] envision a simple vertical impact as the environment to compare the crashworthiness of the A380-800 airplane with that of ‘conventional large transport airplanes.’ The ‘conventional large transport airplane’ is not specifically designated.” 1 AFA suggests that a simple vertical crash impact is insufficient to judge crashworthiness and recommends that, “The impact conditions in the Special Conditions should reflect a representative crash environment that includes at least both vertical and longitudinal components. The conditions used in the Jamshidiat study (op. cit.) would be appropriate.” According to AFA, the impact conditions studied by Jamshidiat et al. were much more realistic and severe than the simple vertical impact proposed by the special condition. 1 Airbus compared construction of the very large A380 to that of the “conventional large” A320 and A340 both of which are currently in production. AFA also discusses the Department of Defense

(DOD)Crash Protection Handbook, which summarizes critical findings of past crashworthiness studies. One of those findings is of particular concern for the A380-800 aircraft: “For larger aircraft, the earth-scooping criteria associated with the low angle impact of Mil-Std-1290 were shown to be impractical. This conclusion was based on the fact that the requirement, which was based on G loading, would impose a severe weight penalty on large airframes (over approximately 20,000 pounds). The criteria described in Mil-Std-1290 were that, ‘The nose section shall be designed to preclude any earth plowing and scooping tendency when the forward 25 percent of the fuselage has a uniformly applied local upward load of 10g and a rearward load of 4g or the ditching loads of Mil-A-8865A, whichever is the greatest.’ ” AFA states, “Because of its size, it is doubtful if the A380-800 provides adequate protection against earth scooping. Earth scooping can disrupt the continuity of the bottom of the aircraft (e.g., the British Midlands 737 crash) and result in severe compromise of living space, and thus of survivability. It must be considered in any evaluation of crashworthiness.” *FAA response:* The FAA agrees that a simple vertical crash impact is insufficient to judge overall crashworthiness, because

(1)there is no agreed standard to judge an acceptable level of crashworthiness, and

(2)the behavior of airplanes during minor crashes is highly complex and variable. However, that does not mean that meaningful crashworthiness evaluations cannot be made by isolating certain airplane characteristics that contribute to post crash survival, such as the ability of a fuselage to withstand crushing or collapse due to the vertical forces resulting from impact with the ground. This is the effect addressed by the A380 special condition. While there are many factors that may influence the survivability of the fuselage, the FAA considers the ability of a fuselage to survive a vertical drop without crushing or collapse to be a major factor. In fact, the FAA has conducted vertical drop testing of actual fuselage sections for this very purpose, that is, to determine how current generation fuselages perform in a minor crash landing and to identify design features that affect their performance. The demonstration required by this special condition is intended to show whether the A380, including the full length upper deck, is able to resist crushing or floor collapse in a vertical drop as well as other conventional large transport airplanes. The requirement to conduct this demonstration does not establish a higher level of safety for the A380. In terms of vertical descent rate, it provides for equivalence to the performance of existing large transport airplanes. The FAA does not agree with AFA that the A380 analysis was overly unrealistic or has little value, compared to the study performed by Jamshidiat et al. The Jamshidiat study was performed for a different reason than this A380 special condition. Its purpose was to assess the effect of airplane size on the longitudinal and transverse acceleration loads experienced by occupants. The A380 special condition addresses the strength of the fuselage shell and its ability to avoid crushing due to vertical impact loading. The Jamshidiat study modeled the fuselage characteristics that are relevant for evaluating the longitudinal and transverse acceleration loads experienced by occupants. The A380 special condition addresses the characteristics of the fuselage construction that are relevant to its ability to avoid crushing. Therefore, the A380 special condition and the Jamshidiat study are complementary. In fact, the results of the Jamshidiat study support our assumption that the § 25.561 longitudinal accelerations are adequate for design of the A380 and, therefore, do not need to be addressed in the A380 special condition. Finally, the FAA does not agree that the DOD crash handbook discussion of earth plowing/scooping indicates that it is doubtful that the A380-800 provides adequate protection against earth scooping. The comparison the DOD drew between large airplanes and small was between 737-size airplanes (typically greater than 140,000 pounds gross weight) and business jet or trainer size airplanes (typically smaller than 20,000 pounds gross weight), not between 737-size airplanes and A380-size airplanes (over 900,000 pounds gross weight). We do not believe that any evidence indicates that the earth plowing/scooping behavior of an A380-size airplane will be more severe than for a 747-size airplane. In fact, a conclusion of the Jamshidiat report cited by AFA indicates that the opposite is probably true: “The longitudinal crash deceleration was a function of the impact slope, the condition of the impact surface, the nature of obstacles and the relative radius of curvature of the fuselage cross section and the nose plan-form. The 747-400, with its larger radii of curvature and greater energy absorption of the lower fuselage structure has an inherent advantage over the 737-400 because obstacles do not follow scaling rules.” The FAA agrees with this reasoning and by extension concludes that the A380 will have an inherent advantage over the 747 and can be expected to produce lower longitudinal crash decelerations because of its size. *Requested change 4:* The Boeing Company suggests that the proposed special conditions be revised or withdrawn, stating the following: “A requirement to show equivalency to an existing airplane is unprecedented and beyond the scope provided for by FAR 21.16 for Special Conditions. [Section] 21.16 allows special conditions to be issued ‘to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established in the regulations.' It does not allow the FAA to issue special conditions to achieve a level of safety inherent in a past product design * * * ” “Existing Part 25 regulations already provide for the structural integrity and crashworthiness of the passenger cabin. To require the determination and comparison to other aircraft for the ‘Limit of Reasonable Survivability’ should be addressed with general rulemaking, as it is a general upgrade of the requirements that should apply to all aircraft types * * *. Since Part 25 already contains passenger static and dynamic survivability requirements, the upgrading of those requirements must come through general rulemaking and not special conditions.” *FAA response:* The FAA does not agree with the commenter that this special condition is beyond the scope provided for by 14 CFR 21.16. That section states that “If the Administrator finds that the airworthiness regulations of this subchapter do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for an aircraft * * * because of a novel or unusual design feature of the aircraft * * * he prescribes special conditions and amendments thereto for the product. The special conditions * * * contain such safety standards for the aircraft * * * as the Administrator finds necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established in the regulations.” The level of safety established in the part 25 regulations for transport category airplanes is evidenced by the safety record demonstrated in service by airplanes so certificated. Although an overall airframe crashworthiness requirement has never been the subject of a part 25 regulation, current generation airplanes certificated under part 25 have exhibited a level of crashworthiness that the FAA considers to be adequate. These airplanes include those with a single deck and Boeing Model 747 with an upper deck which is considerably smaller (in both length and width) than that of the A380. The current part 25 regulations have no doubt contributed to this level of safety, even though no specific regulation has addressed the performance of the airframe in a crash landing, because the regulations have determined the airframe strength, which service experience has shown to be adequate. The relevant novel or unusual design features of the A380 vis-à-vis airframe crashworthiness are its size, gross weight, and full length double deck configuration, which are without precedent in the current commercial transport airplane fleet. This special condition requires a demonstration that the A380 provides a level of crash survivability equivalent to that of conventional large transport airplanes. Therefore, the FAA does not agree with the Boeing Company that this special condition is beyond the scope provided for by § 21.16. Further, the FAA does not agree that the part 25 regulations already provide for the structural integrity and crashworthiness of the passenger cabin for the Airbus A380. The existing regulations address the seats, restraint of passengers, equipment, cargo and other large masses contained in the passenger cabin and their attachment to the airframe, so as to avoid failure of structure which would release these items in the cabin during a minor crash landing and cause injury or block emergency escape routes. They do not, however, address the crashworthiness of fuselage structure as a whole and its ability to avoid collapse in a minor crash landing. Finally, the FAA does not consider it necessary to address other airplane designs with general rulemaking. It is the unique characteristics of the A380 that motivates this special condition. No other transport airplane is as large or heavy as the A380 or has a full length double deck, and, therefore, there is no need for general rulemaking. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Airbus A380-800 airplane. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these 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 the Airbus A380-800 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special condition is issued as part of the type certification basis for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. In addition to the requirements of §§ 25.561, 25.562, 25.721, and 25.785, the following special condition applies: It must be demonstrated that the Model A380 provides a level of crash survivability equivalent to that of conventional large transport airplanes. This may be achieved by demonstrating by test or validated analysis that—at impacts up to a vertical descent rate representing the Limit of Reasonable Survivability—the structural capability of typical fuselage sections is equal to or better than that of a conventional large transport airplane. (The Limit of Reasonable Survivability is defined as the level of structural degradation that would either directly or by exceedance of physiological limits of the occupants lead to a significant reduction in the probability of survival in an otherwise survivable incident.) The results of this demonstration must show the following: a. Structural deformation will not result in infringement of the occupants' normal living space. b. The occupants will be protected from the release of seats, overhead bins, and other items of mass due to structural deformation of the supporting structure. That is, the supporting structure must be able to support the loads imposed by these items of mass, assuming that they remain attached during the impact event, and the floor structure must deform in a way that would allow them to remain attached. However, the attachments of these items need not be designed for static emergency landing loads in excess of those specified in § 25.561. c. The Dynamic Response Index experienced by the occupants will not be more severe than that experienced on conventional large transport airplanes. (The Dynamic Response Index is described in USAA VSCOM TR 89-D-22B, “Aircraft Crash Survival Design Guide, Volume II, Aircraft Design Crash Impact Conditions and Human Tolerance.”) d. Cargo loading of the fuselage for this evaluation accounts for variations that could have a deleterious effect on structural performance. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 24, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13796 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM341; Special Conditions No. 25-324-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus Model A380-800 Airplane, Loading Conditions for Multi-leg Landing Gear AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. Many of these novel or unusual design features are associated with the complex systems and the configuration of the airplane, including its full-length double deck. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards regarding loading conditions for multi-leg landing gear. 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. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane. DATES: *Effective Date:* The effective date of these special conditions is July 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Thorson, FAA, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1357; facsimile

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Airbus applied for FAA certification/validation of the provisionally-designated Model A3XX-100 in its letter AI/L 810.0223/98, dated August 12, 1998, to the FAA. Application for certification by the Joint Aviation Authorities

(JAA)of Europe had been made on January 16, 1998, reference AI/L 810.0019/98. In its letter to the FAA, Airbus requested an extension to the 5-year period for type certification in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(c). The request was for an extension to a 7-year period, using the date of the initial application letter to the JAA as the reference date. The reason given by Airbus for the request for extension is related to the technical challenges, complexity, and the number of new and novel features on the airplane. On November 12, 1998, the Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, granted Airbus' request for the 7-year period, based on the date of application to the JAA. In its letter AI/LE-A 828.0040/99 Issue 3, dated July 20, 2001, Airbus stated that its target date for type certification of the Model A380-800 had been moved from May 2005, to January 2006, to match the delivery date of the first production airplane. In a subsequent letter (AI/L 810.0223/98 Issue 3, dated January 27, 2006), Airbus stated that its target date for type certification is October 2, 2006. In accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(d)(2), Airbus chose a new application date of December 20, 1999, and requested that the 7-year certification period which had already been approved be continued. The FAA has reviewed the part 25 certification basis for the Model A380-800 airplane, and no changes are required based on the new application date. The Model A380-800 airplane will be an all-new, four-engine jet transport airplane with a full double-deck, two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 1.235 million pounds with a typical three-class layout of 555 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model A380-800 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-98. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus A380-800 airplane because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane 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. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 93-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101. Discussion of Novel or Unusual Design Features The A380 has a multi-leg landing gear arrangement consisting of a nose gear, two wing mounted gear, and two body mounted gear. This arrangement is different from the simpler, conventional landing gear arrangement envisioned by the landing and ground load requirements of 14 CFR part 25. Those regulations assume a landing gear arrangement comprising a three point suspension system (two main gear and a nose or tail gear) in which load sharing between the landing gear can be determined without considering the flexibility of the airframe. In fact, § 25.477 states that certain Ground Load provisions apply only to “airplanes with conventional arrangements of main and nose gears, or main and tail gears, when normal operating techniques are used.” For a five point suspension system, like that of the A380, load sharing between landing gear must be determined in a rational manner considering the flexibility of the airplane. Therefore, the landing and ground load requirements of 14 CFR part 25 are not valid, and special conditions specifying the load conditions appropriate to the multi-leg landing gear on the A380 are necessary. Proposed regulatory changes pertaining to landing and ground handling structural design loads have been developed by a working group of the Aviation Rulemaking and Advisory Committee (ARAC). The proposal, dated May 30, 2003, provides design load requirements for various landing gear configurations, including the multi-leg landing gear configuration of the A380. The special conditions in this document are based upon the regulatory changes proposed by the ARAC working group, as are the special conditions issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency for its certification of the A380. For ease of reference, the special conditions in this document are organized in the same manner as in the ARAC recommendation. Since the changes proposed by ARAC cover various landing gear configurations, certain paragraphs of the proposal are not applicable to the A380. These paragraphs are so indicated in the section of these Final Special Conditions entitled “The Special Conditions.” This document contains two groups of special conditions. The first group (Group A) addresses Landing Conditions and includes special conditions pertaining to the following: A.1. Landing load conditions and assumptions, A.2. Symmetric landing load conditions, A.3. One-gear landing conditions, and A.4. Side load conditions. The second group (Group B) addresses other conditions and tests, including Ground Handling Conditions. It includes special conditions pertaining to the following: B.1. Ground handling conditions, B.2. Taxi, takeoff and landing roll, B.3. Braked roll conditions, B.4. Nose-wheel yaw and steering, B.5. Pivoting, B 6. Reversed braking, B.7. Ground load: unsymmetrical loads on multiple-wheel units, and B.8. Shock absorption tests. Discussion of Comments Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-06-02-SC, pertaining to loading conditions for multi-leg landing gear for the Airbus A380 airplane, was published in the **Federal Register** on March 23, 2006 (71 FR 15345). A single comment which supports the intent and the language of the special condition, as proposed, was received from the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA). The FAA made a slight change to the text of Special Condition B.5.(b)(1)(ii) to clarify that 4 different pivoting conditions must be considered. Except for that change, the special conditions are adopted as proposed. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Airbus A380-800 airplane. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these 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 the Airbus A380-800 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. 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 Airbus A380-800 airplane. A. Landing Conditions 1. Landing Load Conditions and Assumptions In lieu of §§ 25.473and 25.477, the following special conditions apply:

