Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-08-23 · PROPOSED RULES · Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Food Safety and Inspection Service See Forest Service See Natural Resources Conservation Service Alcohol Alcohol, · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

36,259 words·~165 min read·/register/2006/08/23/06-7062·

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2006-08-23.xml --- 71 163 Wednesday, August 23, 2006 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Food Safety and Inspection Service See Forest Service See Natural Resources Conservation Service Alcohol Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 49476-49477 E6-13937 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Plant pests and animal diseases:
Garbage from Hawaii; interstate movement of municipal solid waste, 49309-49319 E6-13968 Plant quarantine safeguard regulations: Untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting U.S. to foreign countries, 49319-49326 E6-13986 Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES Competitive impact statements and proposed consent judgments: Exelon Corp. and Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., 49477-49490 06-7043 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare:
Hospital outpatient prospective payment system and 2007 CY payment rates, 49506-49977 06-6846 NOTICES Medicare: Senior Risk Reduction Demonstration Program; participation information, 49460-49461 06-7120 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge operations: New York, 49348-49350 E6-13895 Commerce Commerce Department See Economics and Statistics Administration See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisers:
Advertising; restrictions, clarifications, etc., 49387-49391 E6-13946 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E6-13922 49502-49503 E6-13924 Customs Customs and Border Protection Bureau PROPOSED RULES North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): Merchandise processing fee exemption and technical corrections, 49391-49393 E6-13947 Defense Defense Department RULES Title 32 CFR parts 71, 105, and 243 removed, 49348 06-7010 PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):
Approved authentication products and services; purchase requirement, 49405-49407 06-7088 Economics Economics and Statistics Administration NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 49416 06-7087 Energy Energy Department See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Consumer products; energy conservation program: Clothes dryers; LG Electronics Inc. petition for waiver from test procedures, 49437-49441 E6-13945 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and raw agricultural commodities:
Azoxystrobin, 49358-49363 E6-13656 Dimethenamid, 49350-49354 E6-13660 Fenpyroximate, 49364-49368 E6-13761 Phosphorous acid, 49368-49373 E6-13954 Triflumizole, 49354-49358 E6-13659 PROPOSED RULES Air programs: Stratospheric ozone protection— Class I ozone-depleting substances; allowance adjustments for export to Article 5 countries, 49395-49399 E6-13951 Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Maryland, 49393-49394 E6-13952 NOTICES Meetings:
Environmental Policy and Technology National Advisory Council, 49441-49442 E6-13950 Pesticide, food, and feed additive petitions: Dow AgroSciences, 49448-49450 E6-13661 Pesticide programs; Tolerance reassement decisions— Amitraz, 49442-49443 E6-13857 Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.: Aliphatic solvents, 49443-49445 E6-13856 Lindane, 49445-49447 E6-13955 Propiconazole, 49447-49448 E6-13859 Superfund; response and remedial actions, proposed settlements, etc.: Mercury Refining Site, NY, 49450 E6-13953 Executive Executive Office of the President See Trade Representative, Office of United States FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:
Boeing, 49328-49332 E6-13825 Bombardier, 49332-49334, 49337-49339 E6-13829 E6-13831 Pratt & Whitney, 49335-49337 E6-13909 RECARO Aircraft Seating GmbH & Co., 49326-49327 E6-13911 Rolls-Royce plc, 49339-49343 E6-13910 Class E airspace, 49343-49344 E6-13803 06-7062 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Airbus, 49385-49387 E6-13964 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Common carrier services: Individuals with hearing and speech disabilities; telecommunications relay services and speech-to-speech services, 49380-49381 E6-13987 Radio frequency devices:
Broadband power line systems, 49376-49380 E6-13967 Radio stations; table of assignments: Various states, 49381-49382 E6-13748 PROPOSED RULES Radio services, special: Private land mobile services— Stolen vehicle recovery systems, 49401-49405 E6-13743 Telecommunications service providers; biennial regulatory review, 49400-49401 E6-13965 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 49450-49456 E6-13738 E6-13982 E6-13984 Rulemaking proceedings; petitions filed, granted, denied, etc., 49456 E6-13740 E6-13983 06-7115 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Industrial loan companies and industrial banks; associated industry issues; comment request, 49456-49459 E6-13941 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements filed, etc., 49459 E6-13977 Ocean transportation intermediary licenses: Cargo Master, Inc., et al., 49459 E6-13981 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 49500-49501 06-7125 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 49459-49460 E6-13939 Banks and bank holding companies:
Change in bank control, 49460 E6-13972 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and threatened species: Survival enhancement permits— Texas; lesser prairie-chicken; candidate conservation agreement, 49469-49470 E6-13961 Food Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Microbiological Criteria for Foods National Advisory Committee; correction, 49411-49412 E6-13976 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Appealable decisions; legal notice:
Rocky Mountain Region, 49412-49414 E6-13949 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Black Hills National Forrest, SD and WY, 49414-49415 06-7104 Meetings: Resource Advisory Committees— Davy Crockett National Forest, 49415 06-7098 GSA General Services Administration RULES Federal travel: E-Gov Travel Service and contract city-pair fares use, 49373-49376 E6-13917 PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Approved authentication products and services; purchase requirement, 49405-49407 06-7088 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See National Institutes of Health Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Customs and Border Protection Bureau See Secret Service See Transportation Security Administration Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Export privileges, actions affecting:
Scibetta, Lawrence, 49416-49417 06-7095 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Departmental Strategic Plan (2007-2012 FY); comment request, 49468-49469 06-7096 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Polyethylene retail carrier bags from— China, 49417-49418 E6-13979 Justice Justice Department See Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau See Antitrust Division NOTICES Pollution control; consent judgments:
Macalloy Corp. et al., 49474 06-7107 NCH Corp. et al., 49474-49475 06-7108 06-7109 New York City Transit Authority, 49475 06-7105 SJM Properties, 49475-49476 06-7100 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Coal leases, exploration licenses, etc.: Colorado, 49470 E6-13928 Meetings: Resource Advisory Councils— Coeur d’ Alene District, 49470-49471 E6-13959 Front Range, 49471 E6-13978 Oil and gas leases: Alaska, 49471-49472 E6-13925 Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Wyoming, 49472-49473 E6-13927 Maritime Maritime Administration PROPOSED RULES Maritime Security Program:
Maintenance and Repair Reimbursement Pilot Program, 49399-49400 E6-13971 NOTICES Coastwise trade laws; administrative waivers: OCEAN BELLE, 49501 E6-13974 TUBBY, 49501 E6-13973 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Approved authentication products and services; purchase requirement, 49405-49407 06-7088 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 49490-49491 E6-13926 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Fuel economy standards:
Spyker Automobielen, B.V.; exemption decision for 2006 and 2007 model years, 49407-49410 E6-13957 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Fogarty International Center Advisory Board, 49461-49462 06-7082 National Cancer Institute, 49462 06-7081 06-7086 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 49462-49463 06-7078 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 49464 06-7084 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 49463 06-7080 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 49463 06-7079 National Institute on Aging, 06-7083 49464-49465 06-7085 Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive:
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc, 49465 E6-13935 Sahajanand Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 49465-49466 E6-13936 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Endangered and threatened species: Recovery plans— Smalltooth sawfish, 49418 E6-13975 Marine mammals: Incidental taking; authorization letters, etc.— GXT Technologies, Inc.; Chukchi Sea, AK; seismic surveys; small numbers of marine mammals, 49418-49433 06-7097 Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority; Knik Arm Crossing, AK; bridge construction; whales and seals, 49433-49436 E6-13970 Meetings:
New England Fishery Management Council, 49436 E6-13929 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 49436-49437 E6-13930 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Bureau of Mines Twin Cities Research Center, Hennepin County, MN, 49473-49474 06-7076 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Field office technical guides; changes: Virginia, 49415 E6-13752 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Tennessee Valley Authority, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1, 49491 E6-13940 Office of U.S.
Trade Office of United States Trade Representative See Trade Representative, Office of United States Secret Secret Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 49466-49467 06-7101 06-7102 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 49492 E6-13932 Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 49493-49495 E6-13931 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 49495-49496, 49498-49500 E6-13934 E6-13943 International Securities Exchange, Inc., 49496-49497 E6-13944 Stock Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia, 49497-49498 E6-13933 Trade Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Intellectual property rights protection; actions, reviews, country identification, etc.
Various countries, 49491-49492 E6-13916 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Maritime Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Economic regulations: Canadian charter air taxi operators, 49344-49347 E6-13664 Workplace drug and alcohol testing programs: Substance abuse professional; credential requirement, 49382-49384 E6-13956 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
International Air Transport Association Tariff Conference proceeding, 49500 E6-13958 Transportation Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Meetings: Aviation Security Advisory Committee, 49467-49468 E6-13942 Treasury Treasury Department See Comptroller of the Currency See Customs and Border Protection Bureau Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 49506-49977 06-6846 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. 71 163 Wednesday, August 23, 2006 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 330 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. 05-002-4] RIN 0579-AC12 Interstate Movement of Garbage From Hawaii;
Municipal Solid Waste AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations pertaining to certain garbage to provide for the interstate movement of garbage from Hawaii subject to measures designed to protect against the dissemination of plant pests into noninfested areas of the continental United States. We are amending these regulations upon request in order to provide the State of Hawaii with additional waste disposal options, and after determining that the action is highly unlikely to result in the introduction and dissemination of plant or animal pests or diseases into the continental United States from Hawaii.
We are also making other amendments to the garbage regulations to clarify their intent and make them easier to understand. DATES: *Effective Date:* September 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shannon Hamm, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Policy and Program Development, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 20, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-4957. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 7 CFR 330.400 and 9 CFR 94.5 (referred to elsewhere in this document as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the importation and interstate movement of garbage that may pose a risk of introducing or disseminating animal or plant pests or diseases that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. Not all movements of waste material are regulated by APHIS; 1 only movements of waste that meets APHIS's definition of “garbage” are regulated, and even then, only under certain circumstances. Under the regulations, the term “garbage” is defined as “all waste material derived in whole or in part from fruits, vegetables, meats, or other plant or animal (including poultry) material, and other refuse of any character whatsoever that has been associated with any such material on board any means of conveyance, and including food scraps, table refuse, galley refuse, food wrappers or packaging materials, and other waste material from stores, food preparation areas, passengers' or crews' quarters, dining rooms, or any other areas on means of conveyance.” 1 The operation of landfills and incinerators and the intrastate and interstate movement of garbage are regulated predominantly by State and local governments. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)regulates the interstate movement of hazardous wastes. See EPA's Web site for additional information: *http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/index.htm* . Garbage also means “meals and other food that were available for consumption by passengers and crew on an aircraft but were not consumed.” Waste material that meets the definition of garbage is regulated by APHIS if it is removed from a means of conveyance that: • Within the last 2 years, has been in any port outside the United States or Canada; or • Within the last year, has moved from Hawaii or a U.S. territory to another U.S. State. 2 2 “State” is defined as any of the 50 States and any U.S. territory or possession. However, garbage onboard a conveyance that meets one of the two conditions above may be exempted from regulation if the conveyance is cleared of all regulated garbage, and after cleaning and disinfection, an inspector certifies that the conveyance contains no garbage that poses a risk of pest introduction into the United States. Garbage from Canada is also exempted from regulation. The regulations were established to address the risk posed by garbage that originates on or is onboard conveyances that have been located in areas where exotic animal or plant pests or diseases are present. Such garbage includes waste generated during the course of commercial and private air travel and commercial or private transit of goods or persons by sea. The regulations were not intended to address risks posed by movements of municipal solid waste (MSW). Due to a limited availability of landfill space in Hawaii, business interests and public officials are exploring other options for disposal of the State's waste. These persons have requested that APHIS allow the interstate movement of MSW from Hawaii. We believe the regulations require amendment to provide for the movement of garbage generated in Hawaii. Pest Risk Assessment As part of our evaluation of the request by business interests and public officials in Hawaii, we prepared a draft pest risk assessment (PRA), titled “The Risk of Introduction of Pests to the Continental United States via Plastic-Baled Municipal Solid Waste from Hawaii “ (March 2006) to evaluate the interstate movement of garbage from Hawaii to the mainland of the United States. The objective of the PRA was to evaluate whether a baling technology that would bundle, wrap, and seal the MSW into airtight bales will effectively mitigate potential plant pest risks associated with MSW from Hawaii. The PRA focused on the planned use of the baling technology because airtight enclosure from creation to burial will mitigate the risks of establishment by any plant pests. The PRA addressed the following three issues: • The ability of the baling technology to provide a strong, airtight barrier; • The examination of the occurrence of ruptures or punctures; and • The examination of general pathway procedures to reduce pest incidence in the bales and the chances of escape in the event of accidental ruptures or punctures. In addition, the PRA provides qualitative risk ratings for different pest types based on the likelihood of introduction. Only those pathway processes likely to be common to all company proposals to transport baled Hawaiian waste were considered. We will prepare separate assessments for other company proposals which will address factors such as the destination landfill, type of transportation to be used on the mainland, and pest species that may pose particular threats. The PRA concluded that transporting MSW from Hawaii to the continental United States in airtight bales poses a low risk of pest introduction and dissemination because the baling technology mitigates the risk from all types of plant pests. In addition, the other pathway procedures should adequately protect against accidental ruptures or punctures in bales during the handling and transport process. Pest mitigation processes such as the baling technology itself or features of the proposed pathway, including the waste type, and how bales are staged, handled, transported, and buried, are added safeguards that we conclude will prevent the introduction and dissemination of exotic pests. As a complement to the baling technology, the PRA recommends proper staging of bales and certification that they are mollusk-free to mitigate against contaminating pests. As long as those processes and the procedures proposed by the companies (including diversion of yard and agricultural waste, prompt shipment, monitoring and inspection of bales, and thorough cleanup of any ruptures that do occur) are followed, establishment of Hawaiian plant pests via this pathway is highly unlikely. On April 19, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 20030-20041, Docket No. 05-002-2) a proposal 3 to amend the regulations in “Subpart—Garbage” (7 CFR 330.100 through 330.400) and 9 CFR 94.5 pertaining to certain garbage to provide for the interstate movement of garbage from Hawaii subject to measures designed to protect against the dissemination of plant pests into noninfested areas of the continental United States. 