(a)The landing gear and airplane structure must be investigated for the landing conditions specified in Special Conditions A.2., A.3., and A.4. For these conditions, the airplane is assumed to contact the ground

(1)In the attitudes defined in Special Conditions A.2. and A.3.

(2)At the descent velocities defined in Special Conditions A.2. and A.3. The prescribed descent velocities may be modified, if it is shown that the airplane has design features that make it impossible to develop these velocities.

(b)Airplane lift, not exceeding airplane weight, may be assumed, unless the presence of systems or procedures significantly affects the lift.

(c)The method of analysis of airplane and landing gear loads must take into account at least the following elements:

(1)Landing gear dynamic characteristics.

(2)Spin-up and spring back.

(3)Rigid body response.

(4)Structural dynamic response of the airframe, if significant.

(5)Each approved tire with nominal characteristics.

(d)The landing gear dynamic characteristics must be validated by tests as defined in Special Condition B.8., paragraph (a).

(e)The coefficient of friction between the tires and the ground may be established by considering the effects of skidding velocity and tire pressure. However, this coefficient of friction need not be more than 0.8. 2. Symmetric Landing Load Conditions In lieu of §§ 25.479 and 25.481, the following special conditions apply: The landing gear and airframe structure must be designed for the dynamic landing conditions of Special Condition A.2., using the assumptions specified in Special Condition A.1.

(a)The airplane is assumed to contact the ground—

(1)With an airspeed corresponding to the attitudes specified in paragraph

(c)of this special condition in the following conditions:

(i)standard sea level conditions, and

(ii)at maximum approved altitude in a hot day temperature of 22.8 °C (41°F) above standard. The airspeed need not be greater than 1.25V S0 , or less than V S0 , where V S0 = the 1-g stalling speed based on C NAmax at the appropriate weight and in the landing configuration. The effects of increased ground contact speeds must be investigated to account for downwind landings for which approval is desired.

(2)With a limit descent velocity of 3.05 m/sec (10 fps) at the design landing weight (the maximum weight for landing conditions at maximum descent velocity); and,

(3)With a limit descent velocity of 1.83 m/sec (6 fps) at the design takeoff weight (the maximum weight for landing conditions at a reduced descent velocity).

(b)*Not applicable to A380.*

(c)For airplanes with nose wheels, the conditions specified in this paragraph must be investigated assuming the following attitudes:

(1)An attitude in which the nose and main wheels are assumed to contact the ground simultaneously, as shown in 14 CFR part 25, Appendix A, Figure 2. For this condition, airplane pitching moment is assumed to be reacted by the nose gear.

(2)An attitude corresponding to the smallest pitch attitude at which the main landing gear reach maximum vertical compression before impact on the nose gear.

(3)An attitude corresponding to either the stalling angle or the maximum angle allowing clearance with the ground by each part of the airplane other than any wheel of the main landing gear, in accordance with 14 CFR part 25, Appendix A, Figure 3, whichever is less.

(4)For aircraft with more than two main landing gear or more than two wheels per main landing gear unit, each intermediate attitude that may be critical.

(d)For airplanes with more than two main landing gear, landing must be considered on a level runway and, as a separate condition, on a runway having a convex upward shape that may be approximated by a slope of 1.5% at main landing gear stations. 3. One-gear Landing Conditions In lieu of § 25.483, the following special condition applies: *(a) Not applicable to the A380.*

(b)For airplanes with more than two main landing gear, a dynamic rolled landing condition on a level runway must be considered, using the assumptions specified in Special Condition A.1., in which—

(1)The airplane is assumed to contact the ground—

(i)At the maximum roll angle attainable within the geometric limitations of the airplane; (however, the roll angle need not exceed 10 degrees),

(ii)With a limit descent velocity of 2.13 m/sec (7 fps) at the design landing weight,

(iii)At the critical pitch attitudes and corresponding contact velocities obtained under Special Conditions No. A.2.

(2)The dynamic analysis must include the contact of all gear outboard of the airplane centerline on the side of first gear impact. This condition need not apply to the gear on the opposite side of the airplane.

(3)Side loads (in the ground reference system) may be assumed to be zero.

(4)Airplane rolling moments shall be reacted by airplane inertia forces and by subsequent main gear reactions. 4. Side Load Conditions In lieu of § 25.485, the following special conditions apply: For the side load conditions specified in paragraphs

(a)and

(b)below, the vertical and drag loads are assumed to act at the wheel axle centerline, and the side loads are assumed to act at the ground contact point. The gear loads are balanced by inertia of the airplane.

(a)The most severe combination of loads that are likely to arise during a lateral drift landing must be taken into account. In the absence of a more rational analysis of this condition, the following must be investigated:

(1)A separate condition for each gear, for which the vertical load is assumed to be 75% of the maximum vertical reaction obtained in Special Condition A.2. or A.3., whichever is greater. For airplanes with more than two main landing gear, the vertical load on the other gear is assumed to be 75% of the correlated vertical load for those gear in the same condition. The vertical loads for each gear are combined with drag and side loads of 40% and 25%, respectively, of the vertical load.

(2)The airplane is assumed to be in the attitude corresponding to the maximum vertical reaction obtained in Special Condition A.2 or A.3., whichever is greater.

(3)The shock absorber and tire deflections must be assumed to be 75% of the deflection corresponding to the vertical loads obtained in Special Condition A.2., whichever is greater.

(b)In addition to the side load conditions specified in paragraph

(a)above, the following side load conditions must be considered for each main landing gear unit:

(1)A separate condition for each main landing gear unit, for which the vertical load is assumed to be 50% of the maximum vertical reaction obtained in Special Condition A.2. For airplanes with more than two main gear, the vertical load on other gear is assumed to be 50% of the correlated vertical load for those gear in the same condition. The vertical loads for each gear are combined with the side loads specified in paragraph (b)(3) or (b)(4) of this special condition, as applicable.

(2)The airplane is assumed to be in the attitude corresponding to the maximum vertical reaction obtained in Special Conditions A.2.

(3)For the outboard main landing gear, side loads of 0.8 of the vertical reaction (on one side) acting inward and 0.6 of the vertical reaction (on the other side) acting outward as shown in 14 CFR part 25, Appendix A, Figure 5.

(4)For airplanes with more than two main landing gear, the side load of each inboard main landing gear is determined by a linear interpolation between 0.8 and 0.6 of the vertical gear load on that gear, depending on the lateral position of that gear relative to the outboard main landing gear. The side loads act in the same direction as the outboard main gear side loads.

(5)The drag loads may be assumed to be zero.

(6)The shock absorber and tire deflections must be assumed to be 50% of the deflection corresponding to the vertical loads of Special Conditions A.2. B. Ground Handling Conditions 1. Ground Handling Conditions In lieu of § 25.489, the following special conditions apply:

(a)Unless otherwise prescribed, the landing gear and airplane structure must be investigated for the conditions in § 25.509 and in Special Conditions. B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, and B.6, as follows:

(1)The airplane must be assumed to be at the design ramp weight (the maximum weight for ground handling conditions);

(2)The airplane lift must be assumed to be zero; and

(3)The shock absorbers and tires may be assumed to be in their static position.

(b)For airplanes with more than two main landing gears, the airplane must be considered to be on a level runway and, as a separate condition, on a runway having a convex upward shape that may be approximated by a slope of 1.5% at the main landing gear stations. The ground reactions must be distributed to the individual landing gear in a rational or conservative manner. 2. Taxi, Takeoff and Landing Roll In lieu of § 25.491, the following special condition applies: Within the range of appropriate ground speeds and approved weights, the airplane structure and landing gear are assumed to be subjected to loads not less than those obtained when the aircraft is operating over the roughest ground that may reasonably be expected in normal operation. Steady aerodynamic effects must be considered in a rational or conservative manner. 3. Braked Roll Conditions In lieu of § 25.493, the following special conditions apply:

(a)*Not applicable to A380.*

(b)For an airplane with a nose wheel, the limit vertical load factor is 1.2 at the design landing weight and 1.0 at the design ramp weight. A drag reaction equal to the vertical reaction, multiplied by a coefficient of friction of 0.8, must be combined with the vertical reaction and applied at the ground contact point of each wheel with brakes. The following two attitudes, in accordance with14 CFR part 25, Appendix A, Figure 6, must be considered:

(1)The level attitude with the wheels contacting the ground and the loads distributed between the main and nose gear. Zero pitching acceleration is assumed.

(2)The level attitude with only the main gear contacting the ground and with the pitching moment resisted by angular acceleration.

(c)An airplane equipped with a nose gear must be designed to withstand the loads arising from the dynamic pitching motion of the airplane due to sudden application of maximum braking force. The airplane is considered to be at design takeoff weight with the nose and main gears in contact with the ground, and with a steady-state vertical load factor of 1.0. The steady-state nose gear reaction must be combined with the maximum incremental nose gear vertical reaction caused by the sudden application of maximum braking force as described in paragraphs

(b)and

(e)of this paragraph. *(d) Not applicable to the A380.*

(e)A drag reaction lower than that prescribed in Special Condition B.3 may be used if it is substantiated that an effective drag force of 0.8 times the vertical reaction cannot be attained under any likely loading condition. 4. Nose-wheel Yaw and Steering In lieu of § 25.499, the following special conditions apply:

(a)A vertical load factor of 1.0 at the airplane center of gravity and a side component at the nose wheel ground contact equal to 0.8 of the vertical ground reaction at that point are assumed.

(b)With the airplane assumed to be in static equilibrium with the loads resulting from the use of brakes on one side of the main landing gear system, the nose gear, its attaching structure, and the fuselage structure forward of the center of gravity must be designed for the following loads:

(1)A vertical load factor at the center of gravity of 1.0.

(2)For wheels with brakes applied, the coefficient of friction must be 0.8. Drag loads are balanced by airplane inertia. Airplane pitching moment is reacted by the nose gear.

(3)Side and vertical loads at the ground contact point on the nose gear that are required for static equilibrium.

(4)A side load factor at the airplane center of gravity of zero.

(c)If the loads prescribed in paragraph

(b)above result in a nose gear side load higher than 0.8 times the vertical nose gear load, the design nose gear side load may be limited to 0.8 times the vertical load, with unbalanced yawing moments assumed to be resisted by airplane inertia forces.

(d)For other than the nose gear, its attaching structure, and the forward fuselage structure, the loading conditions are those prescribed in paragraph

(b)above, except that—

(1)A lower drag reaction may be used if an effective drag force of 0.8 times the vertical reaction cannot be reached under any likely loading condition; and

(2)The forward acting load at the center of gravity need not exceed the maximum drag reaction on the main landing gear, determined in accordance with Special Conditions B.3., paragraph (b).

(e)With the airplane at design ramp weight, and the nose gear in any steerable position, the combined application of full normal steering torque and vertical force equal to 1.33 times the maximum static reaction on the nose gear must be considered in designing the nose gear, its attaching structure, and the forward fuselage structure. 5. Pivoting In lieu of § 25.503, the following special condition applies: The main landing gear and supporting structure must be designed for the loads induced by pivoting during ground maneuvers in paragraph

(b)below. *(a) Not applicable to A380.*

(b)For airplanes with more than two main landing gear, the following pivoting conditions must be considered:

(1)The following rational pivoting maneuvers must be considered:

(i)Towing at the nose gear at the critical towing angle, no brakes applied, and separately,

(ii)Application of symmetrical and unsymmetrical forward thrust to aid pivoting, with and without braking by pilot action on the pedals, *i.e., four different pivoting conditions.*

(2)The airplane is assumed to be in static equilibrium, with the loads being applied at the ground contact points.

(3)The limit vertical load factor must be 1.0, and

(i)For wheels with brakes applied, the coefficient of friction must be 0.8.

(ii)For wheels with brakes not applied, the ground tire reactions must be based on reliable tire data. 6. Reversed Braking In lieu of § 25.507, the following special conditions apply:

(a)The airplane must be in a static ground attitude. Horizontal reactions parallel to the ground and directed forward must be applied at the ground contact point of each wheel with brakes. The limit loads must be equal to 0.55 times the vertical load at each wheel or to the load developed by 1.2 times the nominal maximum static brake torque, whichever is less.

(b)For airplanes with nose gears, the pitching moment must be balanced by rotational inertia. 7. Ground Load: Unsymmetrical Loads on Multiple-wheel Units In lieu of § 25.511, subparagraphs

(d)and (e), the following special conditions apply:

(a)Landing conditions. For one and for two deflated tires, the applied load to each gear unit is assumed to be 60 percent and 50 percent, respectively, of the limit load applied to each gear for each of the prescribed landing conditions. However, for Special Condition A.4., paragraph (b), 100 percent of the vertical load must be applied. Special Condition A.4., paragraph (a)(3), need not be considered with deflated tires.

(b)Taxiing and ground handling conditions. For one and for two deflated tires—

(1)The applied side or drag load factor, or both factors, at the center of gravity must be the most critical value up to 50 percent and 40 percent, respectively, of the limit side or drag load factors, or both factors, corresponding to the most severe condition resulting from consideration of the prescribed taxiing and ground handling conditions;

(2)For the braked roll conditions of Special Conditions B.3., paragraph (b)(2), the drag loads on each inflated tire may not be less than those at each tire for the symmetrical load distribution with no deflated tires;

(3)The vertical load factor at the center of gravity must be 60 percent and 50 percent, respectively, of the factor with no deflated tires, except that it may not be less than 1g; and

(4)The pivoting condition of Special Condition B.5. and the braked roll conditions of Special Condition B.3., paragraph (c), need not be considered with deflated tires. 8. Shock Absorption Tests In lieu of § 25.723, the following special conditions apply:

(a)The analytical representation of the landing gear dynamic characteristics that is used in determining the landing loads must be validated by energy absorption tests. A range of tests must be conducted to ensure that the analytical representation is valid for the design conditions specified in Special Conditions A.2. and A.3., if applicable.

(1)The configurations subjected to energy absorption tests at limit design conditions must include both the condition with the maximum energy absorbed by the landing gear and the condition with the maximum descent velocity obtained from Special Condition A.2. and A.3.

(2)The test attitude of the landing gear unit and the application of appropriate drag loads during the test must simulate the airplane landing conditions in a manner consistent with the development of rational or conservative limit loads.

(b)Each landing gear unit may not fail in a test, demonstrating its reserve energy absorption capacity, assuming—

(1)The weight and pitch attitude correspond to the condition from Special Condition A.2. that provides the maximum energy absorbed by the landing gear;

(2)Airplane lift is not greater than the airplane weight acting during the landing impact, unless the presence of systems or procedures significantly affects the lift;

(3)The test descent velocity is 120% of that corresponding to the condition specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this paragraph;

(4)The effects of wheel spin-up need not be included.

(c)In lieu of the tests prescribed in this paragraph, changes in previously approved design weights and minor changes in design may be substantiated by analyses based on previous tests conducted on the same basic landing gear system that has similar energy absorption characteristics. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 20, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13779 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24101; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-103-AD; Amendment 39-14718; AD 2006-16-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sandel Avionics Incorporated Model ST3400 Terrain Awareness Warning System/Radio Magnetic Indicator (TAWS/RMI) Units Approved Under Technical Standard Order(s) C113, C151a, or C151b; Installed on Various Small and Transport Category Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD). The new AD is for Sandel Avionics Incorporated Model ST3400 TAWS/RMI units as described above. This AD requires installing a warning placard on the TAWS/RMI and revising the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM). This AD also requires installing upgraded software in the TAWS/RMI. This AD results from a report that an in-flight bearing error occurred in a Model ST3400 TAWS/RMI configured to receive bearing information from a very high frequency omnidirectional range

(VOR)receiver interface via a composite video signal, due to a combination of input signal fault and software error. We are issuing this AD to prevent a bearing error, which could lead to an airplane departing from its scheduled flight path, which could result in a reduction in separation from, and a possible collision with, other aircraft or terrain. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 25, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 25, 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 Sandel Avionics Incorporated (Sandel), 2401 Dogwood Way, Vista, California 92081, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ha A. Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5335; fax

(562)627-5210. 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 notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Sandel Avionics Incorporated Model ST3400 terrain awareness warning system/radio magnetic indicator (TAWS/RMI) units approved under Technical Standard Order(s) C113, C151a, or C151b; installed on various small and transport category airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 8, 2006 (71 FR 11549). That NPRM proposed to require installing a warning placard on the TAWS/RMI, installing upgraded software in the TAWS/RMI, revising the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM), and removing the placard and AFM revision after installing the software. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Support for the NPRM One commenter, Boeing, expresses support for the NPRM. Request for Clarification of Effect on Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range

(VOR)Receiver One commenter, Cessna, requests that we clarify the unsafe condition. Cessna states that we are not specific regarding the effect of system decoding on the automatic direction finder

(ADF)signal. Cessna asserts that greater focus is needed on VOR bearing error. Cessna has provided a suggested revision for the summary of the NPRM and requests that we include an explanation of the effect of the ADF on the unsafe condition. We partially agree. The unsafe condition described in the AD affects only TAWS/RMI installations incorporating the RMI feature that are configured to receive bearing information from a VOR receiver interface via a composite video signal; there is no effect when the VOR receiver and the TAWS/RMI interface via ARINC 429. Further, this condition does not affect the TAWS/RMI bearing display when bearing information is being supplied from any ADF receiver. No technical change to the AD is needed in this regard; however, we have determined that the summary of the AD could more clearly specify the relationship of the required AFM revision to the required software upgrade. Therefore, we have clarified the summary of this AD to specify that the unsafe condition only occurs on TAWS/RMI units configured to interface with a VOR receiver via a composite video signal. Request for Correction of Airplane Listings One commenter, Aviation Data Research, requests corrections to Table 1 of the NPRM. The commenter asserts that several of the airplane manufacturers and models are incorrectly specified and expresses concern that, although this information is clearly designated as advisory rather than regulatory, the inaccuracies might allow a legal defense against compliance with the AD. We partially agree. The described TAWS/RMI is subject to the requirements of this AD. Table 1 of the AD refers to airplanes equipped with the TAWS/RMI and, rather than being advisory, is part of the applicability of the AD. As indicated by the phrase, “but not limited to,” the TAWS/RMI is subject to this AD whether installed on any airplane by any manufacturer during production or by any entity subsequent to production. However, we agree that an AD should provide accurate information. Therefore, we have revised Table 1 of the AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Clarification of Summary The summary of the NPRM states, in part, that one proposed requirement of the AD is “removing the placard and AFM revision after installing the software.” However, the AD does not require these actions. To prevent confusion, we have revised the summary of the AD by deleting the clause quoted above. 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 300 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions will take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $19,500, or $65 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

(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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-16-18 Sandel Avionics Incorporated:** Amendment 39-14718. Docket No. FAA-2006-24101; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-103-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective September 25, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Sandel Avionics Incorporated (Sandel) Model ST3400 terrain awareness warning system/radio magnetic indicator (TAWS/RMI) units approved under Technical Standard Order(s) C113, C151a, or C151b; as identified in Sandel ST3400 Service Bulletin SB3400-01, Revision B, dated September 15, 2004; as installed on various small and transport category airplanes, certificated in any category, including, but not limited, to the airplane models listed in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Manufacturers/Airplane Models Manufacturer Airplane model(s) Airbus A300. Avions Marcel Dassault—Breguet Aviation (AMD/BA) Falcon 10. Boeing 727, 737, 747. Bombardier (LearJet) 24, 35, 36, 55. British Aerospace (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 3101. Cessna 208, 208B, 421C; 501, 525, 550, 560, 650, S550. Embraer EMB-120. Dassault-Aviation Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 200. Gulfstream G-I, G-1159A (G-III). Israel Aircraft Industries

(IAI)1124, 1125 Westwind Astra. McDonnell Douglas DC-10. Piper PA-31T2. Raytheon 58; 1900D, 400; A36; BAe.125 Series 800A; HS.125 Series 600A/700A; Hawker 800-XP; 200, 300, 350, A200, B100, B200, B300, C90, C90A, C90B, E90, F90, MU-300-10. Sabreliner 60 (NA-265-60). Twin Commander 500-A, 695A. Viking Air Limited DHC-6. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that an in-flight bearing error occurred in a Model ST3400 TAWS/RMI unit configured to receive bearing information from a very high frequency omnidirectional range

(VOR)receiver interface via a composite video signal, due to a combination of input signal fault and software error. We are issuing this AD to prevent a bearing error, which could lead to an airplane departing from its scheduled flight path, which could result in a reduction in separation from, and a possible collision with, other aircraft or terrain. 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. Installing Placard

(f)Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD: Install a placard on the TAWS/RMI which states, “NOT FOR PRIMARY VOR NAVIGATION,” in accordance with Sandel ST3400 Service Bulletin SB3400-01, Revision B, dated September 15, 2004. Revising Airplane Flight Manual

(g)Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the Limitations section of the applicable AFM to include the following statement: “Use of ST3400 TAWS/RMI for primary VOR navigation is prohibited unless the indicator has 3.07 or A3.06 software or later.” This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. Updating Software

(h)Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Sandel ST3400 Service Bulletin SB3400-01, Revision B, dated September 15, 2004: Field-load the TAWS/RMI with updated software having revision 3.07 (for units having serial numbers (S/Ns) under 2000) or revision A3.06 (for units having S/Ns 2000 and subsequent). The placard and AFM limitations revision installed as required by paragraphs

(f)and

(g)of this AD may be removed after the software upgrade required by paragraph

(h)of this AD has been accomplished. Parts Installation

(i)As of 90 days after the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an ST3400 TAWS/RMI unit, unless it has been modified in accordance with Sandel ST3400 Service Bulletin SB3400-01, Revision B, dated September 15, 2004. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 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