3 To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , click on the “Advanced Search” tab, and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2005-0047, then click on “Submit.” Clicking on the Docket ID link in the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the docket. We solicited comments on the proposed rule for 30 days ending on May 19, 2006. We received five comments by that date, including a request to extend the comment period. In a document published in the **Federal Register** on May 31, 2006 (Docket No. APHIS-2005-0047, 71 FR 30834), we reopened and extended the deadline for comments until June 5, 2006. We received an additional seven comments by that date. The comments came from several municipalities in Hawaii, waste companies, congressional representatives, the State of California, a tribal representative, and members of the general public. Of the 12 comments, 8 fully supported the proposal. The remaining commenters raised several issues, which are discussed below. Bale Technology *Comment:* APHIS must test the bale technology to ensure that the plastic bales will not breach. In addition, APHIS should use its own experts to validate the research data provided by the technology vendors and their consultants regarding the safety of bale technology. *Response:* As cited in the PRA, independent researchers have tested the baling technology in a variety of situations and firmly established its utility and effectiveness at creating airtight bales of MSW. Because these studies have been peer reviewed, APHIS believes that it is not necessary to repeat the testing performed in the underlying research. Pest Risk Assessment *Comment:* APHIS should revisit its PRA to clarify the roles played by compaction and shredding because whole fruit containing fruit fly or other insect eggs or larvae will not be affected by the anoxic conditions of the bales. *Response:* While insect eggs and larvae, including those of fruit flies and other agricultural pests, could theoretically survive in whole fruit under short-term anoxic conditions, whole fruit would not be present in the bales due to the processing, i.e., pulverizing or shredding followed by compaction, of the MSW prior to being baled. As described in the PRA, bale densities are expected to be in excess of 800 kg/m 3 , so compaction will likely kill most insects, including fruit flies, regardless of stage, and may also neutralize some weed seeds and nematodes. Moreover, bales that remain airtight from creation until burial completely mitigate the risk from all plant pests because the pests and pest propagules cannot escape. That mitigation is universal, i.e., it does not depend on pest type or taxonomy, and probably applies equally to both current and future pests that establish in Hawaii. *Comment:* How will APHIS ensure that noxious weeds would not be included in the bales of MSW? *Response:* As we discussed in the PRA, the exclusion of most yard and agricultural waste from the baling process will greatly reduce the likelihood that seeds of regulated pest plants will be present in the baled MSW. In addition, very few regulated species are likely to have viable seeds in the bales, either because they mostly reproduce vegetatively, or because they are not found in yards and gardens in residential areas in Hawaii. Species of concern to particular mainland States will be further evaluated in site-specific PRAs to identify any exceptions and assess their potential risks. Environmental Impacts *Comment:* APHIS should research the consequences of any spill of baled MSW during transport. *Response:* APHIS conducted several evaluations, including a PRA and an EA to determine the consequences of any spill involving bales containing MSW during transport from Hawaii to the mainland United States. We have determined that there is a very low likelihood that plant pests or noxious weeds would be introduced and disseminated into the mainland United States as a result of this action. As described in the PRA, there is a series of mitigations that would take place including limiting waste materials that would exist in the bales and ensuring proper staging, handling, transport, and burial of these bales. There will also be specific contingency plans for emergency response to potential spills outlined in compliance agreements with specific sites. In addition, short of a barge capsizing (which would be considered catastrophic events and would be cause to initiate emergency consultation), there is essentially no risk of impact on aquatic life from the transport of baled MSW from Hawaii to the mainland United States. Situations where there is potential for impacts occur wherever bales are moved from one staging area or mode of transportation to another. These transfer points include: The facility in Honolulu where bales are initially loaded onto the barges; the unloading facility on the mainland where bales are unloaded from the barges and loaded onto trucks; and the final destination where bales are unloaded from trucks and placed into the landfill. In some scenarios there could be intermediate steps requiring the handling of bales, e.g., an ocean-going barge may offload its bales onto smaller-sized barges to navigate a river; an ocean-going barge may offload its bales onto railcars; and railcars would then need to transfer their bales onto trucks for the final leg of the trip to the landfill. At each of the bale transfer points identified above, there is a small potential for dropping a bale into the water or, more likely, compromising the integrity of one or more bales of MSW which could result in spillage of the contents on the ground or into the water. In most cases the spilled MSW would be retrieved and the bale repackaged. If this were to happen over water, it would be more difficult to retrieve the spilled MSW, particularly if the integrity of the bale was breached. Any spill, in the event of a broken bale, would be handled in accordance with a spill cleanup plan, attached to each compliance agreement, that provides guidance on what detergents and disinfectants to use, how to safely use them, and how to avoid aquatic contamination. *Comment:* Shipping MSW to the mainland from Hawaii should only be done if alternative disposal options are not available. *Response:* Municipal jurisdictions within the State of Hawaii will be responsible for determining which disposal option to pursue. APHIS will be responsible for ensuring that if the disposal option includes the movement of MSW from Hawaii to the mainland United States, it occurs in accordance with conditions provided in our regulations and compliance agreements. *Comment:* Sending barges with MSW through the Columbia and Snake Rivers would negatively impact the number of fish in the area. *Response:* We do not believe that there will be a significant increase in barge traffic in this region due to this action. We will have the opportunity to quantify this assertion when we conduct a site specific PRA and EA for the Columbia River Basin. In addition, APHIS does not regulate barge traffic. Under our authority we ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests, noxious weeds, and animal diseases. APHIS did conduct a biological assessment for this action to determine impacts on listed species of fish and wildlife. We found that there are two types of risks that must be considered in such a situation. One is a physical disruption of the environment caused by the broken bales and the physical retrieval of their strewn contents. Compromised bales or spilled MSW that is on land can be retrieved relatively easily. MSW that is spilled into waterways will be more difficult to retrieve, and some may not be retrievable, resulting in an incremental degradation of the natural aquatic environment. Since hazardous wastes are not permitted, any negative impacts will be restricted to physical ones and no chemical pollution is likely to result from the MSW itself. The second type of risk that could result from breaking bales and the spilling of MSW could be from detergents and disinfectants that may be used during a cleanup of any spilled MSW that may occur on land. Detergents and disinfectants would not be effective in aquatic situations, and therefore, would not be used if spills were in or over water. If such tools were used during a cleanup effort, care must be taken to prevent them from entering waterways. Their use would be in accordance with a spill cleanup plan, attached to each compliance agreement, that provides guidance on what detergents and disinfectants to use, how to safely use them, and how to avoid aquatic contamination. As mentioned above, APHIS will develop a site-specific pest risk assessment and environmental assessment which will examine any risks associated with transporting MSW into specific regions. The public will have an opportunity to comment on those documents before they are finalized. *Comment:* Has APHIS conducted any studies on the potential to introduce new plant and animal pathogens to the Columbia Basin Region? *Response:* This final rule provides a general framework which will allow for the interstate movement of MSW from Hawaii under certain conditions. One condition of that movement will be that shipments will be moved under provisions outlined in a compliance agreement. A compliance agreement will be developed for each individual site on the mainland of the United States into which these shipments would be moved. For each compliance agreement, APHIS will develop a site-specific pest risk assessment and environmental assessment to examine the risks associated with transporting MSW into the specific region, including into the Columbia Basin region. Requested Change to the Regulations *Comment:* APHIS should add the staging requirement and certification of snail free shipments language found in the PRA to the regulatory text. *Response:* The regulations state that garbage must be processed, packaged, safeguarded, and disposed of using a methodology that the Administrator has determined is adequate to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests into noninfested areas of the United States. In addition, specific provisions will be outlined in individual compliance agreements for site-specific shipments. These provisions would be consistent with those in § 318.13-8, which pertain to inspection of articles and persons moved from Hawaii. We believe that the current provisions in the regulations, combined with site-specific compliance agreements, are sufficient to prevent the introduction and dissemination of snails and other hitchhikers. Tribal Consultation *Comment:* APHIS did not consult with Indian Tribes as directed under Executive Order
(EO)13175 and requested government-to-government consultation. *Response:* We were petitioned to amend our regulations by the operators of several landfills located in the area of the Columbia River Basin who expressed an interest in receiving MSW from Hawaii. Therefore, our initial contacts were limited to tribes located within that area. To comply with EO 13175, APHIS contacted the tribal chairs of each of the 13 tribes generally considered as Columbia River Basin Tribes (Burn Paiute Tribe, Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Colville Tribe, Kalispel Tribe, Kootenai Tribe, Nez Perce Tribe, Salish Kootenai Tribes, Shoshone Bannock Tribes, Shoshone Paiute Tribe, Spokane Tribe, Umatilla Indian Reservation, Warm Springs Reservation, and Yakama Indian Nation) in early November 2005. Each of these tribes has ties to the land and resources in and near the Columbia River and its drainage. APHIS believes that if there were any effects on tribes resulting from this rule, these are the tribes most likely to be affected. Each tribe was provided information on our proposed rule, environmental assessment, and pest risk analysis and offered an opportunity to request consultation. At about the same time, APHIS contacted tribal organizations to determine which additional tribes may be affected and should be contacted. The tribal organizations contacted were the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI), the National Congress of American Indians, the National Tribal Environmental Council, and the Intertribal Agriculture Council. In addition, APHIS contacted the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. In mid-February 2006, an Agency official provided a presentation about the proposed rule at the Winter Conference of the ATNI, and invited requests for tribal consultation. ATNI represents over 55 tribes in the Pacific Northwest. In early March 2006, the Agency sent reminders to tribal chairs stating that APHIS would consider requests for consultation until March 20, 2006. Although we received both oral and written comments from tribes and tribal members, we received no requests for consultation. In mid-April 2006, upon publication of the proposed rule, copies of the proposed rule, environmental assessment, and pest risk analysis were mailed to the tribal chairs of each of the above-listed tribes and also to the listed tribal organizations. APHIS encouraged tribes and tribal organizations to submit comments. Based on our actions as described above, we believe that we have complied with EO 13175 for the purposes of this rulemaking. We will follow this final rule with risk and environmental assessments as well as compliance agreements with specific waste management sites located on the mainland of the United States that have expressed interest in receiving MSW from Hawaii. At the time that we make the site-specific assessments available to the public, we will also invite potentially affected tribal governments to engage in consultations with APHIS. Change Regarding Agricultural and Yard Waste In the proposed rule, the regulations in 7 CFR 330.402(a)(2) and 9 CFR 94.5(d)(1)(ii) provided that “The interstate movement of agricultural wastes and yard waste from Hawaii to the continental United States is prohibited.” After further consideration, we have concluded that this provision, which implies a zero tolerance for agricultural or yard waste, is unrealistic. Despite the presence of yard waste recycling programs in Hawaii and the efforts of waste management companies to separate various types of waste, the presence of an incidental amount of agricultural or yard waste in baled MSW is, in practical terms, unavoidable. This situation was taken into account in the PRA, which recognized that there will likely be some minimal volume of agricultural and yard waste entering the pathway despite efforts to exclude that waste. Therefore, we have modified 7 CFR 330.402(a)(2) and 9 CFR 94.5(d)(1)(ii) in this final rule to read: “The interstate movement from Hawaii to the continental United States of agricultural wastes and yard waste (other than incidental amounts (less than 3 percent) that may be present in municipal solid waste despite reasonable efforts to maintain source separation) is prohibited.” 4 We believe this change will establish a more practical standard with respect to agricultural and yard waste while continuing to prohibit the interstate movement of dedicated shipments or large quantities of such waste. 4 Based on the mean percentage of yard waste at the Waimanalo Gulch landfill, Oahu (6.0 percent ± 3.4 percent) and on Hawaii (5.4 percent), if companies are only 50 percent effective with additional screening and removal of visible yard waste in transfer stations or on bale processing lines, the fraction of yard waste in baled Hawaiian MSW should be reduced to 3 percent or less. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the change discussed in this document. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. We are amending the regulations pertaining to certain garbage to provide for the interstate movement of garbage from Hawaii subject to measures designed to protect against the dissemination of plant pests into noninfested areas of the continental United States. We are amending these regulations upon request in order to provide the State of Hawaii with additional waste disposal options, and after determining that the action will not result in the introduction of plant or animal pests or diseases into the continental United States from Hawaii. For the purposes of this analysis, we have determined that the Island of Oahu (where Honolulu is located) is expected to be the source of most, if not all, of any MSW that is moved to the continental United States under the regulations. Oahu has only one municipal landfill (Waimanalo Gulch), and there is no alternative landfill on the island at the present time. Oahu generates approximately 1.6 million tons of MSW per year. That figure is expected to rise an additional 20,000 tons and remain at that level for the next 10 years. Of the current total, 500,000 tons are recycled, 600,000 tons are burned for electricity, and 500,000 tons are landfilled. Of the 500,000 tons that are landfilled, 200,000 tons go to a privately operated construction and demolition landfill and 300,000 tons go to Waimanalo Gulch municipal landfill. Waimanalo Gulch landfill is owned by the City of Honolulu and managed by a private company. The Island of Hawaii (where Hilo is located) is another potential source of MSW that would move to the continental United States if the proposal is adopted. The island's only two landfills are located approximately 75 miles apart, and one (South Hilo Sanitary Landfill) may be nearing capacity. To date, one waste management service company has proposed to bale and move at least some of the island's MSW to a landfill in Washington State. Approximately 200 tons of garbage per day is landfilled at the South Hilo facility. 5 5 Source: News accounts in the *Honolulu Star-Bulletin.* This rule will allow for the garbage to be compacted into bales, and then wrapped in plastic for transport to the mainland (the baling and wrapping would take place in the State of Hawaii). Estimates of the annual volume of MSW that would be shipped from Oahu to the continental United States range from 100,000 tons to 350,000 tons. 6 6 Source: News accounts in the *Honolulu Star-Bulletin* and APHIS staff. Similar estimates for the Island of Hawaii are not available. Need for Rule and Alternatives Considered These are being amended upon request to provide public officials in Hawaii another option for disposal of the State's waste. The only other regulatory alternative is to leave the regulations unchanged, but that alternative would unnecessarily limit Hawaiian officials' disposal options. Small Entity Impact The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)requires that agencies consider the economic impact of rules on small entities, *i.e.* , small businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. The changes to the regulations will allow for the movement of MSW from Hawaii to the continental United States. These changes will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because few entities, large or small, are likely to be affected. Only a handful of businesses are potentially affected by the rule— *e.g.* , the company or companies that would secure the contract to move the waste from Hawaii, the barge line or lines that would physically move the waste to the mainland, the trucking company/railroad on the mainland that would physically move the waste to the interior landfill locations, and perhaps a few companies on Hawaii that would be forced to discontinue participation (or play a reduced role) in the State's waste disposal process once shipments to the mainland began. Those businesses that will participate in the movement of the waste to the mainland could be expected to benefit, since they will generate additional revenue and, presumably, profits from the increased business activity. Conversely, those businesses that will either no longer participate or will play a reduced role in Hawaii's waste disposal process could be expected to suffer lost revenue. The revenues generated by the private company that manages the Waimanalo Gulch landfill, for example, are presumably tied to the volume of waste that is landfilled there. If waste is diverted from Waimanalo Gulch to the mainland, that company's revenues are likely to be reduced. The City of Honolulu and the County of Hawaii are also potentially affected by the proposed changes. The preceding discussion assumes that the rule will not have significant environmentally related economic consequences for small entities. There are several reasons. First, the environmental assessment in this document concludes that the movement of MSW from Hawaii to the continental United States (using the plastic-baled methodology) will not have a significant impact on the environment. Second, site-specific environmental assessments will also be prepared as requests for compliance agreements are made. The site-specific assessments, which will be made available for public comment, will allow APHIS to address any environmental issues that may arise based on precise destination and handling protocols for the proposed movements, which are now unknown. Although the size of virtually all of the businesses potentially affected by the rule is unknown, it is reasonable to assume that at least some could be small. This assumption is based on composite data for providers of the same and similar services in the United States. As an example, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) category 562 (“Waste Management and Remediation Services”) consists of establishments engaged in the collection, treatment, and disposal of waste materials. Under the U.S. Small Business Administration's
(SBA)size standards, the small entity threshold for establishments that fall into most of the activity subcategories under NAICS 562 is annual receipts of $10.5 million. For all 18,405 U.S. establishments in NAICS 562 in 2002, average per-establishment receipts that year were $2.8 million, an indication that most waste management service companies are small entities. 7 Annual receipt data for three of the four firms that have proposed to move Hawaii's waste to the mainland are not available. Although annual receipt data for the fourth company are also not available, that company is considered large by virtue of it being a subsidiary of a publicly owned firm with receipts (operating revenues) of over $13 billion in 1999. 8 The private company that currently manages the Waimanalo Gulch landfill is also a subsidiary of that publicly owned firm. 7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2002 Economic Census) and SBA. 8 Source: Various Internet sites. As another example, there were 677 U.S. entities in NAICS category 483113 in 2002. NAICS 483113 consists of entities primarily engaged in providing deep sea transportation of cargo to and from domestic ports. For all 677 entities, average per-entity employment that year was 36, well below the SBA's small entity threshold of 500 employees for entities in that NAICS category. 9 9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2002 Economic Census) and SBA. Under the RFA, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” generally means cities, counties, townships, etc., with a population of less than 50,000. The City of Honolulu, which owns the Waimanalo Gulch landfill, does not qualify as a small entity because its population exceeds 50,000. The County of Hawaii, where Hilo is located, also has a population that exceeds 50,000. The changes to the regulations will not, as noted previously, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because few entities, large or small, are likely to be affected. The size of virtually all of the businesses potentially affected by the changes to the regulations is unknown, but it is reasonable to assume that at least some could be small. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. National Environmental Policy Act An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared for this final rule. The environmental assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that the importation of MSW from Hawaii to the mainland United States will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared in accordance with:
(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),
(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site. 10 Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on
(202)690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 10 Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* click on the “Advanced Search” tab and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2005-0047, click on “Submit,” then click on the Docket ID link in the search results page. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact will appear in the resulting list of documents. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB control number 0579-0292. E-Government Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 330 Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. 9 CFR Part 94 Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 330 and 9 CFR part 94 as follows: Title 7—[Amended] PART 330—FEDERAL PLANT PEST REGULATIONS; GENERAL; PLANT PESTS; SOIL, STONE, AND QUARRY PRODUCTS; GARBAGE 1. The authority citation for part 330 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 2. In § 330.100, a definition for *State* is added and the definition for *United States* is revised to read as follows: § 330.100 Definitions. *State.* Any of the several States of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other territory or possession of the United States. *United States.* All of the States. 3. Subpart—Garbage, § 330.400, is revised to read as follows: Subpart—Garbage Sec. 330.400 Regulation of certain garbage. 330.401 Garbage generated onboard a conveyance. 330.402 Garbage generated in Hawaii. 330.403 Compliance agreement and cancellation. Subpart—Garbage § 330.400 Regulation of certain garbage.