(k)You must use Sandel ST3400 Service Bulletin SB3400-01, Revision B, dated September 15, 2004 (only the first page of the document shows the date of the document), 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 Sandel Avionics Incorporated (Sandel), 2401 Dogwood Way, Vista, California, 92081, 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 August 3, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13447 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2004-19676; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-138-AD; Amendment 39-14717; AD 2006-16-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR Airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP 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 EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and -145 series airplanes. This AD requires determining the torque values of the screws that attach the seat tracks to the airplane, and corrective action if necessary. This AD results from a report of undertorqued screws. We are issuing this AD to prevent improper torque of those screws, which in the case of a hard landing or a high deceleration impact condition could result in damage to the seat and possible subsequent injury to the passenger. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 25, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 25, 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 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343-CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the 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 would apply to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and -145 series airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on May 26, 2006 (71 FR 30343). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require determining the torque values of the screws that attach the seat tracks to the airplane, and corrective action if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the supplemental NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed in the supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. This AD will affect about 539 airplanes of U.S. registry. Estimated Costs EMBRAER model airplane(s) Work hours Average labor rate/hour Parts Cost/airplane EMB-135 BJ 24 $80 Minimal $1,920 Others 28 80 Minimal 2,240 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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-16-17 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Amendment 39-14717. Docket No. FAA-2004-19676; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-138-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective September 25, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-53-0015, Revision 02, dated May 19, 2005, or 145-53-0049, Revision 03, dated August 10, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD was prompted by a report indicating that some screws that attach the passenger seat tracks were undertorqued. We are issuing this AD to prevent improper torque of those screws, which in the case of a hard landing or a high deceleration impact condition could result in damage to the seat and possible subsequent injury to the passenger. Compliance

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

(f)Within 5,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, determine the torque values of the applicable screws that attach the seat tracks to the airplane. Use the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-53-0015, Revision 02, dated May 19, 2005 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes), or Service Bulletin 145-53-0049, Revision 03, dated August 10, 2005 (for the remaining airplanes). For any screw that has a torque value outside the limits specified in the service bulletin: Before further flight, retorque the screw in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Although the service bulletins recommend applying torque seal to the heads of the screws, this AD does not require that action. Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issues of Service Bulletins

(g)Actions accomplished according to the applicable service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. Table 1.—Acceptable Service Bulletins EMBRAER Service Bulletin Revision Date 145LEG-53-0015 01 September 1, 2004. 145-53-0049 01 September 1, 2004. 02 November 26, 2004. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 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. Related Information

(i)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2004-05-03R1, effective September 16, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(j)You must use the service bulletins identified in Table 2 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 2.—Material Incorporated by Reference EMBRAER Service Bulletin Revision level Date 145-53-0049 01 September 1, 2004. 145-53-0049 02 November 26, 2004. 145-53-0049 03 August 10, 2005. 145LEG-53-0015 01 September 1, 2004. 145LEG-53-0015 02 May 19, 2005. EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-53-0015, Revision 02, dated May 19, 2005, contains the following effective pages: Page Nos. Revision level shown on page Date shown on page 1 02 May 19, 2005. 2-8 01 September 1, 2004. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, 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 August 3, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13653 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24173; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-262-AD; Amendment 39-14652; AD 2006-12-26] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; correction. SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a typographical error in an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that was published in the **Federal Register** on June 16, 2006 (71 FR 34808). The error resulted in a reference only to the left main fuel tank in paragraph (f)(2) of that AD rather than to both the left and right main fuel tanks. This AD applies to certain Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the first bonding jumper aft of the bulkhead fitting to detect damage or failure and to determine the mechanical integrity of its electrical bonding path, and repair if necessary; measurement of the bonding resistance between the fitting for the fuel feed tube and the front spar in the left and right main fuel tanks, and repairing the bonding if necessary; and application of additional sealant to completely cover the bulkhead fittings inside the fuel tanks. DATES: Effective July 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any final disposition. You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2006-24173; the directorate identifier for this docket is 2005-NM-262-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6500; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 8, 2006, the FAA issued AD 2006-12-26, amendment 39-14652 (71 FR 34808, June 16, 2006), for certain Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. The AD requires a one-time inspection of the first bonding jumper aft of the bulkhead fitting to detect damage or failure and to determine the mechanical integrity of its electrical bonding path, and repair if necessary; measurement of the bonding resistance between the fitting for the fuel feed tube and the front spar in the left and right main fuel tanks, and repairing the bonding if necessary; and application of additional sealant to completely cover the bulkhead fittings inside the fuel tanks. As published, paragraph (f)(2) of that AD refers only to the left main fuel tank. The correct reference is “left and right main fuel tanks.” No other part of the regulatory information has been changed; therefore, the final rule is not republished in the **Federal Register** . The effective date of this AD remains July 21, 2006. § 39.13 [Corrected] In the **Federal Register** of June 16, 2006, on page 34810, in the third column, paragraph (f)(2) of AD 2006-12-26 is corrected to read as follows:

(2)Measure the bonding resistance between the fitting for the fuel feed tube and the front spar in the left and right main fuel tanks. If the bonding resistance exceeds 0.001 ohm: Before further flight, repair the bonding in accordance with the service bulletin. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 9, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13652 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25610; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-260-AD; Amendment 39-14727; AD 2006-17-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Aerospatiale Model ATR42-500 Airplanes and Model ATR72-212A Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Aerospatiale Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A series airplanes, that requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper closing rib of the vertical fin, related investigative actions, and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD requires modifying the installation of the vertical leading edge fairing at the fin tip, which ends the repetitive inspections. This AD results from a report that rudder operation difficulties occurred on a Model ATR42-500 series airplane while the airplane was on the ground. We are issuing this AD to prevent interference between the upper closing rib and the rudder, which could result in a rudder jam and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 5, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 5, 2006. On July 22, 2004 (69 FR 33834, June 17, 2004), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in the AD. We must receive comments on this AD by October 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Aerospatiale, 316 Route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On June 7, 2004, we issued AD 2004-12-13, amendment 39-13672 (69 FR 33834, June 17, 2004), for certain Aerospatiale Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper closing rib of the vertical fin, related investigative actions, and corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from a report that rudder operation difficulties occurred on a Model ATR42-500 series airplane while the airplane was on the ground. We issued that AD to prevent interference between the upper closing rib and the rudder, which could result in a rudder jam and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2004-12-13, the Direction Gonorale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that the manufacturer developed a terminating modification for the repetitive inspections of the existing AD. Relevant Service Information Avions de Transport Regional has issued Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0012, Revision 2, including Accomplishment Report, dated June 28, 2005 (for Model ATR42-500 airplanes); and ATR72-55-1004, Revision 3, including Accomplishment Report, dated September 23, 2005 (for Model ATR72-212 airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for modifying the installation of the vertical leading edge fairing at the fin tip. The modification includes doing a detailed inspection for cracking, misplacement, or deformation of the upper closing rib of the vertical fin. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-059, dated April 13, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0012 refers to Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0011, dated September 26, 2002 (for Model ATR42-500 airplanes), as the appropriate source of service information for doing the detailed inspection. Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1004 refers to Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1003, Revision 1, dated November 13, 2002 (for Model ATR72-212 airplanes), as the appropriate source of service information for doing the detailed inspection. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are issuing this AD to prevent interference between the upper closing rib and the rudder, which could result in a rudder jam and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD supersedes AD 2004-12-13 and retains the requirements of the existing AD. This AD also requires modifying the installation of the vertical leading edge fairing at the fin tip, which terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of the existing AD. Change to Existing AD This AD retains all requirements of AD 2004-12-13. Since AD 2004-12-13 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2004-12-13 Corresponding requirement in this AD Paragraph

(a)Paragraph (f). Paragraph

(b)Paragraph (g). Paragraph

(c)Paragraph (h). Paragraph

(d)Paragraph (i). Explanation of Change to Applicability We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Explanation of Change Made to Requirements of Existing AD Paragraph

(d)of the existing AD specifies making repairs using a method approved by either the FAA or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent). The European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)has assumed responsibility for the airplane models that are subject to this AD. Therefore, we have revised paragraph

(i)of this AD to specify making repairs using a method approved by either the FAA or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Clarification of Detailed Inspection Definition For clarification, we have revised the definition of a “detailed inspection” in this AD. Costs of Compliance None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes affected by this AD are currently operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, we consider this AD necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed if any affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the currently required inspections will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the currently required inspections of this AD on U.S. operators are estimated to be $160 per airplane. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the required modification of this new AD will take between 16 and 40 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The required parts will cost between approximately $1,700 and $9,260. Based on these figures, the required modification of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $2,980 and $12,460 per airplane. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date No airplane affected by this AD is currently on the U.S. Register. Therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary before this AD is issued, and this AD may be made effective in less than 30 days after it is published in the **Federal Register.** Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-25610; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-260-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. 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 the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this 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 amendment 39-13672 (69 FR 33834, June 17, 2004) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-17-06 Aerospatiale:** Amendment 39-14727. Docket No. FAA-2006-25610; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-260-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective September 5, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-12-13. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Aerospatiale Model ATR42-500 airplanes and Model ATR72-212A airplanes, certificated in any category; on which Aerospatiale Modification 4440 has been accomplished; except those Model ATR42-500 airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 618 and subsequent; and except those Model ATR72-212A airplanes having S/Ns 682, 683, 684, 687, and 694 and subsequent. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that rudder operation difficulties occurred on a Model ATR42-500 series airplane while the airplane was on the ground. We are issuing this AD to prevent interference between the upper closing rib and the rudder, which could result in a rudder jam and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirments of AD 2004-12-13 Service Bulletin References for Paragraphs (g), (h), and

(i)of This AD

(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in paragraphs (g), (h), and

(i)of this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0011, excluding the Accomplishment Report, dated September 26, 2002 (for Model ATR42-500 series airplanes); and Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1003, Revision 1, excluding the Accomplishment Report, dated November 13, 2002 (for Model ATR72-212A series airplanes); as applicable.

(1)For Model ATR72-212A series airplanes: Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD per Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1003, dated October 11, 2002, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by this AD.

(2)Where the service bulletins specify to report inspection results to the manufacturer, this AD does not require such reporting. Repetitive Inspections

(g)Within 500 flight hours after July 22, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-12-13): Perform a detailed inspection for cracking of the upper closing rib of the vertical fin, per the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. Repeat this inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours until the modification required by paragraph

(j)of this AD is accomplished. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” One-time Follow-on Inspections

(h)Before further flight following the initial detailed inspection for cracking required by paragraph

(g)of this AD, measure the planarity of the upper closing rib and measure the gap between the rudder horn and the upper closing rib of the vertical fin; per paragraphs 2.C.(2) and 2.C.(3) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. Repair

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

(g)of this AD; or if any wave, anomaly, or measurement is found that is outside the limits specified in the applicable service bulletin: Before further flight, do all applicable actions in and per paragraph 2.C.(4) of the applicable service bulletin; except, where the applicable service bulletin says to contact the manufacturer for an approved repair solution, repair per a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (or its delegated agent). New Requirements of This AD Modification

(j)Within 4,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Modify the installation of the vertical leading edge fairing at the fin tip (including doing the detailed inspection for cracking, misplacement, or deformation of the upper closing rib of the vertical fin) by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0012, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2005 (for Model ATR42-500 airplanes); or ATR72-55-1004, Revision 3, dated September 23, 2005 (for Model ATR72-212 airplanes); as applicable; except where the service bulletins specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Accomplishment of this modification terminates the repetitive inspection requirement of paragraph

(g)of this AD. Note 2: Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0012 refers to Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0011, dated September 26, 2002 (for Model ATR42-500 airplanes), as the appropriate source of service information for doing the detailed inspection specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD. Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1004 refers to Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1003, Revision 1, dated November 13, 2002 (for Model ATR72-212 airplanes), as the appropriate source of service information for doing the detailed inspection specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD. Modification According to Previous Issues of the Service Bulletins

(k)Modifying the installation of the vertical leading edge fairing at the fin tip is also acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(j)of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with one of the following service bulletins: Table 1.—Previous Issues of Service Bulletins Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin Revision level Date ATR42-55-0012 Original December 15, 2004. ATR42-55-0012 1 March 3, 2005. ATR72-55-1004 Original December 15, 2004. ATR72-55-1004 1 March 3, 2005. ATR72-55-1004 2 June 28, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(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

(m)French airworthiness directive F-2005-059, dated April 13, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(n)You must use the service bulletins listed 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.—Material Incorporated by Reference Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin Revision level Date ATR42-55-0011, excluding the Accomplishment Report Original September 26, 2002. ATR42-55-0012, excluding the Accomplishment Report 2 June 28, 2005. ATR72-55-1003, excluding the Accomplishment Report 1 November 13, 2002. ATR72-55-1004, excluding the Accomplishment Report 3 September 23, 2005.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0012, Revision 2, excluding the Accomplishment Report, dated June 28, 2005; and Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1004, Revision 3, excluding the Accomplishment Report, dated September 23, 2005; in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0012, Revision 2, excluding the Accomplishment Report, dated June 28, 2005, includes the following effective pages: Page Nos. Revision level shown on page Date shown on page 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 37, 38 2 June 28, 2005. 2, 21, 39, 40 1 March 3, 2005. 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 32-36, 41-46 Original December 15, 2004. Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1004, Revision 3, excluding the Accomplishment Report, dated September 23, 2005, includes the following effective pages: Page Nos. Revision level shown on page Date shown on page 1, 4, 43, 44 3 September 23, 2005. 2, 21, 39, 40 1 March 3, 2005. 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 37, 38 2 June 28, 2005. 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 32-36, 41, 42, 45, 46 Original December 15, 2004.

(2)On July 22, 2004 (69 FR 33834, June 17, 2004), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-55-0011, excluding the Accomplishment Report, dated September 26, 2002; and Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-55-1003, Revision 1, excluding the Accomplishment Report, dated November 13, 2002.

(3)Contact Aerospatiale, 316 Route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, 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 August 9, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13651 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30508 Amdt. No. 3180] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Weather Takeoff Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective August 21, 2006. The compliance date for each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the **Federal Register** as of August 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169, or 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *For Purchase* —Individual SIAP and Weather Takeoff Minimums copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. *By Subscription* —Copies of all SIAPs and Weather Takeoff Minimums mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:

(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5 and 8260-15A. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums but refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a Flight Data Center

(FDC)Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP, and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided. Further, the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(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)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC on August 11, 2006. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Weather Takeoff Minimums effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: * * * Effective 28 September 2006 Dothan, AL, Dothan Regional, LOC BC RWY 14, Amdt 6F, CANCELLED Willow, AK, Willow, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 13, Orig Willow, AK, Willow, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Orig Willow, AK, Willow, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, Northwest Arkansas Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 16, Amdt 1 Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, Northwest Arkansas Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 34, Amdt 1 Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, Northwest Arkansas Regional, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 16, Amdt 1 Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, Northwest Arkansas Regional, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 34, Amdt 1 Little Rock, AR, Adams Field, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 22R, Amdt 11A, CANCELLED Mountain Home, AR, Ozark Regional, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 5, ORIG Mountain Home, AR, Ozark Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 5, Orig Mountain Home, AR, Ozark Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Mountain Home, AR, Ozark Regional, GPS RWY 5, Orig-C, CANCELLED Mountain Home, AR, Ozark Regional, LOC/DME RWY 5, Orig, CANCELLED Mountain Home, AR, Ozark Regional, GPS RWY 23, Orig-B, CANCELLED Siloam Springs, AR, Smith Field, VOR/DME RNAV OR

(GPS)RWY 18, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Bullhead City, AZ, Laughlin/Bullhead Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 34, Amdt 1 Goodyear, AZ, Phoenix Goodyear, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Goodyear, AZ, Phoenix Goodyear, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 3, Orig Arcata/Eureka, CA, Arcata, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 1, Orig Arcata/Eureka, CA, Arcata, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 14, Orig Arcata/Eureka, CA, Arcata, GPS RWY 2, Orig-A, CANCELLED Arcata/Eureka, CA, Arcata, GPS RWY 14, Orig, CANCELLED Byron, CA, Byron, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 30, Orig Byron, CA, Byron, GPS RWY 30, Orig, CANCELLED Half Moon Bay, CA, Half Moon Bay, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 12, Orig Half Moon Bay, CA, Half Moon Bay, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 30, Orig Half Moon Bay, CA, Half Moon Bay, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 12, Orig Half Moon Bay, CA, Half Moon Bay, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 30, Orig Half Moon Bay, CA, Half Moon Bay, GPS RWY 12, Orig, CANCELLED Half Moon Bay, CA, Half Moon Bay, GPS RWY 30, Orig-A, CANCELLED Lancaster, CA, General WM J Fox Airfield, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Orig Lancaster, CA, General WM J Fox Airfield, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig, CANCELLED Long Beach, CA, Long Beach/Daughtery Field, RNAV

(RNP)RWY 12, Orig Palm Springs, CA, Palm Springs International, RNAV

(RNP)Y RWY 13R, Amdt 1 Palm Springs, CA, Palm Springs International, RNAV

(RNP)Z RWY 13R, Orig Palm Springs, CA, Palm Springs International, RNAV

(RNP)Y RWY 31L, Amdt 1 Vacaville, CA, Nut Tree, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 20, Orig Vacaville, CA, Nut Tree, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 20, Orig-A Denver, CO, Centennial, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 28, Amdt 1B, CANCELLED Greeley, CO, Greeley-Weld County, NDB RWY 34, Orig, CANCELLED Hayden, CO, Yampa Valley, VOR-A, Amdt 4 Hayden, CO, Yampa Valley, VOR/DME-B, Amdt 1 Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 5, Orig Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23, Orig Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, GPS RWY 5, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1 Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 4 Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 9R, Amdt 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, RNAV

(RNP)Y RWY 9L, Orig Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, RNAV

(RNP)Z RWY 27R, Orig Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 27R, Amdt 1 Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, RNAV

(RNP)Z RWY 9R, Orig Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 9L, Amdt 1 Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27R, Amdt 8 Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9L, Amdt 20 Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, LOC/DME RWY 13, Orig Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, VOR RWY 27R, Amdt 12 Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, LOC RWY 13, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Miami, FL, Miami Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 16 Adel, GA, Cook County, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 5, Orig, CANCELLED Cartersville, GA, Cartersville, NDB RWY 19, Amdt 4, CANCELLED Columbus, GA, Columbus Metropolitan, NDB RWY 6, Amdt 28, CANCELLED Washington, GA, Washington-Wilkes County, NDB RWY 13, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Honolulu, HI, Honolulu Intl, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 8L, Amdt 1 Honolulu, HI, Honolulu Intl, RNAV

(RNP)Z RWY 8L, Orig Honolulu, HI, Honolulu Intl, RNAV

(RNP)RWY 26L, Orig Arco, ID, Arco-Butte County, NDB-A, Orig-B, CANCELLED Ankeny, IA, Ankeny Regional, NDB-A Orig B, CANCELLED Dubuque, IA, Dubuque Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 13, Orig Dubuque, IA, Dubuque Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Orig Dubuque, IA, Dubuque Regional, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 10 Dubuque, IA, Dubuque Regional, NDB OR GPS RWY 31, Amdt 8E, CANCELLED Dubuque, IA, Dubuque Regional, Takeoff Minimum and Textual DP, Orig Grinnell, IA, Grinnell Regional, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 3, CANCELLED Muscatine, IA, Muscatine Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Orig Muscatine, IA, Muscatine Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 24, Orig Muscatine, IA, Muscatine Muni, GPS RWY 6, Orig-B, CANCELLED Muscatine, IA, Muscatine Muni, GPS RWY 24, Amdt 2B, CANCELLED Shenandoah, IA, Shenandoah Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 4, Orig Shenandoah, IA, Shenandoah Muni, NDB RWY 4, Orig-B Shenandoah, IA, Shenandoah Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 1 Spencer, IA, Spencer Muni, NDB RWY 12, Amdt 1B, CANCELLED Waterloo, IA, Waterloo Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 12, Orig Waterloo, IA, Waterloo Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 30, Orig Waterloo, IA, Waterloo Regional, VOR RWY 12, Amdt, 10 Waterloo, IA, Waterloo Regional, VOR/DME RWY 30, Amdt, 15 Waterloo, IA, Waterloo Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Waterloo, IA, Waterloo Regional, NDB RWY 12, Amdt 9A, CANCELLED Chicago, IL, Chicago Midway Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, Orig Chicago, IL, Chicago Midway Intl, ILS RWY 4R, Amdt 9C, CANCELLED Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 14L, Amdt 29, ILS RWY 14L (CAT II), Amdt 29, ILS RWY 14L (CAT III), Amdt 29 Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 14L, Amdt 1 Flora, IL, Flora Muni, NDB RWY 21, Amdt 5A, CANCELLED Moline, IL, Quad City Intl, NDB RWY 9, Amdt 28, CANCELLED Connersville, IN, Mettel Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Amdt 1 Connersville, IN, Mettel Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Amdt 1 Connersville, IN, Mettel Field, VOR-A, Amdt 1 Connersville, IN, Mettel Field, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 2 Pittsburg, KS, Atkinson Muni, NDB-A, Orig, CANCELLED Scott City, KS, Scott City Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Orig Scott City, KS, Scott City Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, Orig Scott City, KS, Scott City Muni, GPS RWY 17, Orig, CANCELLED Scott City, KS, Scott City Muni, GPS RWY 35, Orig, CANCELLED Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 5, CANCELLED Frankfort, KY, Capital City, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 24, Amdt 1 Frankfort, KY, Capital City, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Amdt 1 Lexington, KY, Blue Grass, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 4, Amdt 1 Lexington, KY, Blue Grass, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 22, Amdt 1 Lexington, KY, Blue Grass, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 17 Lexington, KY, Blue Grass, VOR-A, Amdt 9 Lexington, KY, Blue Grass, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 6 London, KY, London-Corbin Arpt-Magee Fld, ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 1 London, KY, London-Corbin Arpt-Magee Fld, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Orig London, KY, London-Corbin Arpt-Magee Fld, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 24, Orig London, KY, London-Corbin Arpt-Magee Fld, GPS RWY 6, Orig-B, CANCELLED London, KY, London-Corbin Arpt-Magee Fld, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 13 London, KY, London-Corbin Arpt-Magee Fld, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 6, Amdt 3D, CANCELLED London, KY, London-Corbin Arpt-Magee Fld, GPS RWY 24, Orig-B, CANCELLED London, KY, London-Corbin Arpt-Magee Fld, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 3 Lake Charles, LA, Chennault Intl, NDB RWY 15, Orig CANCELLED New Iberia, LA, Acadiana Regional, NDB OR GPS RWY 34, Amdt 8B CANCELLED Slidell, LA, Slidell, NDB RWY 18, Amdt 1C, CANCELLED Cape Girardeau, MO, Cape Girardeau Regional, NDB RWY 10, Amdt 10, CANCELLED Higginsville, MO, Higginsville Industrial Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 16, Orig Higginsville, MO, Higginsville Industrial Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 34, Orig Higginsville, MO, Higginsville Industrial Muni, Takeoff Minimum and Textual DP, Orig Kaiser/Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C Fine Memorial, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 3, Orig Kaiser/Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C Fine Memorial, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 21, Orig Kaiser/Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C Fine Memorial, VOR RWY 3, Amdt 6 Kaiser/Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C Fine Memorial, GPS RWY 21, Orig-B, CANCELLED Kaiser/Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C Fine Memorial, Takeoff and Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 1 Monticello, MO, Lewis County Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig Monticello, MO, Lewis County Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Orig Monticello, MO, Lewis County Regional, GPS RWY 18, Orig, CANCELLED Monticello, MO, Lewis County Regional, GPS RWY 36, Orig, CANCELLED Monticello, MO, Lewis County Regional, Takeoff Minimum and Textual DP, Orig Poplar Bluff, MO, Poplar Bluff Municipal, NDB RWY 36, Amdt 1B, CANCELLED St Louis, MO, Lambert-St Louis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 11, ILS RWY 11 (CAT II), ILS RWY 11 (CAT III), Orig-A St Louis, MO, Lambert-St Louis Intl, ILS PRM RWY 11, Orig B, (Simultaneous Close Parallel) West Plains, MO, West Plains Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig West Plains, MO, West Plains Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Orig West Plains, MO, West Plains Muni, GPS RWY 18, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED West Plains, MO, West Plains Muni, GPS RWY 36, Orig, CANCELLED West Plains, MO, West Plains Muni, Takeoff Minimum and Textual DP, Orig Oxford, MS, University-Oxford, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 27, Amdt 3, CANCELLED Oxford, MS, University-Oxford, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 9, Amdt 3, CANCELLED West Point, MS, McCharen Field, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 36, Amdt 3A, CANCELLED Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 28R, Amdt 2, CANCELLED Chapel Hill, NC, Horace Williams, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 9, Orig, CANCELLED Morganton, NC, Morganton-Lenoir, NDB RWY 3, Amdt 5, CANCELLED Hobbs, NM, Lea County Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, Amdt 7 Hobbs, NM, Lea County Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Roswell, NM, Roswell International Air Center, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 3, Orig Roswell, NM, Roswell International Air Center, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Orig Roswell, NM, Roswell International Air Center, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 21, Orig Roswell, NM, Roswell International Air Center, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, Orig Roswell, NM, Roswell International Air Center, GPS-C, Orig, CANCELLED Roswell, NM, Roswell International Air Center, GPS RWY 21, Orig, CANCELLED Roswell, NM, Roswell International Air Center, GPS RWY 35, Orig-B, CANCELLED Roswell, NM, Roswell International Air Center, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 35, Amdt 3, CANCELLED Winnemucca, NV, Winnemucca Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 14, Orig Winnemucca, NV, Winnemucca Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 32, Orig Winnemucca, NV, Winnemucca Muni, GPS RWY 14, Orig-A, CANCELLED Winnemucca, NV, Winnemucca Muni, GPS RWY 32, Orig, CANCELLED Binghamton, NY, Greater Binghamton/Edwin A. Link Field, NDB RWY 34, Amdt 18, CANCELLED New York, NY, John F. Kennedy Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 7 Kent, OH, Kent State Univ, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 1, Amdt 1 Kent, OH, Kent State Univ, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 19, Amdt 1 Norman, OK, University of Oklahoma Westheimer, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 3, Orig-G, CANCELLED Oklahoma City, OK, Clarence E. Page Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17R, Amdt 1 Oklahoma City, OK, Clarence E. Page Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35L, Amdt 1 Oklahoma City, OK, Clarence E. Page Muni, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 17R, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED Oklahoma City, OK, Clarence E. Page Muni, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 35L, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED Oklahoma City, OK, Clarence E. Page Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Pendleton, OR, Pendleton/Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton, NDB or GPS-A, Amdt 7, CANCELLED Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 3 North Kingstown, RI, Quonset State, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 34, Amdt 2, CANCELLED Columbia, SC, Columbia Metropolitan, NDB RWY 11, Amdt 23, CANCELLED Jacksboro, TN, Campbell County, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS-A, Amdt 4, CANCELLED Jacksboro, TN, Campbell County, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 5, CANCELLED Knoxville, TN, McGhee-Tyson, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 5L, Amdt 1 Knoxville, TN, McGhee-Tyson, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23R, Amdt 1 Somerville, TN, Fayette Co., RNAV