(a)*Certain interstate movements and imports* —(1) *Interstate movements of garbage from Hawaii and U.S. territories and possessions to other States.* Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau are hereby quarantined, and the movement of garbage therefrom to any other State is hereby prohibited except as provided in this subpart in order to prevent the introduction and spread of exotic plant pests and diseases.
(2)*Imports of garbage.* In order to protect against the introduction of exotic animal and plant pests and diseases, the importation of garbage from all foreign countries except Canada is prohibited except as provided in § 330.401(b).
(b)*Definitions* — *Agricultural waste.* Byproducts generated by the rearing of animals and the production and harvest of crops or trees. Animal waste, a large component of agricultural waste, includes waste ( *e.g.* , feed waste, bedding and litter, and feedlot and paddock runoff) from livestock, dairy, and other animal-related agricultural and farming practices. *Approved facility.* A facility approved by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, upon his determination that it has equipment and uses procedures that are adequate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases, and that it is certified by an appropriate Government official as currently complying with the applicable laws for environmental protection. *Approved sewage system.* A sewage system approved by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, upon his determination that the system is designed and operated in such a way as to preclude the discharge of sewage effluents onto land surfaces or into lagoons or other stationary waters, and otherwise is adequate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases, and that is certified by an appropriate Government official as currently complying with the applicable laws for environmental protection. *Carrier.* The principal operator of a means of conveyance. *Garbage.* All waste material that is derived in whole or in part from fruits, vegetables, meats, or other plant or animal (including poultry) material, and other refuse of any character whatsoever that has been associated with any such material. *Incineration.* To reduce garbage to ash by burning. *Interstate.* From one State into or through any other State. *Sterilization.* Cooking garbage at an internal temperature of 212 °F for 30 minutes. *Stores.* The food, supplies, and other provisions carried for the day-to-day operation of a conveyance and the care and feeding of its operators. *Yard waste.* Solid waste composed predominantly of grass clippings, leaves, twigs, branches, and other garden refuse. § 330.401 Garbage generated onboard a conveyance.
(a)*Applicability.* This section applies to garbage generated onboard any means of conveyance during international or interstate movements as provided in this section and includes food scraps, table refuse, galley refuse, food wrappers or packaging materials, and other waste material from stores, food preparation areas, passengers' or crews' quarters, dining rooms, or any other areas on the means of conveyance. This section also applies to meals and other food that were available for consumption by passengers and crew on an aircraft but were not consumed.
(1)Not all garbage generated onboard a means of conveyance is regulated for the purposes of this section. Garbage regulated for the purposes of this section is defined as “regulated garbage” in paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of this section.
(2)Garbage that is commingled with regulated garbage is also regulated garbage.
(b)*Garbage regulated because of movements outside the United States or Canada.* For purposes of this section, garbage on or removed from a means of conveyance is regulated garbage, if, when the garbage is on or removed from the means of conveyance, the means of conveyance has been in any port outside the United States and Canada within the previous 2-year period. There are, however, two exceptions to this provision. These exceptions are as follows:
(1)*Exception 1: Aircraft.* Garbage on or removed from an aircraft is exempt from requirements under paragraph
(d)of this section if the following conditions are met when the garbage is on or removed from the aircraft:
(i)The aircraft had previously been cleared of all garbage and of all meats and meat products, whatever the country of origin, except meats that are shelf-stable; all fresh and condensed milk and cream from countries designated in 9 CFR 94.1 as those in which foot-and-mouth disease exists; all fresh fruits and vegetables; and all eggs; and the items previously cleared from the aircraft as prescribed by this paragraph have been disposed of according to the procedures for disposing of regulated garbage, as specified in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section.
(ii)After the garbage and stores referred to in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section were removed, the aircraft has not been in a non-Canadian foreign port.
(2)*Exception 2: Other conveyances.* Garbage on or removed in the United States from a means of conveyance other than an aircraft is exempt from requirements under paragraph
(d)of this section if the following conditions are met when the garbage is on or removed from the means of conveyance:
(i)The means of conveyance is accompanied by a certificate from an inspector stating the following:
(A)That the means of conveyance had previously been cleared of all garbage and of all meats and meat products, whatever the country of origin, except meats that are shelf-stable; all fresh and condensed milk and cream from countries designated in 9 CFR 94.1 as those in which foot-and-mouth disease exists; all fresh fruits and vegetables; and all eggs; and the items previously cleared from the means of conveyance as prescribed by this paragraph have been disposed of according to the procedures for disposing of regulated garbage, as specified in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section.
(B)That the means of conveyance had then been cleaned and disinfected in the presence of the inspector; and
(ii)Since being cleaned and disinfected, the means of conveyance has not been in a non-Canadian foreign port.
(c)*Garbage regulated because of certain movements to or from Hawaii, territories, or possessions.* For purposes of this section, garbage on or removed from a means of conveyance is regulated garbage, if at the time the garbage is on or removed from the means of conveyance, the means of conveyance has moved during the previous 1-year period, either directly or indirectly, to the continental United States from any territory or possession or from Hawaii, to any territory or possession from any other territory or possession or from Hawaii, or to Hawaii from any territory or possession. There are, however, two exceptions to this provision. These exceptions are as follows:
(1)*Exception 1: Aircraft.* Garbage on or removed from an aircraft is exempt from requirements under paragraph
(d)of this section if the following two conditions are met when the garbage is on or removed from the aircraft:
(i)The aircraft had been previously cleared of all garbage and all fresh fruits and vegetables, and the items previously cleared from the aircraft as prescribed by this paragraph have been disposed of according to the procedures for disposing of regulated garbage, as specified in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section.
(ii)After the garbage and stores referred to in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section were removed, the aircraft has not moved to the continental United States from any territory or possession or from Hawaii; to any territory or possession from any other territory or possession or from Hawaii; or to Hawaii from any territory or possession.
(2)*Exception 2: Other conveyances.* Garbage on or removed from a means of conveyance other than an aircraft is exempt from requirements under paragraph
(d)of this section if the following two conditions are met when the garbage is on or removed from the means of conveyance:
(i)The means of conveyance is accompanied by a certificate from an inspector stating that the means of conveyance had been cleared of all garbage and all fresh fruits and vegetables; and the items previously cleared from the means of conveyance as prescribed by this paragraph have been disposed of according to the procedures for disposing of regulated garbage, as specified in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section.
(ii)After being cleared of the garbage and stores referred to in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, the means of conveyance has not moved to the continental United States from any territory or possession or from Hawaii; to any territory or possession from any other territory or possession or from Hawaii; or to Hawaii from any territory or possession.
(d)*Restrictions on regulated garbage.*
(1)Regulated garbage may not be disposed of, placed on, or removed from a means of conveyance except in accordance with this section.
(2)Regulated garbage is subject to general surveillance for compliance with this section by inspectors and to disposal measures authorized by the Plant Protection Act and the Animal Health Protection Act to prevent the introduction and dissemination of pests and diseases of plants and livestock.
(3)All regulated garbage must be contained in tight, covered, leak-proof receptacles during storage on board a means of conveyance while in the territorial waters, or while otherwise within the territory of the United States. All such receptacles shall be contained inside the guard rail if on a watercraft. Such regulated garbage shall not be unloaded from such means of conveyance in the United States unless such regulated garbage is removed in tight, covered, leak-proof receptacles under the direction of an inspector to an approved facility for incineration, sterilization, or grinding into an approved sewage system, under direct supervision by such an inspector, or such regulated garbage is removed for other handling in such manner and under such supervision as may, upon request in specific cases, be approved by the Administrator as adequate to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests and animal diseases and sufficient to ensure compliance with applicable laws for environmental protection. *Provided that* , a cruise ship may dispose of regulated garbage in landfills at Alaskan ports only, if and only if the cruise ship does not have prohibited or restricted meat or animal products on board at the time it enters Alaskan waters for the cruise season, and only if the cruise ship, except for incidental travel through international waters necessary to navigate safely between ports, remains in Canadian and U.S. waters off the west coast of North America, and calls only at continental U.S. and Canadian ports during the entire cruise season.
(i)Application for approval of a facility or sewage system may be made in writing by the authorized representative of any carrier or by the official having jurisdiction over the port or place of arrival of the means of conveyance to the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250. The application must be endorsed by the operator of the facility or sewage system.
(ii)Approval will be granted if the Administrator determines that the requirements set forth in this section are met. Approval may be denied or withdrawn at any time, if the Administrator determines that such requirements are not met, after notice of the proposed denial or withdrawal of the approval and the reasons therefor, and an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with such requirements, has been afforded to the operator of the facility or sewage system and to the applicant for approval. However, approval may also be withdrawn without such prior procedure in any case in which the public health, interest, or safety requires immediate action, and in such case, the operator of the facility or sewage system and the applicant for approval shall promptly thereafter be given notice of the withdrawal and the reasons therefor and an opportunity to show cause why the approval should be reinstated.
(e)The Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs and Veterinary Services, Animal, and Plant Health Inspection Service, will cooperate with other Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for enforcing other statutes and regulations governing disposal of the regulated garbage to the end that such disposal shall be adequate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases and comply with applicable laws for environmental protection. The inspectors, in maintaining surveillance over regulated garbage movements and disposal, shall coordinate their activities with the activities of representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal, State, and local agencies also having jurisdiction over such regulated garbage § 330.402 Garbage generated in Hawaii.
(a)*Applicability.* This section applies to garbage generated in households, commercial establishments, institutions, and businesses prior to interstate movement from Hawaii, and includes used paper, discarded cans and bottles, and food scraps. Such garbage includes, and is commonly known as, municipal solid waste.
(1)Industrial process wastes, mining wastes, sewage sludge, incinerator ash, or other wastes from Hawaii that the Administrator determines do not pose risks of introducing animal or plant pests or diseases into the continental United States are not regulated under this section.
(2)The interstate movement from Hawaii to the continental United States of agricultural wastes and yard waste (other than incidental amounts (less than 3 percent) that may be present in municipal solid waste despite reasonable efforts to maintain source separation) is prohibited.
(3)Garbage generated onboard any means of conveyance during interstate movement from Hawaii is regulated under § 330.401.
(b)*Restrictions on interstate movement of garbage.* The interstate movement of garbage generated in Hawaii to the continental United States is regulated as provided in this section.
(1)The garbage must be processed, packaged, safeguarded, and disposed of using a methodology that the Administrator has determined is adequate to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests into noninfested areas of the United States.
(2)The garbage must be moved under a compliance agreement in accordance with § 330.403. APHIS will only enter into a compliance agreement when the Administrator is satisfied that the Agency has first satisfied all its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and all applicable Federal and State statutes to fully assess the impacts associated with the movement of garbage under the compliance agreement.
(3)All such garbage moved interstate from Hawaii to any of the continental United States must be moved in compliance with all applicable laws for environmental protection. § 330.403 Compliance agreement and cancellation.
(a)Any person engaged in the business of handling or disposing of garbage in accordance with this subpart must first enter into a compliance agreement with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Compliance agreement forms (PPQ Form 519) are available without charge from local USDA/APHIS/Plant Protection and Quarantine offices, which are listed in telephone directories.
(b)A person who enters into a compliance agreement, and employees or agents of that person, must comply with the following conditions and any supplemental conditions which are listed in the compliance agreement, as deemed by the Administrator to be necessary to prevent the dissemination into or within the United States of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases:
(1)Comply with all applicable provisions of this subpart;
(2)Allow inspectors access to all records maintained by the person regarding handling or disposal of garbage, and to all areas where handling or disposal of garbage occurs; (3)(i) If the garbage is regulated under § 330.401, remove garbage from a means of conveyance only in tight, covered, leak-proof receptacles;
(ii)If the garbage is regulated under § 330.402, transport garbage interstate in packaging approved by the Administrator;
(4)Move the garbage only to a facility approved by the Administrator; and
(5)At the approved facility, dispose of the garbage in a manner approved by the Administrator and described in the compliance agreement.
(c)Approval for a compliance agreement may be denied at any time if the Administrator determines that the applicant has not met or is unable to meet the requirements set forth in this subpart. Prior to denying any application for a compliance agreement, APHIS will provide notice to the applicant thereof, and will provide the applicant with an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with requirements.
(d)Any compliance agreement may be canceled, either orally or in writing, by an inspector whenever the inspector finds that the person who has entered into the compliance agreement has failed to comply with this subpart. If the cancellation is oral, the cancellation and the reasons for the cancellation will be confirmed in writing as promptly as circumstances allow. Any person whose compliance agreement has been canceled may appeal the decision, in writing, within 10 days after receiving written notification of the cancellation. The appeal must state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the compliance agreement was wrongfully canceled. As promptly as circumstances allow, the Administrator will grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for the decision. A hearing will be held to resolve any conflict as to any material fact. Rules of practice concerning a hearing will be adopted by the Administrator. This administrative remedy must be exhausted before a person can file suit in court challenging the cancellation of a compliance agreement.
(e)Where a compliance agreement is denied or canceled, the person who entered into or applied for the compliance agreement may be prohibited, at the discretion of the Administrator, from handling or disposing of regulated garbage. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0015, 0579-0054, and 0579-0292) Title 9—[AMENDED] PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 4. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 5. In § 94.0, a definition for *State* is added and the definition for *United States* is revised to read as follows: § 94.0 Definitions. *State.* Any of the several States of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other territory or possession of the United States. *United States.* All of the States. 6. Section 94.5 is revised to read as follows: § 94.5 Regulation of certain garbage.
(a)*General restrictions* —(1) *Interstate movements of garbage from Hawaii and U.S. territories and possessions to the continental United States.* Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau are hereby quarantined, and the movement of garbage therefrom to any other State is hereby prohibited except as provided in this section in order to prevent the introduction and spread of exotic plant pests and diseases.
(2)*Imports of garbage.* In order to protect against the introduction of exotic animal and plant pests, the importation of garbage from all foreign countries except Canada is prohibited except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(b)*Definitions* — *Agricultural waste.* Byproducts generated by the rearing of animals and the production and harvest of crops or trees. Animal waste, a large component of agricultural waste, includes waste ( *e.g.* , feed waste, bedding and litter, and feedlot and paddock runoff) from livestock, dairy, and other animal-related agricultural and farming practices. *Approved facility.* A facility approved by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, upon his determination that it has equipment and uses procedures that are adequate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases, and that it is certified by an appropriate Government official as currently complying with the applicable laws for environmental protection. *Approved sewage system.* A sewage system approved by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, upon his determination that the system is designed and operated in such a way as to preclude the discharge of sewage effluents onto land surfaces or into lagoons or other stationary waters, and otherwise is adequate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases, and that is certified by an appropriate Government official as currently complying with the applicable laws for environmental protection. *Carrier.* The principal operator of a means of conveyance. *Continental United States.* The 49 States located on the continent of North America and the District of Columbia. *Garbage.* All waste material that is derived in whole or in part from fruits, vegetables, meats, or other plant or animal (including poultry) material, and other refuse of any character whatsoever that has been associated with any such material. *Incineration.* To reduce garbage to ash by burning. *Inspector.* A properly identified employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or other person authorized by the Department to enforce the provisions of applicable statutes, quarantines, and regulations. *Interstate* . From one State into or through any other State. *Person.* Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company. *Shelf-stable.* The condition achieved in a product, by application of heat, alone or in combination with other ingredients and/or other treatments, of being rendered free of microorganisms capable of growing in the product under nonrefrigerated conditions (over 50 °F or 10 °C). *Sterilization.* Cooking garbage at an internal temperature of 212 °F for 30 minutes. *Stores.* The food, supplies, and other provisions carried for the day-to-day operation of a conveyance and the care and feeding of its operators. *Yard waste.* Solid waste composed predominantly of grass clippings, leaves, twigs, branches, and other garden refuse.
(c)*Garbage generated onboard a conveyance* —(1) *Applicability.* This section applies to garbage generated onboard any means of conveyance during international or interstate movements as provided in this section and includes food scraps, table refuse, galley refuse, food wrappers or packaging materials, and other waste material from stores, food preparation areas, passengers' or crews' quarters, dining rooms, or any other areas on the means of conveyance. This section also applies to meals and other food that were available for consumption by passengers and crew on an aircraft but were not consumed.
(i)Not all garbage generated onboard a means of conveyance is regulated for the purposes of this section. Garbage regulated for the purposes of this section is defined as “regulated garbage” in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section.
(ii)Garbage that is commingled with regulated garbage is also regulated garbage.
(2)*Garbage regulated because of movements outside the United States or Canada.* For purposes of this section, garbage on or removed from a means of conveyance is regulated garbage, if, when the garbage is on or removed from the means of conveyance, the means of conveyance has been in any port outside the United States and Canada within the previous 2-year period. There are, however, two exceptions to this provision. These exceptions are as follows:
(i)*Exception 1: Aircraft.* Garbage on or removed from an aircraft is exempt from requirements under paragraph (c)(4) of this section if the following conditions are met when the garbage is on or removed from the aircraft:
(A)The aircraft had previously been cleared of all garbage and of all meats and meat products, whatever the country of origin, except meats that are shelf-stable; all fresh and condensed milk and cream from countries designated in § 94.1 as those in which foot-and-mouth disease exists; all fresh fruits and vegetables; and all eggs; and the items previously cleared from the aircraft as prescribed by this paragraph have been disposed of according to the procedures for disposing of regulated garbage, as specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (c)(4)(iii) of this section.
(B)After the garbage and stores referred to in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section were removed, the aircraft has not been in a non-Canadian foreign port.
(ii)*Exception 2: Other conveyances.* Garbage on or removed in the United States from a means of conveyance other than an aircraft is exempt from requirements under paragraph (c)(4) of this section if the following conditions are met when the garbage is on or removed from the means of conveyance:
(A)The means of conveyance is accompanied by a certificate from an inspector stating the following: ( *1* ) That the means of conveyance had previously been cleared of all garbage and of all meats and meat products, whatever the country of origin, except meats that are shelf-stable; all fresh and condensed milk and cream from countries designated in § 94.1 as those in which foot-and-mouth disease exists; all fresh fruits and vegetables; and all eggs; and the items previously cleared from the means of conveyance as prescribed by this paragraph have been disposed of according to the procedures for disposing of regulated garbage, as specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (c)(4)(iii) of this section. ( *2* ) That the means of conveyance had then been cleaned and disinfected in the presence of the inspector; and
(B)Since being cleaned and disinfected, the means of conveyance has not been in a non-Canadian foreign port.
(3)*Garbage regulated because of certain movements to or from Hawaii, territories, or possessions.* For purposes of this section, garbage on or removed from a means of conveyance is regulated garbage, if at the time the garbage is on or removed from the means of conveyance, the means of conveyance has moved during the previous 1-year period, either directly or indirectly, to the continental United States from any territory or possession or from Hawaii, to any territory or possession from any other territory or possession or from Hawaii, or to Hawaii from any territory or possession. There are, however, two exceptions to this provision. These exceptions are as follows:
(i)*Exception 1: Aircraft.* Garbage on or removed from an aircraft is exempt from requirements under paragraph (c)(4) of this section if the following two conditions are met when the garbage is on or removed from the aircraft:
(A)The aircraft had been previously cleared of all garbage and all fresh fruits and vegetables, and the items previously cleared from the aircraft as prescribed by this paragraph have been disposed of according to the procedures for disposing of regulated garbage, as specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (c)(4)(iii) of this section.
(B)After the garbage and stores referred to in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this section were removed, the aircraft has not moved to the continental United States from any territory or possession or from Hawaii, to any territory or possession from any other territory or possession or from Hawaii, or to Hawaii from any territory or possession.
(ii)*Exception 2: Other conveyances.* Garbage on or removed from a means of conveyance other than an aircraft is exempt from requirements under paragraph (c)(4) of this section if the following two conditions are met when the garbage is on or removed from the means of conveyance:
(A)The means of conveyance is accompanied by a certificate from an inspector stating that the means of conveyance had been cleared of all garbage and all fresh fruits and vegetables, and the items previously cleared from the means of conveyance as prescribed by this paragraph have been disposed of according to the procedures for disposing of regulated garbage, as specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (c)(4)(iii) of this section.
(B)After being cleared of the garbage and stores referred to in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, the means of conveyance has not moved to the continental United States from any territory or possession or from Hawaii; to any territory or possession from any other territory or possession or from Hawaii; or to Hawaii from any territory or possession.
(4)*Restrictions on regulated garbage.*
(i)Regulated garbage may not be disposed of, placed on, or removed from a means of conveyance except in accordance with this section.
(ii)Regulated garbage is subject to general surveillance for compliance with this section by inspectors and to disposal measures authorized by the Plant Protection Act and the Animal Health Protection Act to prevent the introduction and dissemination of pests and diseases of plants and livestock.
(iii)All regulated garbage must be contained in tight, covered, leak-proof receptacles during storage on board a means of conveyance while in the territorial waters, or while otherwise within the territory of the United States. All such receptacles shall be contained inside the guard rail if on a watercraft. Such regulated garbage shall not be unloaded from such means of conveyance in the United States unless such regulated garbage is removed in tight, covered, leak-proof receptacles under the direction of an inspector to an approved facility for incineration, sterilization, or grinding into an approved sewage system, under direct supervision by such an inspector, or such regulated garbage is removed for other handling in such manner and under such supervision as may, upon request in specific cases, be approved by the Administrator as adequate to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests and animal diseases and sufficient to ensure compliance with applicable laws for environmental protection. *Provided that,* a cruise ship may dispose of regulated garbage in landfills at Alaskan ports only, if and only if the cruise ship does not have prohibited or restricted meat or animal products on board at the time it enters Alaskan waters for the cruise season, and only if the cruise ship, except for incidental travel through international waters necessary to navigate safely between ports, remains in Canadian and U.S. waters off the west coast of North America, and calls only at continental U.S. and Canadian ports during the entire cruise season.
(A)Application for approval of a facility or sewage system may be made in writing by the authorized representative of any carrier or by the official having jurisdiction over the port or place of arrival of the means of conveyance to the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250. The application must be endorsed by the operator of the facility or sewage system.
(B)Approval will be granted if the Administrator determines that the requirements set forth in this section are met. Approval may be denied or withdrawn at any time, if the Administrator determines that such requirements are not met, after notice of the proposed denial or withdrawal of the approval and the reasons therefor, and an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with such requirements, has been afforded to the operator of the facility or sewage system and to the applicant for approval. However, approval may also be withdrawn without such prior procedure in any case in which the public health, interest, or safety requires immediate action, and in such case, the operator of the facility or sewage system and the applicant for approval shall promptly thereafter be given notice of the withdrawal and the reasons therefore and an opportunity to show cause why the approval should be reinstated.
(iv)The Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs and Veterinary Services, Animal, and Plant Health Inspection Service, will cooperate with other Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for enforcing other statutes and regulations governing disposal of the regulated garbage to the end that such disposal shall be adequate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases and comply with applicable laws for environmental protection. The inspectors, in maintaining surveillance over regulated garbage movements and disposal, shall coordinate their activities with the activities of representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal, State, and local agencies also having jurisdiction over such regulated garbage.
(d)*Garbage generated in Hawaii* —(1) *Applicability.* This section applies to garbage generated in households, commercial establishments, institutions, and businesses prior to interstate movement from Hawaii, and includes used paper, discarded cans and bottles, and food scraps. Such garbage includes, and is commonly known as, municipal solid waste.
(i)Industrial process wastes, mining wastes, sewage sludge, incinerator ash, or other wastes from Hawaii that the Administrator determines do not pose risks of introducing animal or plant pests or diseases into the continental United States are not regulated under this section.
(ii)The interstate movement from Hawaii to the continental United States of agricultural wastes and yard waste (other than incidental amounts (less than 3 percent) that may be present in municipal solid waste despite reasonable efforts to maintain source separation) is prohibited.
(iii)Garbage generated onboard any means of conveyance during interstate movement from Hawaii is regulated under paragraph
(c)of this section.
(2)*Restrictions on interstate movement of garbage.* The interstate movement of garbage generated in Hawaii to the continental United States is regulated as provided in this section.
(i)The garbage must be processed, packaged, safeguarded, and disposed of using a methodology that the Administrator has determined is adequate to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests into noninfested areas of the United States.
(ii)The garbage must be moved under a compliance agreement in accordance with paragraph
(e)of this section. APHIS will only enter into a compliance agreement when the Administrator is satisfied that the Agency has first satisfied all its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and all applicable Federal and State statutes to fully assess the impacts associated with the movement of garbage under the compliance agreement.
(iii)All such garbage moved interstate from Hawaii to any of the continental United States must be moved in compliance with all applicable laws for environmental protection.
(e)*Compliance agreement and cancellation* —(1) Any person engaged in the business of handling or disposing of garbage in accordance with this section must first enter into a compliance agreement with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Compliance agreement forms (PPQ Form 519) are available without charge from local USDA/APHIS/Plant Protection and Quarantine offices, which are listed in telephone directories.
(2)A person who enters into a compliance agreement, and employees or agents of that person, must comply with the following conditions and any supplemental conditions which are listed in the compliance agreement, as deemed by the Administrator to be necessary to prevent the introduction and dissemination into or within the United States of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases:
(i)Comply with all applicable provisions of this section;
(ii)Allow inspectors access to all records maintained by the person regarding handling or disposal of garbage, and to all areas where handling or disposal of garbage occurs; (iii)(A) If the garbage is regulated under paragraph
(c)of this section, remove garbage from a means of conveyance only in tight, covered, leak-proof receptacles;
(B)If the garbage is regulated under paragraph
(d)of this section, transport garbage interstate in sealed, leak-proof packaging approved by the Administrator;
(iv)Move the garbage only to a facility approved by the Administrator; and
(v)At the approved facility, dispose of the garbage in a manner approved by the Administrator and described in the compliance agreement.
(3)Approval for a compliance agreement may be denied at any time if the Administrator determines that the applicant has not met or is unable to meet the requirements set forth in this section. Prior to denying any application for a compliance agreement, APHIS will provide notice to the applicant thereof, and will provide the applicant with an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with requirements.
(4)Any compliance agreement may be canceled, either orally or in writing, by an inspector whenever the inspector finds that the person who has entered into the compliance agreement has failed to comply with this section. If the cancellation is oral, the cancellation and the reasons for the cancellation will be confirmed in writing as promptly as circumstances allow. Any person whose compliance agreement has been canceled may appeal the decision, in writing, within 10 days after receiving written notification of the cancellation. The appeal must state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the compliance agreement was wrongfully canceled. As promptly as circumstances allow, the Administrator will grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for the decision. A hearing will be held to resolve any conflict as to any material fact. Rules of practice concerning a hearing will be adopted by the Administrator. This administrative remedy must be exhausted before a person can file suit in court challenging the cancellation of a compliance agreement.