(GPS)RWY 19, Amdt 1 Somerville, TN, Fayette Co., Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Amdt 1 Springfield, TN, Springfield Robertson County, NDB RWY 4, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Amarillo, TX, Tradewind, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 35, Orig-B, CANCELLED Dumas, TX, Moore County, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 19, Amdt 3D, CANCELLED Houston, TX, David Wayne Hooks Memorial, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 35L, Amdt 4, CANCELLED Houston, TX, David Wayne Hooks Memorial, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 17R, Amdt 4, CANCELLED Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental Arpt/Houston, VOR/DME RWY 33R, Amdt 14B, CANCELLED Ingleside, TX, T P Mc Campbell, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 13, Orig Ingleside, TX, T P Mc Campbell, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Orig Ingleside, TX, T P Mc Campbell, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Marshall, TX, Harrison County, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 33, Amdt 1D, CANCELLED Mineola/Quitman, TX, Wood County, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 18, Amdt 2, CANCELLED San Angelo, TX, San Angelo Regional/Mathis Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig Wichita Falls, TX, Sheppard AFB/Wichita Falls Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 33L, Amdt 1 Wichita Falls, TX, Sheppard AFB/Wichita Falls Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 15R, Amdt 1 Charlottesville, VA, Charlottesville-Albemarle, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 21, Amdt 1 Charlottesville, VA, Charlottesville-Albemarle, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 21, Orig Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field, LDA RWY 6, Amdt 9 Moses Lake, WA, Grant County, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 22, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED Eagle River, WI, Eagle River Union, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 4, Orig Eagle River, WI, Eagle River Union, GPS RWY 4, Orig, CANCELLED Eagle River, WI, Eagle River Union, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig Marshfield, WI, Marshfield Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 16, Orig Marshfield, WI, Marshfield Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 34, Orig Marshfield, WI, Marshfield Muni, GPS RWY 16, Orig, CANCELLED Marshfield, WI, Marshfield Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Textual DP, Orig [FR Doc. E6-13590 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9254] RIN 1545-BB25 Guidance Under Section 1502; Suspension of Losses on Certain Stock Dispositions; Correcting Amendment AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations that were published in the **Federal Register** on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 (71 FR 13008) regarding guidance on suspension of losses on certain stock dispositions. DATES: These corrections are effective March 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa Abell,

(202)622-7700 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations (TD 9254) that are the subject of this correction are under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9254) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Correction of Publication Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 is amended and continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * § 1.1502-35 [Corrected] **Par. 2.** Section 1.1502-35 is amended as follows: 1. By revising the text of paragraph (d)(4)(i)(B)( *2* ). 2. By revising the text of paragraphs (d)(8) and (d)(9). 3. By revising the text of paragraph (e), *Example 3.* , paragraph (v). 4. By revising the text of paragraph (e), *Example 4.* , the first sentence of paragraph (iv), and paragraph (v). 5. By revising the text of paragraph (e), *Example 6.* , paragraph (i). 6. By revising the text of paragraph (g)(5) *Examples 1.* and *2* , first sentence of paragraph (i). 7. By revising the text of paragraph (g)(5) *Example 3* , first three sentences of paragraph (i), and paragraph (ii). 8. By revising the text of the first sentence of paragraph (j). § 1.1502-35 Transfers of subsidiary stock and deconsolidations of subsidiaries.

(4)* * *

(i)* * *

(B)* * * ( *2* ) Any liabilities of the subsidiary that have been taken into account for tax purposes.

(8)Higher-tier. A subsidiary is higher-tier with respect to a member if or to the extent investment adjustments under § 1.1502-32 with respect to the stock of the latter member would affect investment adjustments with respect to the stock of the former member.

(9)Lower-tier. A subsidiary is lower-tier with respect to a member if or to the extent investment basis adjustments under § 1.1502-32 with respect to the stock of the former member would affect investment adjustments with respect to the stock of the latter member.

(e)* * * *Example 3.* * * *

(v)*Effect of subsequent stock sale.* P recognizes $0 gain/loss on the Year 6 sale of its remaining S common stock. No amount of suspended loss remains to be allowed under paragraph (c)(5) of this section. Example 4. * * *

(iv)*Effect of subsequent asset sale on suspended loss.* Because P cannot establish that all or a portion of the loss recognized on the sale of Asset B was not reflected in the calculation of the duplicated loss of S2 on the date of the Year 4 stock sale and such loss is allocable to the period beginning on the date of the Year 4 disposition of the S2 stock and ending on the day before the first date on which S2 is not a member of the P group and is taken into account in determining consolidated taxable income (or loss) of the P group for a taxable year that includes a date on or after the date of the Year 4 disposition and before the first date on which S2 is not a member of the P group, such asset loss reduces the suspended loss pursuant to paragraph (c)(4) of this section. * * *

(v)*Effect of subsequent stock sale.* In year 6, when S1 sells its remaining S2 stock for $100, it recognizes $0 gain/loss. Pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) of this section, the remaining $5 of the suspended loss is allowed on the P group's return for Year 6 when S1 sells its remaining S2 stock. Example 6. * * *

(i)In Year 1. P forms S with a contribution of $80 in exchange for 80 shares of common stock of S which at that time represents all of the outstanding stock of S. S becomes a member of the P group. In Year 2, P contributes Asset A with a basis of $50 and a value of $20 in exchange for 20 shares of common stock of S in a transfer to which section 351 applies. In Year 4, in a transaction that is not part of a plan that includes the Year 1 and Year 2 contributions, P contributes the 20 shares of S common stock it acquired in Year 2 to PS, a partnership, in exchange for a 20 percent capital and profits interest in a transaction described in section 721. Immediately after the contribution to PS, S is a member of the P group. In Year 5, P sells its interest in PS for $20.

(g)* * *

(5)* * * Example 1. *Transfers of property in the avoidance of basis redetermination rule* —

(i)*Facts.* In Year 1, P forms S with a contribution of $100 in exchange for 100 shares of common stock of S which at that time represents all of the outstanding stock of S. S becomes a member of the P group. In Year 2, P contributes 20 shares of common stock of S to PS, a partnership, in exchange for a 20 percent capital and profits interest in a transaction described in section 721. In Year 3, P contributes Asset A with a basis of $50 and a value of $20 to PS in exchange for an additional capital and profits interest in PS in a transaction described in section 721. Also in Year 3, PS contributes Asset A to S and P contributes an additional $80 to S in transfers to which section 351 applies. In Year 4, S sells Asset A for $20, recognizing a loss of $30. The P group uses that loss to offset income of P. In Year 5, P sells its entire interest in PS for $40. Example 2. *Transfers effecting a reimportation of loss* —(i) *Facts* . In Year 1, P forms S with a contribution of Asset A with a value of $100 and a basis of $120, Asset B with a value of $50 and a basis of $70, and Asset C with a value of $90 and a basis of $100 in exchange for all of the common stock of S and S becomes a member of the P group. * * * Example 3. *Transfers to avoid recognition of gain* —(i) *Facts* . P owns all of the stock of S1 and S2. The S2 stock has a basis of $400 and a value of $500. S1 owns 50% of the S3 common stock with a basis of $150. * * *

(ii)*Analysis.* Pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this section, because S2 owns stock of S3 (another subsidiary of the same group) and, immediately after the sale of the S2 stock, S3 is a member of the group, then for purposes of applying paragraph

(b)of this section, S2 is deemed to have transferred its S3 stock. Because S3 is a member of the group immediately after the transfer of the S2 stock and the S3 stock deemed transferred has a basis in excess of value, the group in the S3 stock is redetermined pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section immediately prior to the sale of the S2 stock. Accordingly, P would recognize only $1 of gain on the sale of its S2 stock. However, because the recapitalization of the S3 was structured with a view to, and has the effect of, avoiding the recognition of gain on a disposition of stock by invoking the application of paragraph

(b)of this section, paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section applies. Accordingly, paragraph

(b)of this section does not apply upon P's disposition of the S2 stock and P recognizes $100 gain on the disposition of the S2 stock.

(j)*Effective date.* This section applies with respect to stock transfers, deconsolidations of subsidiaries, determinations of worthlessness, and stock dispositions on or after March 10, 2006. * * * Guy R. Traynor, Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-13399 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9260] RIN 1545-BF46 Application of Separate Limitations to Dividends From Noncontrolled Section 902 Corporations; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to temporary regulations that were published in the **Federal Register** on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 (71 FR 24516) regarding the application of separate foreign tax credit limitations to dividends received from noncontrolled section 902 corporations under section 904(d)(4). DATES: These corrections are effective April 25, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginny Chung,

(202)622-3850 (not a toll-free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The temporary regulations (TD 9260) that are the subject of this correction are under section 904 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, (TD 9260) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the temporary regulations (TD 9260) which was the subject of FR Doc. 06-3882, is corrected as follows: § 1.904-4 [Corrected] 1. On page 24530, column 2, § 1.904-4, Instructional Par. 11., number 3, the language “3. In paragraph (e)(5)(iii), remove the language “and paragraph

(9)of this section” and add the language “paid in taxable years beginning before January 1, 2003” in its place.” is corrected to read “3. In paragraph (e)(5)(iii), remove the language “and paragraph

(g)of this section” and add the language “paid in taxable years beginning before January 1, 2003” in its place.” Guy R. Traynor, Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-13425 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-06-064] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations during the “Ocean City Maryland Offshore Challenge”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the shoreline at Ocean City, MD. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in the regulated area during the power boat race. DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD05-06-064) and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at

(757)398-6204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On June 29, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 37019). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, support craft and other vessels transiting the event area. However, advance notifications will be made to affected waterway users via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers. Background and Purpose On September 10, 2006, the Offshore Performance Association, Inc. will conduct the “Ocean City Maryland Offshore Challenge”, on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean along the shoreline near Ocean City, MD. The event will consist of approximately 40 V-hull and twin-hull inboard hydroplanes racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval race course. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard did not receive comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)published in the **Federal Register** . Accordingly, the Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, Maryland. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a small segment of the Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, MD during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be enforced. Extensive advance notifications will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, area newspapers and local radio stations, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Atlantic Ocean during the event. This rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only a limited period. Although the regulated area will apply to waters of the Atlantic Ocean near the Ocean City, Maryland shoreline, traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. In the case where the patrol commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add a temporary § 100.35-T05-064 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-064 Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD.