(5)Where a compliance agreement is denied or canceled, the person who entered into or applied for the compliance agreement may be prohibited, at the discretion of the Administrator, from handling or disposing of regulated garbage. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0015, 0579-0054, and 0579-0292) Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of August 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-13968 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 352 [Docket No. 00-086-2] Untreated Oranges, Tangerines, and Grapefruit From Mexico Transiting the United States to Foreign Countries AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations to allow untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico to be moved overland by truck or rail to Corpus Christi and Houston, TX, for export to another country by water. We are taking this action in response to requests by the port authorities of Corpus Christi and Houston, TX. We are also requiring that untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States for export to another country be shipped in sealed, refrigerated containers and insect-proof packaging and via routes that avoid citrus production areas. We are taking this action to provide additional protection against the possible introduction of fruit flies via untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dave Hanken, Senior Staff Officer, or Ms. Candace Funk, Staff Officer, Quarantine Policy, Analysis, and Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-8295. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The plant quarantine safeguard regulations in 7 CFR part 352 relieve restrictions for certain products or articles that are classified as prohibited or restricted products or articles under our other regulations in title 7. Such articles include fruits and vegetables that are moved into the United States for:
(1)A temporary stay where unloading or landing is not intended,
(2)unloading or landing for transshipment and exportation,
(3)unloading or landing for transportation and exportation, or
(4)unloading and entry at a port other than the port of first arrival. Fruits and vegetables that are moved into the United States under these circumstances are subject to inspection and must be handled in accordance with conditions assigned under the safeguard regulations to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests. The regulations in § 352.30 (referred to below as the regulations) address the movement into or through the United States of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States en route to foreign countries. The regulations currently allow untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico to enter the United States at the ports of Nogales, AZ, or Eagle Pass, El Paso, or Laredo, TX. The fruit may then be moved, under certain conditions, by truck or railcar to the seaport at Galveston, TX, for export by water to another country. The port authorities of Corpus Christi and Houston, TX, have requested that those ports be added to the regulations as ports to which untreated Mexican oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit may be moved for export by water. In response to these requests, on December 4, 2001, we published in the **Federal Register** (66 FR 63004-63007, Docket No. 00-086-1) a proposal to amend the regulations by adding Corpus Christi and Houston, TX, to the list of ports to which we allow untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico to be moved overland by truck or rail for export by water to another country. We took this action based on our finding that the risk posed by allowing untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit to transit the United States for export at the ports of Corpus Christi and Houston, TX, would be no different than the risk currently posed by in-transit shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit moved from Mexico to Galveston, TX, for export. The regulations in § 352.30(b) prescribe that trucks transporting untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico on overland routes either must be of the van type or must have a tarpaulin tightly tied down over the cargo. In our December 2001 proposed rule, we proposed to amend these regulations to require that such fruit be transported in sealed, refrigerated containers of the type commonly used by the maritime and commercial trucking industries. Fruit flies are known to exist in some areas of Mexico where oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit are grown, and the areas that untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico may transit within the United States while en route to export include some citrus-producing areas. Given those circumstances, we believed the transport conditions in place should be amended to better assure protection against the introduction of fruit flies into the United States. The requirement that untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit be shipped in sealed, refrigerated containers would help, we stated, to reduce the risk of such an introduction. We also proposed to update the regulations in § 352.30(e), which contains a cross-reference to our regulations in § 319.56-2h that list areas in Mexico that are free of certain fruit flies. Paragraph
(e)of § 352.30 names only Sonora as a region in Mexico free of fruit flies; however, other regions of Mexico have been listed in § 319.56-2(h) as being free of fruit flies since § 352.30(e) was established. We proposed to eliminate the reference to Sonora and simply refer to the list of fruit fly-free areas in § 319.56-2(h) to make the regulations consistent. We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending February 4, 2002. We received 5 comments by that date. They were from industry representatives and representatives of State governments. They are discussed below by topic. Two commenters wanted APHIS to withdraw the proposed rule on the grounds that any rule that might increase the risk of fruit flies being introduced into the United States should be opposed. One commenter cited the discovery of Mediterranean fruit fly larvae in cold-treated Spanish clementines in 2001 in arguing that allowing untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit to transit the United States for eventual export posed an unacceptable risk. This commenter also noted that recent fruit fly eradication programs in Florida and California have been costly. As stated above, APHIS currently allows untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit to transit the United States under certain conditions for eventual export to another country from the seaport at Galveston, TX. We proposed to allow such fruit to be exported from Corpus Christi and Houston, TX, based on our finding that the risk posed by allowing untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit to transit the United States for export at the ports of Corpus Christi and Houston, TX, would be no different than the risk currently posed by in-transit shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit moved from Mexico to Galveston, TX, for export. Therefore, we believe there is no increase in the risk of introduction of fruit flies into the United States associated with allowing in-transit shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit to be moved from Mexico to Corpus Christi or Houston, TX. It is true that if the ability to use the ports at Corpus Christi and Houston, TX, made the process of exporting more convenient or less costly for Mexican exporters of oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit, a greater volume of the fruits in question might move through the United States, which could potentially increase the risk of introducing fruit flies. However, the proposed rule included new safeguards not found in the current regulations against the possible introduction of fruit flies. In response to comments we received on the proposed rule, this final rule retains those proposed new safeguards and adds additional safeguards, which include insect-proof packaging, transportation of the fruit in refrigerated containers, transportation and exportation permits, required supervision by inspectors of transloading if it is necessary, and verification of the seals on the containers. Because we are adding these safeguards for shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States, we believe we are not relaxing our regulations or increasing the risk of introduction of fruit flies into the United States. One of the commenters stated that allowing untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit to transit the United States for eventual export from Galveston, TX, as is currently allowed by the regulations, poses an unacceptable risk of introducing fruit flies into the United States. The commenter requested that shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States be suspended immediately if any breaches in biological security are identified. We believe that the safeguards we are adding to the regulations in this final rule, as summarized above, minimize the risk of introducing fruit flies or other plant pests into the United States via shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States for eventual export. If we become aware of a breach in biological security or any other evidence indicating that these shipments pose a higher risk of plant pest introduction than we had previously believed, we will take any actions we deem necessary to address this risk. These actions may include, but may not necessarily be limited to, suspending these shipments. Two commenters expressed concerns about the seals the proposed rule specified would be used on refrigerated containers carrying untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico to ensure that the containers are not opened before arrival at the port of export. One commenter asked APHIS to clarify that the containers should be sealed prior to entering the United States and remain sealed until shipments have departed Texas and other southern States where fruit fly host material exists. Another commenter stated that border inspectors in the Rio Grande Valley often break open the seals on shipping containers to perform inspections. Accidents during shipping or investigations of such accidents could also result in the seals being broken. Once a seal is broken, the untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit could be mixed with other citrus. We agree that it is important to maintain the integrity of the seals on containers in which untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transit the United States. Therefore, we are adding a requirement to the final rule that an inspector at the port of entry must be contacted immediately if the seal on a container of untreated oranges, tangerines, or grapefruit is broken, for any reason, before the container leaves the United States. The inspector will then be able to assess the situation and take appropriate action to reduce the risk of introducing fruit flies. We are also requiring that, if untreated fruit from Mexico is transloaded to another container, the transloading must be supervised by an inspector and a replacement official seal must be applied to the container to which the fruit is moved. We believe that these measures will enable inspectors to take any required corrective action quickly and effectively if a seal is broken during transit. Note: To reflect the reassignment of some inspection duties to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, we have replaced the definition of *inspector* in § 352.1 with the following definition: “Any individual authorized by the Administrator of APHIS or the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, to enforce the regulations in this part.” We have also amended references to representatives and seals of the Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs to simply refer to inspectors and seals, respectively. One commenter supported allowing untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico to transit the United States for eventual export, but took issue with the proposed safeguards, saying that more safeguards should be in place to allow for unexpected delays caused by mechanical failure, lack of refrigeration, human error, or other causes. Other commenters asked generally for more safeguards to be added for such shipments. We have carefully reviewed the safeguards in the proposed rule for transporting untreated oranges, grapefruit, and tangerines by truck, and we have decided to make several changes in addition to the changes described above. In this final rule, we are adding a requirement that the untreated oranges, grapefruit, and tangerines must be shipped in insect-proof boxes or crates that prevent the escape or entry of adult, larval, or pupal fruit flies. Insect-proof boxes or crates will help ensure that any fruit flies that may be present in the fruit, regardless of life stage, are prevented from emerging from the containers while the fruit transits the United States for export. This final rule also specifies that the temperature in refrigerated containers must be maintained at 60°F or lower. Refrigerating the containers to this temperature will inhibit pupation in any fruit flies that may be present in the untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit, thereby preventing the fruit flies from emerging from the containers into the United States. An inspector must be notified if the cooling system of any refrigerated container fails, and untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit that are transported in a refrigerated container whose cooling system fails must be transloaded into a container with an operable cooling system under the conditions described above. This will ensure that the untreated oranges, grapefruit, and tangerines are adequately refrigerated and that an inspector supervises the transfer of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit to another container if they are not. We are also adding a requirement that a transportation and exportation permit must be issued by an inspector for shipments of these fruits. This permit can be obtained only from APHIS headquarters. The transportation and exportation permit allows the untreated fruit to transit the country on the condition that it must not enter the commerce of the United States. Currently, the regulations require that the owner of the oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit to be shipped procure a formal permit as provided in § 352.6; paragraph
(a)of that section refers the reader to § 352.5 to see the requirements for permits for shipping plants and plant products. Paragraph
(a)of § 352.5 states that a permit required under the regulations “may consist of a general authorization, as set out in paragraphs (b), (c), or
(d)of this section or § 352.11, or it may be a specific permit.” This final rule makes this general requirement more specific, allowing shippers to know in advance what permit they will have to secure. This additional permit requirement also enables inspectors to know the routing of shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico while they are transiting the United States, facilitating intervention should it prove necessary. We are also requiring that all shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico through the United States must move in U.S. Customs bond. Previously, we had required that air and rail shipments of these fruits move in U.S. Customs bond; this final rule extends that requirement to shipments transported by truck and vessel. We believe that the requirement that truck and vessel shipments must move in U.S. Customs bond will serve as an additional safeguard. Together, these safeguards will augment the safeguards described in the proposed rule to minimize the risk of introduction of fruit flies or other plant pests due to shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States. One commenter welcomed the safeguards specified in the proposed rule but argued further that these safeguards should apply to all fruit fly host material transported from Mexico to or through the United States and to shipments of fruit fly host material transported not only by truck but also by rail. We agree that rail shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States should employ the same safeguards that truck shipments of those fruits do. Accordingly, we have amended the regulations on rail shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit to indicate that such untreated fruit may only be shipped in insect-proof packaging and in sealed, refrigerated containers. Those containers will also be required to maintain a temperature of 60 °F or below while in transit. Shippers of containers shipped by rail will have to follow the requirement that an inspector must be notified if the seal on the containers is broken or if the refrigeration system in the container breaks down, as well as the requirement that authorized personnel supervise the transfer of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from one container to another. They will also move under a transportation and exportation permit. We believe that these safeguards will help to protect against the introduction of fruit flies into the United States associated with untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States by rail. Extending the safeguards to cover all fruit fly host material transported from Mexico to or through the United States is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, and we cannot address it in this final rule. One commenter urged APHIS to clarify restrictions on the transportation of shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit in the regulations. Current APHIS policy, this commenter stated, is to reroute such shipments through Laredo, TX, and away from the Rio Grande Valley citrus production area. There is presently no restriction on the routes such shipments must follow in the regulations. The commenter expressed concern that if overland transportation of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit through the Rio Grande Valley citrus production area was not clearly prohibited, shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit would traverse that area. Since fruit flies may be present in untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico, allowing shipments of these fruits to traverse the Rio Grande Valley, which has many potential fruit fly hosts, would increase the risk of introduction of fruit flies into the United States. We agree that this restriction needs to be clarified in the regulations. Therefore, we have added a provision to the regulations stating that no shipment of untreated oranges, tangerines, or grapefruit shall traverse the counties of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy, TX, which together comprise the Rio Grande Valley citrus production area. We have additionally specified that truck shipments shall only traverse the territory within the United States bounded on the west by a line starting at Laredo, TX, on to El Paso, TX, to Salt Lake City, UT, and then to Portland, OR, and on the east by a line drawn from Laredo, TX to Hebbronville, TX, to Corpus Christi, TX, to Galveston, TX, to Kinder, LA, to Memphis, TN, and then to Louisville, KY, and routes directly northward. This ensures that truck shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States en route to Canada will not pass through any areas in Texas where citrus is produced. Paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of the regulations has required that shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States via truck be convoyed by an inspector from the point of arrival in the United States to the point of unloading or move under such other safeguards as the inspector shall provide. Because we are adding these route restrictions and a requirement for a transportation and exportation permit to shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States via truck, we no longer believe the requirement that truck shipments move under convoy is necessary, and we have removed it in this final rule. The proposed rule included a revised description of the area through which shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit may traverse the United States via rail. However, our proposed revision would have allowed rail shipments of these fruits to traverse the Rio Grande Valley citrus-producing area. Therefore, we are rewording that description so that it is identical to the territory that truck shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit may traverse, as described above. One commenter requested that APHIS conduct fruit fly trapping in areas in the United States that have commercial, ornamental, or native plants that could serve as fruit fly hosts and through which untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico are moved. The commenter requested that this additional trapping be undertaken in the coastal area from Brownsville to Port Arthur, TX, and in any other areas through which untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit may be moved. APHIS already surveys this area for fruit flies, because it is close to areas in Mexico where fruit flies exist. By clarifying that shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit may not move through the Rio Grande Valley citrus production area, as defined above, we have ensured that such shipments will not be transported through any areas in Texas where citrus is produced. This step reduces the risk that fruit flies may be introduced into the United States due to these shipments. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that additional fruit fly trapping is necessary or warranted at the present time. If, in the future, we find evidence that additional fruit fly trapping is necessary, we will take appropriate action. Miscellaneous This final rule requires that all untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States be moved in refrigerated containers, whether transported by rail or by truck, and that the containers must maintain a temperature of 60 °F or less. Therefore, we are removing § 352.30(b)(4)(ii), which sets out icing requirements for refrigerator cars transported by rail that are no longer relevant to such transport under this final rule. In addition, § 352.30(c)(3), which specifies requirements for transport of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico in refrigerated holds of ships leaving from the United States, is no longer applicable, as the untreated fruit must be transported in refrigerated containers whose seal may not be broken except by an inspector or after the container has left the United States. Therefore, we are removing this paragraph. In addition, we are making several changes to § 352.30(a) to change references to refrigerated cars or trucks to refer to refrigerated containers, and we are removing § 352.30(b)(1) because it sets out a packaging requirement that is not relevant if all untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit are shipped in sealed, refrigerated containers. Finally, paragraph (b)(5) of the regulations sets out requirements for the transportation of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States via air carrier. These requirements have included transporting the shipment under U.S. Customs bond and without change of Customs entry in the United States. Because we are making it a general requirement that shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States must move under U.S. Customs bond, we are removing that requirement from this paragraph. In addition, given that this final rule requires that the fruit be shipped in sealed, refrigerated containers, we do not believe the requirement that the shipment move under the same Customs entry is necessary, and we have removed it. Paragraph (b)(5) also states that if an emergency occurs en route to the port of export that will require transshipment to another carrier, the owner should apply to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs for information as to applicable conditions. We are simplifying this requirement to indicate that if such an emergency occurs, the owner must contact an inspector immediately. We are also making miscellaneous nonsubstantive changes to the regulations for the purpose of clarity and ease of reading. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document. Effective Date As described above, this final rule adds several safeguards against the introduction of fruit flies into the United States via untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States to the regulations. Because persons currently engaged in transporting such fruit when it is in the United States will need some time to implement the changes we are making in this final rule, we have set the effective date for this final rule at 60 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule amends the regulations to allow untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico to be moved overland by truck or rail to Corpus Christi and Houston, TX, for export to another country by water. We are taking this action in response to requests by the port authorities of Corpus Christi and Houston, TX. This final rule will also require that untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United State for export to another country be shipped in sealed, refrigerated containers and insect-proof packaging and via routes that avoid citrus production areas. We are taking this action to provide additional protection against the possible introduction of fruit flies via untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States. For the 4 years 2000 through 2003, the amount of in-transit Mexican citrus shipped through the United States was relatively small, ranging in volume between 2 percent and 10 percent compared to the quantities of Mexican citrus imported into the United States (table 1). In 2004, there was a notable increase in the in-transit quantity; the amount equaled 23 percent of Mexican citrus imported by the United States (10.5 thousand metric tons, compared to 46.3 thousand metric tons). For the years 2000 through 2004, the percentage of in-transit Mexican citrus that was shipped to Texas ports varied between 15 percent in 2001 and 93 percent in 2003 (table 2). The availability of the two additional ocean ports in Texas will help accommodate growth of this in-transit corridor. More than 43 percent of untreated Mexican citrus that transited the United States between 2000 and 2004 entered the country through a Texas port (maritime, airport, or land-border). Table 1.—Oranges, Tangerines, and Grapefruit From Mexico Imported Into the United States and Transiting the United States to Another Country Fresh and dried oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit imported into the United States from Mexico Year Value ($1,000) Volume (metric tons) Oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States en route to another country Volume (metric tons) 2000 11,369 57,770 4,419 (8 percent of imports that go into U.S. commerce). 2001 8,628 50,209 3,562 (7 percent of imports that go into U.S. commerce). 2002 9,292 53,804 5,487 (10 percent of imports that go into U.S. commerce). 2003 11,934 64,000 1,337 (2 percent of imports that go into U.S. commerce). 2004 6,982 46,319 10,576 (23 percent of imports that go into U.S. commerce). Harmonized Schedule codes: Oranges (HS 080510), grapefruit (080540) and tangerines (080520). Source: UN Trade Statistics U.S. Import data (6 digit), Web site: *http://fasnet.usda.gov/untrdscripts/unreport.exe* . Source: USDA/APHIS/PPQ data from the ports, compiled by Robert English, PPQ. In-transit produce is not included in U.S. imports of Mexican oranges, grapefruits, and tangerines. Table 2.—Volume of Oranges, Tangerines, and Grapefruit From Mexico Transiting the U.S. to Another Country (Metric Tons) Year Total Mexican oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit in-transit through all eligible U.S. ports In-transit through Texas ports 1 In-transit through non-Texas ports 2000 4,418.1 1,610.6 (36 percent of total in-transit) 2,808.5 2001 3,561.9 535.0 (15 percent of total in-transit) 3,026.9 2002 5,487.2 3,252.1 (59 percent of total in-transit) 2,235.1 2003 1,337.2 1,249.2 (93 percent of total in-transit) 88.0 2004 10,576.0 2,500.5 (24 percent of total in-transit) 8,075.5 Harmonized Schedule codes: Oranges (HS 080510), grapefruit (080540) and tangerines (080520). 1 *Maritime ports:* Galveston, TX; *Land border ports:* Laredo, TX; El Paso, TX; Eagle Point, TX; *Airports:* Houston, TX; Austin, TX. Source: USDA/APHIS/PPQ data from the ports, compiled by Robert English, PPQ. Currently, the Houston port is the second-largest among U.S. ports in terms of trade volume. 1 Two major railroads, 150 trucking lines, and two international airports connect the port of Houston to the rest of the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, and beyond. It is estimated that 1,263 firms were operating within Houston's port authority in 2005, providing services to the cargo and vessels at the marine terminals. They contribute over 144,500 jobs to the area and generate over $10 billion in business revenue annually. The port also contributes to the welfare of the local economy, generating over $640 million in State and local taxes annually. 1 Port of Houston Authority, Economic Impact. See: *http://www.portofhouston.com/geninfo/economicimpact.html.* It is estimated that 312 firms were operating within Corpus Christi's port authority in 2003. 2 The port employed some 11,859 people directly; an estimated 19,060 indirect jobs and 8,930 induced jobs within the regional economy could be attributed to the port's operations. The 312 firms had a combined annual payroll of more than $555.8 million in direct wages and salaries, with an average salary of $48,600. 2 Martin Associates, February 2004: The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Port of Corpus Christi. See: *http://www.portofcorpuschristi.cm/pdfs/Economic%20Impact%20Report.pdf.* In 2003, the port of Corpus Christi began operating a refrigerated warehouse facility that has resulted in revenues of over $100,000 annually. The cold storage facility includes rooms with freezing and chilling capabilities, a treatment facility, and rail and truck docks that are temperature-controlled. This facility can serve the growing market for refrigerated shipments of citrus fruit exported from Mexico to other countries. Increased volumes of in-transit oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit received from Mexico resulting from the addition of the two ocean ports are expected to generate additional business for the U.S. trucking industry. Mexican trucks are confined to narrow commercial zones that extend 20 kilometers, at most, within the U.S. border, at which point they are required to transfer their goods to U.S. haulers. Additional Federal expenses associated with increased workloads or personnel needed to monitor the loading and unloading of in-transit shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit at the two ports are expected to be funded by the respective port authorities. Although the rule is expected to increase the volume of oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States, the risk of introduction of pests, specifically fruit flies, is not expected to increase. Additional safeguards against the possible introduction of fruit flies have been included in this final rule, such as insect-proof packaging, transportation of the fruit in refrigerated containers, transportation and exportation permits, and repeated checks of the seals on the containers. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies specifically consider the economic impact of their regulations on small entities. The Small Business Administration
(SBA)has established size criteria using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to determine which economic entities meet the definition of a small firm. Small businesses at the ports of Houston and Corpus Christi will benefit by this rule to the extent that they are involved in handling the in-transit shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit arriving at their ports. Small businesses at the port of Galveston could experience some negative economic effects because of the rule, if in-transit shipments are diverted from Galveston to the Corpus Christi or Houston ports. There are approximately 1,263 firms operating at the port of Houston and 312 firms at the port of Corpus Christi. There is also an unknown number of firms located near the two ports that provide services related to port activities. The number of affected entities that can be considered small is unknown. During the comment period for our proposed rule we did not receive any information on the number of small entities that might be affected. Firms within the U.S. freight trucking industry (NAICS category 48411) will benefit from the rule by providing transportation services for the Mexican oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit between U.S. land ports and the ocean ports of Corpus Christi and Houston. The majority of U.S. trucking businesses (81 percent) are considered small entities according to SBA criteria. U.S. firms overall will benefit from the availability of the two additional ocean ports to handle and export in-transit oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico, to the extent that the shipments handled at these two ports are additional volumes rather than diversions that would otherwise transit through the seaport of Galveston or elsewhere. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act The proposed rule that preceded this final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). However, due to changes made in response to comments, the information collection burden in this final rule includes 200 hours that were not included in the proposed rule. Specifically, the additional hours are for the trucking industry and shippers to obtain permits for moving untreated oranges, tangerines, or grapefruit through the United States, which were added to the coverage of the final rule. In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), we submitted this information collection requirement for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB has approved the information collection for a period of 6 months under control number 0579-0303. We plan, in the near future, to request continuation of that approval for 3 years. E-Government Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 352 Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 352 as follows: PART 352—PLANT QUARANTINE SAFEGUARD REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 352 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 2. In § 352.1, paragraph (b), the definition of *inspector* is revised to read as follows: § 352.1 Definitions.
(b)* * * *Inspector* . Any individual authorized by the Administrator of APHIS or the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, to enforce the regulations in this part. 3. Section 352.30 is amended as follows: a. By revising the section heading to read as set forth below. b. In the introductory text, by adding the word “untreated” before the word “oranges.” c. In paragraph (a)(3), in the paragraph heading, by removing the words “refrigerator cars and aircraft” and adding the words “refrigerated containers” in their place, and in the first sentence after the paragraph heading, by removing the words “Refrigerator cars and aircraft” and adding the words “Refrigerated containers” in their place. d. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii) to read as set forth below. e. In paragraph (a)(4)(iii), by removing the words “trucks, refrigerator cars, aircraft, and ships” and adding the words “refrigerated containers” in their place. f. By revising paragraph
(b)to read as set forth below. g. By removing paragraph (c)(3). h. By revising paragraph
(e)to read as set forth below. i. By adding an OMB paperwork citation to read as set forth below. § 352.30 Untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico.
(a)* * *
(4)* * *
(ii)Untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit arriving from Mexico at authorized ports in the United States for movement to a foreign country shall be loaded into refrigerated containers and preinspected by an inspector for freedom of citrus leaves before entry into the United States or be accompanied by an acceptable certificate from an inspector as to such freedom. Refrigerated containers loaded with untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit that are not free of such leaves will be denied entry into the United States.
(b)*Additional conditions for overland movement of certain untreated fruit* . Untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico may move overland through the United States to a foreign country only in accordance with the following additional conditions:
(1)*Ports of entry* . Such fruit may enter only at Nogales, AZ, or Eagle Pass, El Paso, or Laredo, TX.
(2)*General transit conditions* . The following conditions apply to all shipments of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico transiting the United States for movement to a foreign country:
(i)The fruit must be packed in insect-proof boxes or crates that prevent the escape or entry of adult, larval, or pupal fruit flies. 4 4 If there is a question as to whether packaging is adequate, send a request for approval of the packaging, together with a sample of the packaging, to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27606.
(ii)Boxes or cartons of fruit must be enclosed in sealed, refrigerated containers of the type commonly used by the maritime or commercial trucking industry. An official seal must be applied to the container at the port of entry. The seal must not be removed except by an inspector, or after the shipment has left the United States.
(iii)The temperature in the refrigerated containers in which the fruit is transported must be maintained at 60 °F or lower.
(iv)If the seal on the containers in which such fruit is shipped is found to have been broken, for any reason, before the container leaves the United States, or if the cooling system in the containers fails at any point during transit, an inspector at the port of entry must be contacted immediately.
(v)A transportation and exportation permit must be issued by an inspector for each shipment. This permit can be obtained from APHIS headquarters. 5 5 To obtain this permit, contact the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Permit Unit, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737.
(vi)If untreated fruit is transloaded to another container while in the United States, the transloading must be supervised by an inspector and a replacement official seal must be applied to the container to which the fruit is moved.
(vii)Shipments of such fruit must move by direct route, in Customs bond and under official seal, without diversion or change of entry en route, from the port of entry to the port of exit or to an approved port in the United States for export to another foreign country.
(viii)Shipments of such fruit may not traverse the counties of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, or Willacy, TX. Shipments of such fruit may only traverse areas listed under each type of carrier listed below.
(3)*Truck movement* . Trucks may haul refrigerated containers of such fruit from Mexico to shipside, or to approved refrigerated storage pending lading aboard ship, in Corpus Christi, Galveston, or Houston, TX, or alongside railway carriers or aircraft at the ports named in paragraph (b)(2) of this section for movement to a foreign country. Shipments of such fruit via truck may traverse only the territory within the United States bounded on the west by a line starting at Laredo, TX, on to El Paso, TX, to Salt Lake City, UT, and then to Portland, OR, and on the east by a line drawn from Laredo, TX to Hebbronville, TX, to Corpus Christi, TX, to Galveston, TX, to Kinder, LA, to Memphis, TN, and then to Louisville, KY, and routes directly northward.
(4)*Rail movement* . Shipments must move by direct route from the port of entry to the port of exit or to an approved North Atlantic port in the United States for export to another foreign country, as follows: The fruit may be entered at Nogales, AZ, only for direct rail routing to El Paso, TX, after which it shall traverse only the territory bounded on the west by a line drawn from Laredo, TX, to El Paso, TX, to Salt Lake City, UT, and then to Portland, OR, and on the east by a line drawn from Laredo, TX, to Hebbronville, TX, to Corpus Christi, TX, to Galveston, TX, to Kinder, LA, to Memphis, TN, and then to Louisville, KY, and routes directly northward. Such fruit may also enter the United States from Mexico at any port listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, for direct eastward rail movement, without diversion en route, for reentry into Mexico.
(5)*Air cargo movement* . Shipments of such fruit may move by direct route as air cargo, without change of entry while in the United States en route from the port of entry, to Canada. If an emergency occurs en route to the port of export that will require transshipment to another carrier, an inspector at the port of entry must be contacted immediately.
(e)*Untreated fruit from certain municipalities in Mexico* . Oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit in transit to foreign countries may be imported from certain municipalities in Mexico listed in § 319.56-2(h) of this chapter in accordance with the applicable conditions in §§ 319.56 through 319.56-8 of this chapter. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0303) Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of August 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-13986 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-22876; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-39-AD; Amendment 39-14734; AD 2006-17-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; RECARO Aircraft Seating GmbH & Co. (RECARO) Model 3410 Seats AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain RECARO Model 3410 302, 303, 306, 307, 314, 316, 317, 791, 792, and 795 series seats. This AD requires replacing the existing attachment bolts for the seat belts with longer attachment bolts. This AD results from a report of short attachment bolts that don't allow enough thread to properly secure the locknuts. We are issuing this AD to prevent a seat belt from detaching due to a loose locknut and attachment bolt, which could result in injury to an occupant during emergency conditions. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 27, 2006. The Director of the **Federal Register** approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of September 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from RECARO Aircraft Seating GmbH & Co. K, Technical Publications, Daimlerstrasse 21, 74523 Schwebisch Hall, Germany; Telephone 49 791 503 7183; fax 49 791 503 7220. You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7161; fax
(781)238-7170. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to certain RECARO Model 3410 302, 303, 306, 307, 314, 316, 317, 791, 792, and 795 series seats. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on February 8, 2006 (71 FR 6420). That action proposed to require replacing the existing attachment bolts for the seat belts with longer attachment bolts. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment received. One commenter, the Boeing Airplane Company, asks us to remove the 737 aircraft minor model designator “-200” from the applicability of this AD. Boeing states that research of the configurations for all delivered Boeing 737-200 airplanes failed to reveal any of the affected seats installed on those airplanes. However, Boeing states that RECARO reported to Boeing that seats were installed in a 737-200 airplane. Boeing believes an operator installed the seats after production of the airplane. Boeing also has records of installing seats with the affected model numbers on 737-700 and 737-800 airplanes. Boeing states that those seats incorporate the longer bolts specified in RECARO service bulletin SB-No.: 3410-25MR477, Revision 3, dated May 17, 2004, and we should use the generic 737 designation without a minor model designator. We partially agree. This AD applies to the RECARO seat models identified in paragraph
(c)of this AD. We list the known airplane models that use these types of seats to help owners and operators to determine if their airplane might use these seats. Listing the minor model designators for the 737 airplanes that could use these seats will help operators determine if this AD might apply to them. We retained the -200 designation, and added the -700 and -800 designations to the “used on but not limited to” statement in the Applicability. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 3,101 seats installed in airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 0.10 work-hour per seat to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $10 per seat. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $51,166. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2006-17-13 RECARO Aircraft Seats GmbH & Co.:** Amendment 39-14734. Docket No. FAA-2005-22876; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-39-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective September 27, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to certain RECARO Aircraft Seats GmbH & Co. (RECARO) Model 3410 302, 303, 306, 307, 314, 316, 317, 791, 792, and 795 series seats. These seats are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 737-200, 737-700, and 737-800 series, 747-400 series, 777-200 and 777-300 series; and Airbus Industries A319-100 series, A320-200 series, and A321-200 series airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of short attachment bolts that don't allow enough thread to secure the locknuts properly. We are issuing this AD to prevent a seat belt from detaching due to a loose locknut and attachment bolt, which could result in injury to an occupant during emergency conditions. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, unless the actions have already been done. Replacing the Attachment Bolt
(f)For RECARO Model 3410 302, 303, 306, 307, 314, 316, 317, 791, 792, and 795 series seats with a serial number listed in section 1.A. Effectivity of RECARO service bulletin SB-No.: 3410-25MR477, Revision 3, dated May 17, 2004, replace the seat belt attachment bolt and nut. Use section 2. Accomplishment Instructions of RECARO service bulletin SB-No.: 3410-25MR477, Revision 3, dated May 17, 2004. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(g)The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(h)Luftfahrt-Bundesamt airworthiness directive D-2004-151R1, dated June 6, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use RECARO service bulletin SB-No.: 3410-25MR477, Revision 3, dated May 17, 2004 to perform the bolt replacements required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact RECARO Aircraft Seating GmbH & Co. K, Technical Publications, Daimlerstrasse 21, 74523 Schwe bisch Hall, Germany; telephone 49 791 503 7183; fax 49 791 503 7220, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 16, 2006. Thomas A. Boudreau, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13911 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-21713; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-085-AD; Amendment 39-14732; AD 2006-17-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-400ER Series Airplanes and Model 777-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 767-400ER series airplanes and Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD requires, for certain airplanes, repetitive testing of the fill and safety fittings of the cargo fire extinguishing bottles in the forward cargo compartment for leaks; and repetitive application of a corrosion inhibiting compound
(CIC)or replacement of the cargo fire extinguishing bottles with reworked fire extinguishing bottles, as necessary. For all airplanes, this AD requires replacement of the cargo fire extinguishing bottles with reworked fire extinguishing bottles, which ends the repetitive tests and CIC applications if applicable. This AD results from failure of the safety fittings for the cargo fire extinguishing bottles. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the safety fittings for the cargo fire extinguishing bottles due to corrosion, which could result in leakage of extinguishing agent. If a fire occurs in the cargo bay, the cargo fire extinguishing bottles could have less than enough extinguishing agent to control a fire. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 27, 2006. The Director of the **Federal Register** approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Mudrovich, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6477; fax
(425)917-6590. 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 certain Boeing Model 767-400ER series airplanes and Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 5, 2005 (70 FR 38632). That NPRM proposed to require, for certain airplanes, repetitive testing of the fill and safety fittings of the fire extinguishing bottles in the forward cargo compartment for leaks; and repetitive application of a corrosion inhibiting compound
(CIC)or replacement of the fire extinguishing bottles with reworked fire extinguishing bottles, as necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require, for all airplanes, replacement of the fire extinguishing bottles with reworked fire extinguishing bottles, which would end the repetitive tests and CIC applications if applicable. Actions Since NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has published Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-26-0124, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2006. We referenced the original issue of that service bulletin, dated December 5, 2002, in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for testing the cargo fire extinguishing bottles on Model 767-400ER series airplanes. The procedures in Revision 1 of the service bulletin are essentially the same as those in the original issue. Revision 1 corrects a reference to the Boeing 767 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), which we noted as a difference in the NPRM. Therefore, we have revised this AD to reference Revision 1 of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for testing the cargo fire extinguishing bottles on Model 767-400ER series airplanes. We have also added a new paragraph
(k)to this AD, giving credit for testing done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the original issue of the service bulletin. We have reidentified the subsequent paragraphs accordingly. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request for Credit for Additional Model Airplanes Boeing requests that we revise paragraph
(j)of the NPRM to include Model 767-400ER series airplanes and Model 777-300 series airplanes. (The NPRM provided credit only for Model 777-200 series airplanes.) As justification, Boeing states that this change will provide credit for all three affected model airplanes, not just the Model 777-200 series airplanes. We infer Boeing would like credit for accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-26-0124, dated December 5, 2002, for Model 767-400ER series airplanes; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0034, dated January 22, 2004, for Model 777-300 series airplanes. We agree to provide credit for all Model 767-400ER series airplanes. As stated previously, we have given credit to Model 767-400ER series airplanes in paragraph
(k)of this AD. We agree only to provide credit for certain Model 777-300 series airplanes. Certain Model 777-300 series airplanes were misidentified as Group 1 airplanes in the original issue of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0034. Revision 1 of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-26-0034, dated July 1, 2004, states that more work is necessary on Model 777-300 series airplanes if the Group 1 instructions of the original service bulletin were accomplished on those airplanes. However, no additional work is necessary for Model 777-300 series airplanes if the Group 2 instructions of the original service bulletin were accomplished on those airplanes. Therefore, we have revised paragraph
(j)of this AD to give credit only for Model 777-300 series airplanes identified as Group 2 in the original issue of the service bulletin. Under the provisions of paragraph
(l)of this AD, we may consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that such a method would provide an acceptable level of safety. Request To Clarify the Affected Fire Extinguishing Bottles Boeing requests that we specifically refer to “cargo” fire extinguishing bottles in the NPRM. As justification, Boeing states that this will avoid confusion with the fire extinguishing bottles for the engine/auxiliary power unit. We agree and have revised all references accordingly in this AD. Request To Revise Terminology Boeing states that the safety disc inside the fill fitting is referred to as “fill and safety fittings,” “safety fittings,” or “burst disc inside the safety fitting” in several paragraphs in the NPRM. Boeing requests that we revise the NPRM to use its preferred terminology of “safety disc inside the fill fitting.” We agree and have revised the terminology in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. We point out that we used the term “burst disc inside the safety filling” in the NPRM to match the terminology used in the referenced Boeing and Kidde Aerospace service bulletins for replacing the cargo fire extinguishing bottles. We have continued using the term “fill and safety fittings” in paragraph
(g)of this AD as it is specified in the applicable Kidde Aerospace service bulletins. Request To Revise Model Designation Boeing also requests that we fix the typographical error for the model designation in the first row of the Estimated Costs table of the NPRM. Boeing states the correct model designation is Model 767-400ER. We agree and have revised the Estimated Costs table in this AD accordingly. Request To Revise “Discussion” Section Boeing also requests that we revise the first sentence of the first paragraph in the Discussion section of the NPRM as follows: We have received a report indicating that failed safety fittings of the fire extinguishing bottles located in the forward lower lobe. * * *. The commenter also requests that we change the second paragraph of the Discussion section to the following: The cargo fire extinguishing bottles installed on Model 767-400ER series airplanes are identical to metered cargo fire bottles on the 777-300 series airplanes. Therefore, all of these models are subject to the same unsafe condition. As justification for the second part of its request, Boeing states that all the cargo fire extinguishing bottles installed on Model 767-400ER series airplanes are identical to one of the bottles that is installed on Model 777-300 series airplanes, but not installed on Model 777-200 series airplanes. We agree with Boeing's statements. However, the Discussion section of an NPRM is not restated in the AD. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Identify the Affected Cargo Fire Extinguishing Bottles The Modification and Repair Parts Association (MARPA) requests that we include sufficient information to specify the precise applicability of the NPRM. MARPA states that the NPRM relies on certain Boeing and Kidde Aerospace service bulletins that were not incorporated by reference when the NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** . Since these service bulletins are copyrighted material, MARPA states it cannot determine the precise applicability of the NPRM. We infer the commenter would like us to identify the affected cargo fire extinguishing bottles in this AD. We do not agree to specify the affected part numbers in this AD. It is our general practice to reference the appropriate service information, since the affected part numbers are clearly specified in that referenced information. Not only does it appear redundant to repeat those part numbers in this AD, but if there was a large number of parts involved, it would increase the risk of error in repeating those part numbers in this AD. However, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's Docket Management System
(DMS)as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. However, we consider that to delay this AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, no change has been made to this AD in this regard. Request To Reference Parts Manufacturer Approval