(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area is established for the waters of the Atlantic Ocean bounded by a line drawn from a position along the shoreline near Ocean City, MD at latitude 38°22′01″ N, longitude 075°03′56″ W, thence easterly to latitude 38°21′50″ N, longitude 075°03′28″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 38°20′10″ N, longitude 075°04′08″ W, thence westerly to a position near the shoreline at latitude 38°20′15″ N, longitude 075°04′38″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline to the point of origin. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

(b)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section:

(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.

(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the Ocean City Maryland Offshore Challenge under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.

(c)*Special local regulations.*

(1)Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.

(3)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.

(4)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.

(d)*Effective period.* This section will be effective from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 10, 2006. Dated: August 9, 2006. L.L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-13805 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-06-103] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Mill Neck Creek, Oyster Bay, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Bayville Bridge, across Mill Neck Creek, mile 0.1, at Oyster Bay, New York. This deviation allows the bridge owner to open only one of the two moveable bascule spans for the passage of vessel traffic from September 5, 2006 through September 29, 2006. This deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance. DATES: This deviation is effective from September 5, 2006 through September 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is

(212)668-7165. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at

(212)668-7165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bayville Bridge, across Mill Neck Creek, mile 0.1, at Oyster Bay, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 9 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The existing regulation (33 CFR 117.5) requires the bridge to open on demand. The owner of the bridge, County of Nassau, Department of Public Works, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled structural bridge repairs, rehabilitation of the two bascule spans. In order to perform the structural repairs, the bascule span undergoing work must remain in the closed position. Therefore, under this temporary deviation the Bayville Bridge across Mill Neck Creek, mile 0.1, at Oyster Bay, New York, shall open only one of the two movable spans for the passage of vessel traffic from September 5, 2006 through September 29, 2006. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the **Federal Register** , where practicable. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35(b). Dated: August 10, 2006. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-13776 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CCGD05-06-059] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Route 33 Bridge Construction, Pamunkey River, West Point, VA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary 600-foot radius safety zone in support of bridge construction operations being conducted in the vicinity of the Route 33 Bridge (Eltham Bridge) over the Pumunkey River near the Town of West Point, VA. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic on the Pamunkey River as necessary to protect mariners from the hazards associated with bridge construction operations. DATES: This safety zone will be in effect from August 15 to August 20, 2006, and from September 12 to September 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-06-059 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Hampton Roads, Prevention Department, Norfolk Federal Building, 200 Granby Street, Suite 700, Norfolk, VA 23510, between 9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Bill Clark, project officer, USCG Sector Hampton Roads, telephone number

(757)668-5580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. The project will begin at 6:30 a.m. eastern time on August 15, 2006 and end at 6:30 a.m. eastern time on August 20, 2006, then commence again at 6:30 a.m. on September 12, and end at 6:30 a.m. on September 17, 2006. Due to the dangers posed by the bridge construction operations, it is in the public's interest to have these regulations in effect during those operations. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Because of the hazards associated with the construction operations, a limited access area is necessary to provide for the safety of mariners. Background and Purpose Bridge construction operations will be conducted on the center span portion of a new bridge being constructed approximately 100 feet south of the Route 33 Bridge (Eltham Bridge) near West Point, VA. These operations will commence at 6:30 a.m. on August 15, 2006 and end at 6:30 a.m. on August 20, 2006, then commence again at 6:30 a.m. on September 12, and end at 6:30 a.m. on September 17, 2006. To facilitate the bridge construction operations while protecting mariners and spectators from the associated hazards, a 600-foot radius safety zone centered on position 37-32-01 N / 076-48-21 W will be established during the bridge construction operations. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that encompasses all waters within 600 feet of position 37-32-01 N/076-48-21 W in the vicinity of West Point, VA. This safety zone will be established in the interest of public safety during the bridge construction operations and will be effective from 6:30 a.m. on August 15, 2006 until 6:30 a.m. on August 20, 2006, then again from 6:30 a.m. on September 12, 2006 until 6:30 a.m. on September 17, 2006. General navigation in the safety zone will be restricted. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the fact that the safety zone is only enforced for a limited duration and vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the operation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C, 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in that portion of the Pamunkey River between 6:30 a.m. on August 15 to 6:30 a.m. on August 20, 2006 and between 6:30 a.m. on September 12, 2006 to 6:30 a.m. on September 17, 2006. For the reasons described in *Regulatory Evaluation,* above, the safety zone will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; maritime advisories will be issued, so the mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding this rule. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Checklist” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T05-059, to read as follows: § 165.T05-059 Route 33 Bridge Construction, Pamunkey River, West Point, VA.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Pamunkey River, from surface to bottom, within 600 feet of position 37-32-01 N/076-48-21 W in the vicinity of West Point, VA.

(b)*Definition.* For purposes of this section, *designated representative* means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in 165.23 of this part, entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.

(2)The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone must comply with all directions given by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(3)The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads and the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia can be contacted at telephone number

(757)668-5555 or

(757)484-8192.

(4)The Designated Representatives enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM 13 and 16.

(d)*Effective date:* This regulation is effective from 6:30 a.m. on August 15, 2006 until 6:30 a.m. on August 20, 2006 and from 6:30 a.m. September 12, 2006 until 6:30 a.m. on September 17, 2006. Dated: August 4, 2006. Patrick B. Trapp, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads. [FR Doc. E6-13798 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL-8211-6] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of deletion of the T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition Superfund site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)announces the deletion of the T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition Site in the City of Fresno, Fresno County, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the State of California have determined that the Site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, no further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are appropriate. DATES: *Effective Date:* August 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Suer, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, SFD-7-2, San Francisco, California 94105,

(415)972-3148. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is: T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the **Federal Register** on July 11, 2006 (71 FR 39032). The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was August 10. No comments were received. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a Responsiveness Summary. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and it maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that Fund-financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: August 11, 2006. Keith Takata, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193. Appendix B—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry for the “T. H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.” site in Fresno, Fresno County, California. [FR Doc. E6-13745 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Parts 1, 5, 10, 12 and 13 [USCG-2006-25535] RIN 1625-ZA09 Mariner Licensing and Documentation Program Restructuring and Centralization AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Technical amendment. SUMMARY: This technical amendment authorizes the Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center, to perform certain mariner credentialing functions in addition to Officers in Charge, Marine Inspection, who currently perform those functions. At the end of a transitional period, most credentialing functions will be consolidated at a centralized location. The amendment also makes technical changes to the mariner credentialing appellate process. This rule is organizational in nature and will have no substantive effect on the regulated public. The amendment also will have no effect on any other Coast Guard regulatory projects or policy initiatives. DATES: These changes are effective September 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call Gerald Miante, Project Manager, Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division (G-PSO-1), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1407. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this amendment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Coast Guard finds that this technical amendment is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements because the amendment only makes non-substantive changes involving internal rules of agency organization, procedure, and practice. These changes will have no substantive effect on the public; therefore, it is unnecessary and impractical to publish an NPRM. Background and Purpose Mariner credentialing functions are currently performed at the Regional Examination Centers (RECs). The Coast Guard is authorizing the Commanding Officer, National Maritime Center

(NMC)to perform these functions in addition to the Officers in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMIs). This is the first step in an incremental restructuring and centralization plan that will eventually streamline the RECs and bring them under the authority of the NMC. During implementation of this plan, some REC credentialing functions will be gradually transferred to the NMC, and some OCMIs will continue to have authority to issue credentials. When the restructuring and centralization is complete, the Coast Guard will notify the public in the **Federal Register** that the NMC will make decisions on applications and authorize the issuance of mariner credentials. The NMC will also be the central location for mariner records and a processing point for associated fees. RECs will remain open and continue to assist mariners to complete applications, take fingerprints, verify mariners' citizenship and identities, administer examinations, administer oaths, and conduct oversight for approved courses. These future changes are designed to improve service to mariners and address national security concerns. The restructuring and centralization will:

(1)Enhance security by implementing consolidated system controls for the credentialing process;

(2)improve the consistency of information, procedures, and mariner evaluations; and

(3)improve program efficiencies and customer service through economies of scale and increased use of technology. Discussion of the Amendment Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (46 CFR) is being amended to authorize the Commanding Officer of the NMC, in addition to the OCMIs, to perform mariner credentialing functions. The NMC will begin phasing in the transfer of these functions from the OCMIs when facilities for the new centralized NMC become operational. Additionally, this amendment establishes a single final administrative appellate authority for all appeals concerning mariner credentialing. In § 12.02-3, the term “merchant mariner's documents” has been substituted for “certificates of identification, certificates of service, certificates of efficiency, and continuous discharge books” because the Coast Guard no longer issues the latter documents. These technical and organizational changes do not change any substantive requirements of existing regulations. Further, this amendment will have no effect on any Coast Guard regulatory projects or policy initiatives, including Merchant Marine Credentials, Docket No. USCG-2006-24371, Transportation Worker Identification Credential, Docket Nos. USCG-2006-24196 and TSA-2006-24191, Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Documents, Docket No. USCG-2003-14500, and Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariners' Licenses and Certificates of Registry, Docket No. USCG-2004-17455. Regulatory Evaluation This amendment is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory evaluation is necessary. Because this amendment only authorizes the NMC to perform mariner credentialing functions and reorganizes the administrative appellate procedure, it will not impose any costs on the public. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this amendment would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. It is not expected that this amendment will have a significant economic impact on any small entities. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this technical amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Collection of Information This amendment calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this amendment under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this amendment will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this amendment elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This amendment will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this amendment under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This amendment is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This amendment does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This amendment does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(b), of the Instruction from further environmental documentation. Paragraph (34)(b) excludes regulatory actions concerning internal agency functions or organization, such as delegation of authority. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(b), of the Instruction, an Environmental Analysis Check List and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are not required for this technical amendment. List of Subjects 46 CFR Part 1 Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 46 CFR Part 5 Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Investigations, Seamen. 46 CFR Part 10 Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen. 46 CFR Part 12 Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 46 CFR Part 13 Cargo vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR parts 1, 5, 10, 12 and 13 as follows: PART 1—ORGANIZATION, GENERAL COURSE AND METHODS GOVERNING MARINE SAFETY FUNCTIONS 1. The authority citation for 46 CFR part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 14 U.S.C. 633; 46 U.S.C. 7701; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; § 1.01-35 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 2. In § 1.01-15, revise the section heading, remove the NOTE following paragraph (b), re-designate paragraph

(c)as paragraph (d), revise newly redesignated paragraph (d), and add a new paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 1.01-15 Organization; Districts; National Maritime Center.

(c)The Commanding Officer of the National Maritime Center has been designated and delegated to give direction to Coast Guard activities relating to marine safety functions consisting of the licensing, credentialing, certificating, shipment and discharge of seamen; referring to the processing of Regional Examination Center

(REC)or cognizant OCMI violations of law, negligence, misconduct, unskillfulness, incompetence or misbehavior of persons applying for or holding merchant mariner's documents, licenses, certificates or credentials issued by the Coast Guard; suspension or withdrawal of course approvals; and recommending possible suspension or revocation under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 of licenses, credentials, certificates and merchant mariner's documents. Applicants for merchant mariner's documents, licenses, certificates or credentials may apply to the Coast Guard National Maritime Center or any of the Regional Examination Centers. Applicants may contact the National Maritime Center at 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 630, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1804, or by telephone at 202-493-1002. A list of Regional Examination Locations is available through the Coast Guard Web site at *http://www.uscg.mil.*

(d)For descriptions of Coast Guard districts and marine inspection zones, see 33 CFR part 3. 3. Revise § 1.03-15(h)(3) and (h)(4) to read as follows: § 1.03-15 General.