(PMA)Parts MARPA also requests that we add language to the NPRM to account for the possible existence of alternative PMA equivalent parts. MARPA states that, under 14 CFR 21.303, there may be PMA parts that should also be affected by the NPRM. As justification, MARPA states that some PMA parts appear to be similar to the affected parts addressed in the NPRM, and that further research should be conducted to ensure that all affected parts are included in the NPRM. MARPA further states that there may also be PMA parts equivalent to the “new and improved” replacement parts specified in the NPRM. We concur with MARPA's general request that, if we know that an unsafe condition also exists in PMA parts, the AD should address those parts, as well as the original parts. At this time, we are not aware of other PMA parts equivalent to the affected cargo fire extinguishing bottles. Furthermore, we infer that MARPA would like the AD to permit installation of any equivalent PMA parts so that it is not necessary for an operator to request approval of an AMOC in order to install an “equivalent” PMA part. Whether an alternative part is “equivalent” in adequately resolving the unsafe condition can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, based on a complete understanding of the unsafe condition. We are not currently aware of any such parts. Our policy is that, in order for operators to replace a part with one that is not specified in the AD, they must request an AMOC. This is necessary so that we can make a specific determination that an alternative part is or is not susceptible to the same unsafe condition. MARPA's remarks are timely in that the Transport Airplane Directorate currently is in the process of reviewing this issue as it applies to transport category airplanes. We acknowledge that there may be other ways of addressing this issue to ensure that unsafe PMA parts are identified and addressed. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue, including input from industry, and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our policy regarding addressing PMA parts in ADs needs to be revised. We consider that to delay this AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, no change has been made to this AD in this regard. Request To Delete Difference Paragraph Boeing states that it intends to publish Revision 1 to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-26-0124 to correct the reference to the AMM, which we identified as a difference in the NPRM. Boeing also states that Revision 1 is currently being routed for approval. We infer the commenter would like us to delete the difference paragraph. We disagree, since the difference paragraph is not restated in this AD. Since we have already revised this AD to reference Revision 1 of the service bulletin, as described previously, no additional change to this AD is necessary. Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance Paragraph American Airlines states that the total cost for testing the cargo fire extinguishing bottles as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0033, dated December 5, 2002, is $5,460, per test cycle. The commenter also states that the total cost for replacing the cargo fire extinguishing bottles as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-26-0034, Revision 1, dated July 1, 2004, is $287,573. We infer that American Airlines would like us to revise the Costs of Compliance paragraph. We disagree. The cost information in an AD describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by the AD. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours necessary to do the required actions. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators may incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time required to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which may vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. Therefore, no change has been made to this AD in this regard. Clarification of AMOC Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 322 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 167 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $65 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Airplanes Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Model 767-400ER series airplanes (for all 4 cargo fire extinguishing bottles) Leak test, per test cycle 4 None $260, per test cycle 36 $9,360, per test cycle. Replacement 8 $2,800 $3,320 36 $119,520. Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes (for all 5 cargo fire extinguishing bottles) Leak test, per test cycle 5 None $325, per test cycle 130 $42,250, per test cycle. Replacement 10 $3,400 $4,050 131 $530,550. 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): **2006-17-11 Boeing** : Amendment 39-14732. Docket No. FAA-2005-21713; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-085-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective September 27, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the airplanes listed in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category: Table 1.—Applicability Boeing Model— As Identified in— 767-400ER series airplanes Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-26-0125, dated January 22, 2004. 777-200 and -300 series airplanes Boeing Service Bulletin 777-26-0034, Revision 1, dated July 1, 2004. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD was prompted by failure of the safety fittings for the cargo fire extinguishing bottles. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the safety fittings for the cargo fire extinguishing bottles due to corrosion, which could result in leakage of extinguishing agent. If a fire occurs in the cargo bay, the cargo fire extinguishing bottles could have less than enough extinguishing agent to control a fire. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Bulletin References
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in Table 2 of this AD, as applicable: Table 2.—Service Bulletin References For model— Boeing— For the— 767-400ER series airplanes Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-26-0124, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2006 Test specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-26-0125, dated January 22, 2004 Replacement specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD. 777-200 and -300 series airplanes Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0033, dated December 5, 2002 Test specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Service Bulletin 777-26-0034, Revision 1, dated July 1, 2004 Replacement specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD. Repetitive Testing of Cargo Fire Extinguishing Bottles
(g)For all Model 767-400ER series airplanes; and the Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0033, dated December 5, 2002: Within 18 months or 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first, test the fill and safety fittings of the cargo fire extinguishing bottles in the forward cargo compartment for leaks, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Repeat the test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months or 6,000 flight hours, whichever is first, in accordance with the service bulletin, until the replacement required by paragraph
(h)of this AD is accomplished.
(1)If no leak is found or if the leak rate is below the calibrated rate specified in the service bulletin, before further flight, apply the corrosion inhibiting compound
(CIC)to the safety disc inside the fill fitting and reidentify the cargo fire extinguishing bottle, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(2)If any leak above the calibrated rate specified in the service bulletin is found, before further flight, replace and reidentify the cargo fire extinguishing bottle with new or reworked fire extinguishing bottles, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin; except where the service bulletin specifies that the replacement may be accomplished according to an operator's “equivalent procedure,” replace in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Chapter 26-23-02/401 of the Boeing 767 Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM)or Chapter 26-23-01/401 of the Boeing 777 AMM, as applicable, is one approved method. Note 1: The Boeing service bulletins listed in Table 3 of this AD refer to certain Kidde Aerospace service bulletins, as applicable, as additional sources of service information for testing and reidentifying the cargo fire extinguishing bottles. Table 3.—Additional Service Information for Testing For model— Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin— Refers to Kidde Aerospace Service Bulletin— 767-400ER series airplanes 767-26-0124, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2006 473876-26-454. Revision 1, dated March 12, 2003, is the latest version of this service bulletin. 777-200 and -300 series airplanes 777-26-0033, dated December 5, 2002 473474-26-442. Revision 1, dated March 12, 2003, is the latest version of this service bulletin. 473475-26-443. Revision 1, dated March 12, 2003, is the latest version of this service bulletin. 473854-26-444. Revision 1, dated March 12, 2003, is the latest version of this service bulletin. 473876-26-445. Revision 1, dated March 12, 2003, is the latest version of this service bulletin. Replacement of Cargo Fire Extinguishing Bottles
(h)For all airplanes: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the existing cargo fire extinguishing bottles with reworked fire extinguishing bottles, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Replacement of a cargo fire extinguishing bottle with a reworked fire extinguishing bottle terminates the repetitive tests and CIC applications required by paragraph
(g)of this AD for that fire extinguishing bottle only. Note 2: The Boeing service bulletins listed in Table 4 of this AD refer to certain Kidde Aerospace service bulletins, as applicable, as additional sources of service information for reworking the cargo fire extinguishing bottles. Table 4.—Additional Service Information for Replacement For model— Boeing— Refers to Kidde Aerospace Service Bulletin— 767-400ER series airplanes Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-26-0125, dated January 22, 2004 473876-26-453, dated January 22, 2004. 777-200 and -300 series airplanes Service Bulletin 777-26-0034, Revision 1, dated July 1, 2004 473474-26-450, dated January 22, 2004. 473475-26-451, dated January 22, 2004. 473854-26-452, dated January 22, 2004. 473876-26-453, dated January 22, 2004. Parts Installation
(i)For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a cargo fire extinguishing bottle, part numbers (P/Ns) 473474-1 and -2, P/Ns 473475-1 and -2,P/Ns 473854-1 and -2, or P/Ns 473876-1 and -2, on any airplane, unless the initial test required by paragraph
(g)of this AD is accomplished. Credit for Previous Service Bulletins
(j)For all Model 777-200 series airplanes; and Model 777-300 series airplanes identified as Group 2 in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0034, dated January 22, 2004: Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0034, dated January 22, 2004, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
(k)For all Model 767-400ER series airplanes: Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-26-0124, dated December 5, 2002, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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
(m)You must use the service information in Table 5 of this AD 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 these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Table 5.—Material Incorporated by Reference Service Bulletin Revision level Date Boeing Service Bulletin 777-26-0034 1 July 1, 2004. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-26-0124 1 April 13, 2006. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-26-0125 Original January 22, 2004. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0033 Original December 5, 2002. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 10, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13825 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24290; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-243-AD; Amendment 39-14731; AD 2006-17-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the fluorescent light tube assemblies of the cabin, lavatory, and sidewall, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides for optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This AD results from reports of overheating due to arcing between the fluorescent tube pins and the lamp holder contacts. The tubes had not been properly seated during installation. We are issuing this AD to prevent fumes, traces of visible smoke, and fire at the fluorescent light tube assembly. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 27, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 27, 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 Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Wagner, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7306; fax
(516)794-5531. 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 certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on April 4, 2006 (71 FR 16725). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the fluorescent light tube assemblies of the cabin, lavatory, and sidewall, and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to provide for optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Extend Compliance Time Piedmont Airlines states that its C-check inspection interval can go up to 6,258 flight hours. Piedmont describes the grievous effect the NPRM compliance times will have on the airline. The NPRM specifies a compliance time of 5,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, for the initial compliance time, and repetitive intervals of 5,000 flight hours. The commenter requests that the initial inspection be done within the next C-check or 36 months and that the repetitive interval be done at intervals not to exceed the next C-check. We agree to extend the compliance time, although we cannot refer to “the next C-check” because the variability among operators' maintenance schedules would not guarantee that the required work would be done within an appropriate time. We have instead revised paragraph
(f)of this final rule to require an initial compliance time of 6,300 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, with a repetitive interval of 6,300 flight hours. We have determined that such an extension will not adversely affect safety, and will allow the work to be performed during regularly scheduled maintenance at a base where special equipment and trained maintenance personnel will be available if necessary. Request To Clarify Parts Replacement Requirements Piedmont requests that we clarify paragraph
(h)of the NPRM, which prohibits installing a ballast part number (P/N) BA08006-1 or BA08006-28-1 as of the effective date of the AD. Piedmont questions whether that statement applies when parts are removed for other maintenance, or only when the part is replaced. We acknowledge the commenter's concern, but do not find it necessary to revise the final rule. The intent of paragraph
(h)is to specifically prohibit replacing a ballast with another ballast having P/N BA08006-1 or BA08006-28-1. By simply reinstalling a part removed during maintenance, the operator is not “installing” a different part. Gaining access and installing that part for other maintenance activities not associated with the AD is acceptable. Additional Change to NPRM Paragraph
(f)of the NPRM refers to “Chapter 33-20-00, Section D,” of the airplane maintenance manual
(AMM)as one approved repair method. We have removed the section reference (there is no Section D) in this final rule. Acceptable repair instructions are found in Chapter 33-22-00 of the applicable AMM. 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 The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. This AD will affect about 121 U.S.-registered airplanes. Estimated Costs, Per Inspection Cycle Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Inspection, per inspection cycle 6 maximum $80 None Up to $480. Ballast replacement (optional) 2, per ballast 1 80 $486, per ballast Up to $41,344. 1 Number of Ballasts Per Airplane Area Airplane model Number of ballasts Lavatory DHC-8-100 and -200 1 DHC-8-300 1 Sidewall DHC-8-100 and -200 19 DHC-8-300 30 Cabin DHC-8-100 and -200 21 DHC-8-300 33 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): **2006-17-10 BOMBARDIER, INC. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.)** : Amendment 39-14731. Docket No. FAA-2006-24290; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-243-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective September 27, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 407 inclusive, 409 through 412 inclusive, and 414 through 433 inclusive; excluding those with Hunting interiors. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of overheating due to arcing between the fluorescent tube pins and the lamp holder contacts. The tubes had not been properly seated during installation. We are issuing this AD to prevent fumes, traces of visible smoke, and fire at the fluorescent light tube assembly. 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 6,300 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform detailed inspections to detect signs of arcing of the fluorescent tube assemblies of the cabin, sidewalls, and lavatory, in accordance with the applicable temporary revision
(TR)of the applicable maintenance program manual
(MPM)identified in Table 1 of this AD. If any sign of arcing is found, repair before further flight using a method approved by either the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent). Chapter 33-20-00 of the applicable airplane maintenance manual is one approved method. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 6,300 flight hours, until all ballast part numbers (P/Ns) BA08006-1 or BA08006-28-1 have been replaced in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD. Table 1.—TRs Inspect the fluorescent tube assemblies of the— In accordance with task— of de Havilland TR— To the de Havilland DASH 8 series— For model— Cabin 3320/01 MRB-146, dated August 31, 2004 100 MPM PSM 1-8-7 DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes. 3320/01 MRB 2-24, dated August 31, 2004 200 MPM PSM 1-82-7 DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes. 3320/01 MRB 3-155, dated August 31, 2004 300 MPM PSM 1-83-7 DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes. Lavatory 3320/03 MRB-147, dated May 3, 2005 100 MPM PSM 1-8-7 DHC-8-102, -103, -106 airplanes. 3320/03 MRB 2-25, dated May 3, 2005 200 MPM PSM 1-82-7 DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes. 3320/03 MRB 3-156, dated May 3, 2005 300 MPM PSM 1-83-7 DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes. Sidewall 3320/02 MRB-147, dated May 3, 2005 100 MPM PSM 1-8-7 DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes. 3320/02 MRB 2-25, dated May 3, 2005 200 MPM PSM 1-82-7 DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes. 3320/02 MRB 3-156, dated May 3, 2005 300 MPM PSM 1-83-7 DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes. 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.” Terminating Action
(g)The repetitive inspections required by this AD may be terminated if all ballasts installed on the airplane have P/N BR9000-21, installed in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-51, Revision ‘A,’ dated April 20, 2005 (to replace ballast P/N BA08006-1), or 8-33-52, dated April 15, 2005 (to replace ballast P/N BA08006-28-1). Ballasts installed before the effective date of this AD are also acceptable if done in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-51, dated August 16, 2002. Parts Installation
(h)As of the effective date of this AD: No person may install a ballast P/N BA08006-1 or BA08006-28-1 on any airplane. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, New York ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(j)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2004-26R1, dated September 28, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use the service information 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 de Havilland Temporary Revision— To the de Havilland DASH 8 Series— MRB-146, dated August 31, 2004 100 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7. MRB-147, dated May 3, 2005 100 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7. MRB 2-24, dated August 31, 2004 200 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-82-7. MRB 2-25, dated May 3, 2005 200 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-82-7. MRB 3-155, dated August 31, 2004 300 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-83-7. MRB 3-156, dated May 3, 2005 300 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-83-7. (Page 2 of de Havilland Temporary Revision MRB-147, dated May 3, 2005, incorrectly refers to Series 300 airplanes; that reference should be to Series 100.) If the terminating action is accomplished, you must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-51, Revision ‘A,’ dated April 20, 2005; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-52, dated April 15, 2005, as applicable, to perform the optional terminating action specified in this AD. 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 Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, 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 14, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13829 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24034; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-05-AD; Amendment 39-14729; AD 2006-17-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for Pratt & Whitney
(PW)PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines that were reassembled with certain previously used high pressure compressor
(HPC)exit brush seal assembly parts and certain new or refurbished HPC exit diffuser air seal inner lands. This AD requires replacing the HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs with new brush seal packs, or replacing the HPC exit brush seal assembly with a new HPC exit brush seal assembly. This AD results from a report of oil leaking into the high pressure turbine
(HPT)interstage cavity and igniting, leading to an engine case penetration and engine in-flight shutdown. Although liberated engine parts did not penetrate the engine nacelle, we are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and injury to passengers. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 27, 2006. The Director of the **Federal Register** approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of September 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this ad from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone
(860)565-8770; fax
(860)565-4503. You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antonio Cancelliere, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7751; fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed airworthiness directive (AD). The proposed AD applies to Pratt & Whitney
(PW)PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines that were reassembled with certain previously used HPC exit brush seal assembly parts and certain new or refurbished HPC exit diffuser air seal inner lands. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on April 19, 2006 (71 FR 20042). That action proposed to require replacing the HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs with new brush seal packs, or replacing the HPC exit brush seal assembly with a new HPC exit brush seal assembly. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request to More Accurately Describe the Unsafe Condition The Boeing Company requests that we more accurately describe the unsafe condition. They propose that we state the unsafe condition as “This AD results from a report of oil leaking into the high pressure turbine
(HPT)interstage cavity and igniting, leading to an engine case penetration and engine in-flight shutdown. Although liberated engine parts did not penetrate the engine nacelle, we are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and injury to passengers.” We agree and adopted the suggested language. Request for Clarification Japan Airlines requests clarification of the compliance on whether “cycles-since-last-overhaul (CSLO)” applies to the engine's last shop visit or if it applies to overhaul of the HPC diffuser assembly only. We agree we need to clarify the compliance. The CSLO applies to overhaul of the HPC diffuser assembly only. As a result of the comment, we reworded compliance paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) to read as follows: “(1) By 3,000 cycles-in-service
(CIS)since a used HPC exit inner brush seal pack and a new or refurbished HPC exit diffuser air seal land were installed in the engine, or by March 31, 2007, whichever occurs later; however
(2)If on March 31, 2007, the used HPC exit inner brush seal pack coupled with a new or refurbished HPC exit diffuser air seal inner land assembly has not accumulated 3,000 CIS, then by 3,000 CIS, or December 31, 2008, whichever occurs first.” Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 76 PW PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 9 work-hours per engine to perform the parts replacement, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $100,017 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $7,656,012. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2006-17-08 Pratt & Whitney** : Amendment 39-14729. Docket No. FAA-2006-24034; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-05-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective September 27, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney
(PW)PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines that were:
(1)Reassembled with a previously used high pressure compressor
(HPC)exit inner brush seal pack, part number (P/N) 50J894-01; and
(2)Reassembled with a new or refurbished HPC exit diffuser air seal inner land, P/N 55H869.