(h)* * *

(3)Commandant (G-PC), for all appeals involving suspension or withdrawal of course approvals, and all marine personnel issues that are appealed from the National Maritime Center or from an OCMI through a District Commander;

(4)Commandant (G-PSE), for appeals involving the recognition of a classification society; or 4. Revise § 1.03-45 to read as follows: § 1.03-45 Appeals from decisions or actions of the National Maritime Center. Any person directly affected by a decision or action of an officer or employee of the National Maritime Center

(NMC)involving any of the marine safety functions listed in § 1.01-15(c) of this subpart may, after requesting reconsideration of the decision or action by the NMC, make a formal appeal of that decision or action, via the NMC, to the Director of Inspection and Compliance, Commandant (G-PC), in accordance with the procedures contained in § 1.03-15 of this subpart. The decision of the Director of Inspection and Compliance, Commandant (G-PC), on such an appeal will constitute final agency action. PART 5—MARINE INVESTIGATION REGULATIONS—PERSONNEL ACTION 5. The authority citation for 46 CFR part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 7101, 7301, 7701; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 6. In Subpart B—Definitions, add new 46 CFR 5.11 to read as follows: § 5.11 Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. *Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI)* for the purposes of part 5 means the officer or individual so designated at one of the Regional Examination Centers, or any person so designated by the Commandant. 7. Revise 46 CFR 5.15 to read as follows: § 5.15 Investigating Officer. An *investigating officer* is a Coast Guard official designated by the Commandant, a District Commander, or the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, for the purpose of conducting investigations of marine casualties or matters pertaining to the conduct of persons applying for or holding merchant mariner's documents, licenses, certificates or credentials issued by the Coast Guard. An Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection is an investigating officer without further designation. PART 10—LICENSING OF MARITIME PERSONNEL 8. The authority citation for 46 CFR part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, and 8906; Executive Order 10173; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 10.107 is also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 9. In 46 CFR 10.103 revise the definition of *Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection*

(OCMI)to read as follows: § 10.103 Definitions of terms used in this part. *Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI)* for the purposes of part 10 means the officer or individual so designated at one of the Regional Examination Centers, or any person so designated by the Commandant. 11. Revise 46 CFR 10.105(a) to read as follows: § 10.105 Applications.

(a)Applicants for merchant mariner's documents, licenses, certificates or credentials may apply to the Coast Guard National Maritime Center or any of the Regional Examination Centers. Applicants may contact the National Maritime Center at 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 630, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1804, or by telephone at 202-493-1002. A list of Regional Examination Locations is available through the Coast Guard Web site at *http://www.uscg.mil.* PART 12—CERTIFICATION OF SEAMEN 12. The authority citation for part 12 continues to read as follows: Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110, 7301, 7302, 7503, 7505, 7701; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 13. Amend 46 CFR 12.01-6 to add, in alphabetical order, the following definition: § 12.01-6 Definitions of terms used in this part. *Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI)* for the purposes of part 12 means the officer or individual so designated at one of the Regional Examination Centers, or any person so designated by the Commandant. 14. Revise 46 CFR 12.01-7 to read as follows: § 12.01-7 Where to apply. Applicants for licenses or certification may apply to the Coast Guard National Maritime Center or any of the Regional Examination Centers. Applicants may contact the National Maritime Center at 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 630, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1804, or by telephone at 202-493-1002. A list of Regional Examination Locations is available through the Coast Guard Web site at *http://www.uscg.mil.* 15. Revise § 12.02-3(a) to read as follows: § 12.02-3 Where documents are issued.

(a)Merchant mariner's documents may be issued to qualified applicants at the National Maritime Center or at any Regional Examination Center during usual business hours. PART 13—CERTIFICATION OF TANKERMEN 16. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows: Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3703, 7317, 8105, 8703, 9102; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 17. In 46 CFR 13.103, revise the definition of *Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI)* to read as follows: § 13.103 Definitions. *Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI)* for the purposes of part 13 means the officer or individual so designated at one of the Regional Examination Centers, or any person so designated by the Commandant. Dated: August 11, 2006. Steve Venckus, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Coast Guard. [FR Doc. E6-13532 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 622 and 635 [Docket No. 060425111-6205-02; I.D. 041906B] RIN 0648-AN09 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 18A; Correction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Correction to a final rule. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final regulations which were published Wednesday, August 9, 2006. Those regulations established a number of requirements to improve enforceability and monitoring in the reef fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. DATES: The corrected effective date for regulations concerning §§ 622.4(h)(1) and 635.4(m)(1) published August 9, 2006, at 71 FR 45428 is October 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rod Dalton, telephone 727-824-5305; fax 727-824-5308; e-mail *Rod.Dalton@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations that are the subject of this correction were published Wednesday, August 9, 2006, (71 FR 45428), [Docket No. 060425111-6205-02]. The final regulations established measures to improve enforceability and monitoring of the reef fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico and to reduce mortality of incidentally caught sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish. Need for Correction As published, the final regulations contain an error in the DATES caption regarding the effective date for §§ 622.4(h)(1) and 635.4(m)(1) and requires correction. Correction Accordingly, the final rule, published on August 9, 2006, at 71 FR 45428, is corrected as follows: On page 45428, in column 2, in the last line of the “DATES” caption, “September 1, 2006.” is corrected to read as “October 1, 2006.” Dated: August 15, 2006. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-13781 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 060216045-6045-01; I.D. 081506A] Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. SUMMARY: NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amounts of Community Development Quota

(CDQ)and non-CDQ pollock from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the Bering Sea subarea and Bering Sea subarea pollock from the incidental catch allowance to the directed fisheries. These actions are necessary to provide opportunity for harvest of the 2006 total allowable catch

(TAC)of pollock, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). DATES: Effective August 16, 2006, through 2400 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the FMP prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the 2006 TAC of non-CDQ pollock is 9,500 metric tons

(mt)and the CDQ pollock is 1,140 mt as established by the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (71 FR 10894, March 3, 2006) and the reallocation on March 3, 2006 (71 FR 11541, March 8, 2006). As of August 10, 2006, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that the following amounts of pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea will not be harvested: 4,000 mt of non-CDQ pollock and 1,140 mt of CDQ pollock. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)( *4* ), NMFS proportionally reallocates 4,000 mt of non-CDQ pollock and 1,140 mt of CDQ pollock from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the 2006 Bering Sea subarea B season allocations, as listed in Tables 3 and 10 of the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (71 FR 11541, March 8, 2006). The harvest specifications for pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea included in the harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (71 FR 11541, March 8, 2006) are revised as follows: 5,500 mt to non-CDQ pollock and 0 mt to CDQ pollock. The 2006 pollock incidental catch allowance in the BS was established as 44,967 mt by the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (71 FR 10894, March 3, 2006), in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)( *1* ) and the American Fisheries Act

(AFA)(Public Law 105 277, Division C, Title II). As of August 10, 2006, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that approximately 20,072 mt of pollock remain in the incidental catch allowance. Based on projected harvest rates of other groundfish species and the expected incidental catch of pollock in those fisheries, the Regional Administrator has determined that 14,000 mt of pollock specified in the incidental catch allowance will not be necessary as incidental catch. Therefore, NMFS is apportioning the projected unused amount, 14,000 mt, of pollock from the incidental catch allowance to the directed fishing allowances established pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A). Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5), Tables 3 and 10 of the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (71 FR 11541, March 8, 2006) are revised for 2006 non-CDQ pollock and CDQ pollock allocations consistent with this reallocation. This reallocation results in proportional adjustments to the 2006 B season non-CDQ pollock directed fishery allocation

(DFA)established at § 679.20(a)(5). TABLE 3—2006 AND 2007 ALLOCATIONS OF POLLOCK TACS TO THE DIRECTED POLLOCK FISHERIES AND TO THE CDQ DIRECTED FISHING ALLOWANCES

(DFA)1 [Amounts are in metric tons] Area and sector 2006 Allocations 2006 A season 1 A season DFA SCA harvest limit 2 2006 B season 1 B season DFA 2007 Allocations 2007 A season 1 A season DFA SCA harvest limit 2 2007 B season 1 B season DFA Bering Sea subarea 1,496,700 n/a n/a n/a 1,500,000 n/a n/a n/a CDQ DFA 150,400 60,160 41,793 90,240 149,670 59,868 41,908 89,802 ICA 30,967 n/a n/a n/a 45,236 n/a n/a n/a AFA Inshore 657,666 261,148 181,626 396,518 652,547 261,019 182,713 391,528 AFA Catcher/Processors 3 526,133 208,918 145,301 317,215 522,038 208,815 146,171 313,223 Catch by C/Ps 481,412 191,160 n/a 290,252 477,664 191,066 n/a 286,599 Catch by CVs 3 44,721 17,758 n/a 26,963 44,373 17,749 n/a 26,624 Unlisted C/P Limit 4 2,631 1,045 n/a 1,586 2,610 1,044 n/a 1,566 AFA Motherships 131,533 52,230 36,325 79,304 130,509 52,204 36,543 78,306 Excessive Harvesting Limit 5 256,503 n/a n/a n/a 228,391 n/a n/a n/a Excessive Processing Limit 6 439,720 n/a n/a n/a 391,528 n/a n/a n/a Total Bering Sea DFA 1,465,733 582,456 405,045 883,277 1,454,764 581,906 407,334 872,858 Aleutian Islands subarea 1 6,160 n/a n/a n/a 19,000 n/a n/a n/a CDQ DFA 0 n/a n/a 0 1,900 760 n/a 1,140 ICA 1,800 1,200 n/a 600 1,800 1,200 n/a 600 Aleut Corporation 5,500 4,000 n/a 1,500 15,300 9,800 n/a 5,500 Bogoslof District ICA 7 10 n/a n/a n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a 1 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), the Bering Sea subarea pollock, after subtraction for the CDQ DFA - 10 percent and the ICA - 3.35 percent, is allocated as a DFA as follows: inshore component - 50 percent, catcher/processor component - 40 percent, and mothership component - 10 percent. In the Bering Sea subarea, the A season, January 20 - June 10, is allocated 40 percent of the DFA and the B season, June 10 - November 1, is allocated 60 percent of the DFA. Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)( *2* )( *i* ) and ( *ii* ), the annual AI pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance - 10 percent and second the ICA - 1,800 mt, is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a directed pollock fishery. In the AI subarea, the A season is allocated 40 percent of the ABC and the B season is allocated the remainder of the directed pollock fishery. 2 In the Bering Sea subarea, no more than 28 percent of each sector's annual DFA may be taken from the SCA before April 1. The remaining 12 percent of the annual DFA allocated to the A season may be taken outside of SCA before April 1 or inside the SCA after April 1. If 28 percent of the annual DFA is not taken inside the SCA before April 1, the remainder is available to be taken inside the SCA after April 1. 3 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)( *4* ), not less than 8.5 percent of the DFA allocated to listed catcher/processors shall be available for harvest only by eligible catcher vessels delivering to listed catcher/processors. 4 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)( *4* )( *iii* ), the AFA unlisted catcher/processors are limited to harvesting not more than 0.5 percent of the catcher/processors sector's allocation of pollock. 5 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)( *6* ) NMFS establishes an excessive harvesting share limit equal to 17.5 percent of the sum of the pollock DFAs. 6 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)( *7* ) NMFS establishes an excessive processing share limit equal to 30.0 percent of the sum of the pollock DFAs. 7 The Bogoslof District is closed by the final harvest specifications to directed fishing for pollock. The amounts specified are for ICA only, and are not apportioned by season or sector. TABLE 10—2006 AND 2007 BERING SEA SUBAREA INSHORE COOPERATIVE ALLOCATIONS [Amounts are in metric tons] Cooperative name and member vessels Sum of member vessel's official catch histories 1

(mt)Percentage of inshore sector allocation 2006 Annual cooperative allocation

(mt)2007 Annual cooperative allocation

(mt)Akutan Catcher Vessel Association 31.145 204830 203,186 Arctic Enterprise Association 1.146 7,535 7,476 Northern Victor Fleet Cooperative 8.412 55,326 54,879 Peter Pan Fleet Cooperative 2.876 18,916 18,763 Unalaska Cooperative 12.191 80,173 79,533 UniSea Fleet Cooperative 25.324 166,549 165,211 Westward Fleet Cooperative 18.906 124,336 123,340 Open access AFA vessels 0 0 0 Total inshore allocation 875,572 100 657,666 652,388 1 According to regulations at § 679.62(e)(1), the individual catch history for each vessel is equal to the vessel's best 2 of 3 years inshore pollock landings from 1995 through 1997 and includes landings to catcher/processors for vessels that made 500 or more mt of landings to catcher/processors from 1995 through 1997.> Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollock. Since the pollock fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the final Bering Sea subarea pollock allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery; allow the industry to plan for the fishing season and avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors; and provide opportunity to harvest increased B season pollock allocations while value is optimum. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: August 15, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-7052 Filed 8-16-06; 2:14 pm]

Unknown. Final rule