(d)These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(e)This AD results from a report of oil leaking into the high pressure turbine
(HPT)interstage cavity and igniting, leading to an engine case penetration and engine in-flight shutdown. Although liberated engine parts did not penetrate the engine nacelle, we are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and injury to passengers. Compliance
(f)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed at the following compliance times, unless the actions have already been done.
(g)Replace the HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs with new HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs, or replace the HPC exit brush seal assembly with a new HPC exit brush seal assembly as follows:
(1)By 3,000 cycles-in-service
(CIS)since a used HPC exit inner brush seal pack and a new or refurbished HPC exit diffuser air seal land were installed in the engine, or by March 31, 2007, whichever occurs later; however,
(2)If on March 31, 2007, the used HPC exit inner brush seal pack coupled with a new or refurbished HPC exit diffuser air seal inner land assembly has not accumulated 3,000 CIS, then by 3,000 CIS, or December 31, 2008, whichever occurs first.
(h)Use the Accomplishment Instructions of PW Service Bulletin No. PW4G-112-A72-280, Revision 1, dated March 21, 2006, to do the inner and outer brush pack replacements. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(i)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(j)None. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin No. PW4G-112-A72-280, Revision 1, dated March 21, 2006, to perform the replacements required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone
(860)565-8770; fax
(860)565-4503, for a copy of this service information for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 14, 2006. Thomas A. Boudreau, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13909 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25657; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-187-AD; Amendment 39-14735; AD 2006-17-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) 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)that applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspecting contactors 1K4XD, 2K4XD, and K4XA to determine the type of terminal base plate, and applying sealant on the terminal base plates, if necessary. This new AD revises the effective date of the existing AD. This AD results from incidents of short circuit failures of certain alternating current
(AC)contactors located in the avionics bay. We are issuing this AD to prevent short circuit failures of certain AC contactors, which could result in arcing and consequent smoke or fire. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 7, 2006. On August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45364, August 9, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, Revision A, dated July 13, 2006. We must receive any comments on this AD by October 23, 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 Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for service information identified in this AD. You may examine the contents of 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., Room PL-401, on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2006-25657; the directorate identifier for this docket is 2006-NM-187-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7311; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On July 31, 2006, the FAA issued AD 2006-16-07, amendment 39-14707 (71 FR 45364, August 9, 2006). That AD applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. That AD requires inspecting contactors 1K4XD, 2K4XD, and K4XA to determine the type of terminal base plate, and applying sealant on the terminal base plates, if necessary. That AD resulted from incidents of short circuit failures of certain alternating current
(AC)contactors located in the avionics bay. The actions specified in that AD are intended to prevent short circuit failures of certain AC contactors, which could result in arcing and consequent smoke or fire. Actions Since AD Was Issued Since we issued that AD, we have determined that the effective date of that AD was inadvertently specified as the same date as the publication date. The effective date of the AD should be 15 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA'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 supersede AD 2006-16-07. This new AD retains the requirements of the existing AD. This AD also revises the effective date of the existing AD. Interim Action We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we may consider further rulemaking then. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD; therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment before the AD is issued is impracticable, and good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days. 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-2006-25657; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-187-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 can review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can 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 part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14707 (71 FR 45364, August 9, 2006) and adding the following new AD: **2006-17-14 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2006-25657; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-187-AD; Amendment 39-14735. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective September 7, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-16-07. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive and 8000 and subsequent. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from incidents of short circuit failures of certain alternating current
(AC)contactors located in the avionics bay. We are issuing this AD to prevent short circuit failures of certain AC contactors, which could result in arcing and consequent smoke or fire. 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 and Corrective Action
(f)Within 800 flight hours or four months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection of AC service bus contactors 1K4XD and 2K4XD, part number (P/N) D-18ZZA, and the utility bus contactor K4XA, P/N D-7GRZ, to determine which contactors have an Ultem 2200 terminal base plate ( *i.e.,* the plate is made from a black molded thermal plastic material), and apply RTV sealant to the terminal base plate, as applicable, by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, Revision A, dated July 13, 2006. Do all applicable applications of sealant before further flight. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Previous Actions Accomplished According to Other Service Information
(g)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Drawing Number K601R50180, dated June 2, 2006; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, dated June 27, 2006; are considered acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD. Parts Installation
(h)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install AC contactor 1K4XD, 2K4XD, or K4XA, having an Ultem 2200 terminal base plate, on any airplane, unless RTV sealant has been applied to the terminal base plate in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, Revision A, dated July 13, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-16-07, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Related Information
(j)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-17, dated July 11, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, Revision A, dated July 13, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. On August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45364, August 9, 2006), the Director of the **Federal Register** approved the incorporation by reference of this document. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, 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 14, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13831 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25584; Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-62-AD; Amendment 39-14733; AD 2006-17-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD), that is applicable to Rolls-Royce plc
(RR)models RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4--37, RB211-535C-37, RB211-535E4-B-75, RB211-535E4-C, and RB211-22B-02 turbofan engines. That AD currently requires inspecting certain high pressure
(HP)turbine discs, manufactured between 1989 and 1999, for cracks in the rim cooling air holes, and, if necessary, replacing the discs with serviceable parts. The manufacturer identified reaming-induced machining anomalies
(RIMA)as the cause for the cracking. This amendment requires the same inspections, and reduces the compliance times for eddy current inspection
(ECI)for the RR RB211-22B-02 engines. This amendment results from the manufacturer reducing their recommended compliance times for inspections on RB211-22B-02 engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible disc failure, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 27, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of September 27, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of RR Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)No. RB211-72-AE651, dated November 22, 2004, as of January 13, 2005 (69 FR 77881, December 29, 2004) and RR Service Bulletin
(SB)No. RB211-72-C877, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2001, listed in the AD, as of December 24, 2001 (66 FR 57859, November 19, 2001). ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, Derby, England; telephone: 011 44 1332-249428, fax: 011 44 1332-249223. You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7178, fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed airworthiness directive (AD). The proposed AD applies to RR models RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, RB211-535C-37, RB211-535E4-B-75, and RB211-22B-02 turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on January 30, 2006 (71 FR 4832). That action proposed to reduce the inspection schedules required by AD 2004-26-03, for the high risk discs installed on model RB211-22B-02 engines. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public. Editorial Change To Add Background Information to the Summary After we issued the NPRM, RR informed us that they identified reaming-induced machining anomalies
(RIMA)as the cause for the cracking. Docket Number Change We are transferring the docket for this AD to the Docket Management System as part of our on-going docket management consolidation efforts. The new Docket No. is FAA-2006-25584. The old Docket No. became the Directorate Identifier, which is 2000-NE-62-AD. This final rule might get logged into the DMS docket, ahead of the proposed AD and comments received, as we are in the process of sending those items to the DMS. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect six RR RB211-22B engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4.0 work-hours per engine to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work-hour. There are no required parts. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $1,560. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13915 (69 FR 77881, December 29, 2004) and by adding a new airworthiness directive, Amendment 39-14733, to read as follows: **2006-17-12 Rolls-Royce plc:** Amendment 39-14733. Docket No. FAA-2006-25584; Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-62-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective September 27, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-26-03, Amendment 39-13915. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc
(RR)models RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, RB211-535C-37, RB211-535E4-B-75, RB211-535E4-C, and RB211-22B-02 turbofan engines with turbine discs having part numbers and serial numbers listed in the following Tables 1, 3, and 5 of this AD. These turbofan engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 757, Tupolev Tu204, and Lockheed L-1011 series airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from the manufacturer reducing the inspection compliance times for the RB211-22B-02 turbofan engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible disc failure, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Eddy Current Inspection for All Except Model RB211-22B-02 Engines
(f)For all except model RB211-22B-02 engines, do the following:
(1)Perform an eddy current inspection of the high pressure
(HP)turbine discs listed in Table 1 of this AD, for cracks in the rim cooling air holes. Use paragraph 3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)No. RB.211-72-AE651, dated November 22, 2004, to perform the eddy current inspection. Table 1.—Affected HP Turbine Discs Using Compliance Schedule in Table 2 Part No. Serial No. Part No. Serial No. LK80623 CQDY6397 UL27681 LDRCZ12893 LK80623 CQDY6504 UL27681 LDRCZ12985 UL27680 CQDY6451 UL27681 LDRCZ13044 UL27680 CQDY6452 UL27681 LDRCZ13047 UL27680 CQDY6466 UL27681 LQDY6803 UL27680 CQDY6468 UL27681 LQDY6814 UL27680 CQDY6471 UL27681 LQDY6847 UL27680 CQDY6496 UL27681 LQDY6868 UL27680 CQDY6505 UL27681 LQDY6875 UL27680 CQDY6653 UL27681 LQDY6892 UL27680 CQDY6656 UL27681 LQDY6898 UL27680 CQDY6657 UL27681 LQDY6904 UL27680 CQDY6684 UL27681 LQDY6909 UL27680 CQDY6883 UL27681 LQDY6910 UL27681 CQDY6465 UL27681 LQDY9133 UL27681 LAQDY6002 UL27681 LQDY9574 UL27681 LAQDY6083 UL27681 LQDY9579 UL27681 LAQDY6087 UL27681 LQDY9672 UL27681 LDRCZ10247 UL27681 LQDY9770 UL27681 LDRCZ10277 UL27681 LQDY9783 UL27681 LDRCZ10318 UL27681 LQDY9786 UL27681 LDRCZ10335 UL27681 LQDY9900 UL27681 LDRCZ10430 UL27681 LQDY9902 UL27681 LDRCZ10531 UL27681 LQDY9929 UL27681 LDRCZ10750 UL27681 LQDY9957 UL27681 LDRCZ10899 UL27681 LQDY9982 UL27681 LDRCZ11616 UL27681 LQDY9992 UL27681 LDRCZ11720 UL27681 WGQDY90005 UL27681 LDRCZ11893
(2)Use the compliance schedule in Table 2 of this AD. Table 2.—Compliance Schedule for HP Turbine Discs Listed in Table 1 If disc Cycles-Since-New
(CSN)on October 8, 2004 are: Then eddy current inspect:
(i)12,750 CSN or more Within 250 cycles-in-service
(CIS)from October 8, 2004 or within 14,500 CSN, whichever occurs first.
(ii)Fewer than 12,750 CSN but 10,500 CSN or more Within 500 CIS from October 8, 2004.
(iii)Fewer than 10,500 CSN Before 11,000 CSN or at next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(3)On discs that pass inspection, use paragraph 3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AE651, dated November 22, 2004, to permanently etch NMSB 72-AE651 onto the disc, adjacent to the part number.
(4)Perform an eddy current inspection of the HP turbine discs listed in Table 3 of this AD, for cracks in the rim cooling air holes. Use paragraph 3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AE651, dated November 22, 2004, to perform the eddy current inspection. Table 3.—Affected HP Turbine Discs Using Compliance Schedule in Table 4 Part No. Serial No. UL10323 CQDY6070 and higher. UL27680 All. UL27681 All. LK80622 LQDY6316 and higher. LK80623 CQDY5945 and higher. UL28267 All.
(5)Use the compliance schedule in Table 4 of this AD. Table 4.—Compliance Schedule for HP Turbine Discs Listed in Table 3 If disc CSN on January 29, 2001 are: Then eddy current inspect:
(i)Fewer than 13,700 CSN Before reaching 14,500 CSN, or at the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(ii)13,700 CSN or more Before reaching one of the following, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: ( *A* ) 15,300 CSN. ( *B* ) Within 800 CIS since January 29, 2001. ( *C* ) At next shop visit.
(6)For discs that pass inspection, use paragraph 3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AE651, dated November 22, 2004, to permanently etch NMSB 72-AE651 onto the disc, adjacent to the part number. Eddy Current Inspection for Model RB211-22B-02 Engines
(g)For model RB211-22B-02 engines, do the following:
(1)Perform an eddy current inspection of the HP turbine discs listed in Table 5 of this AD, for cracks in the rim cooling air holes. Use paragraph 3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AE717, dated January 21, 2005, to perform the eddy current inspection. Table 5.—Affected HP Turbine Discs in RR Model RB211-02 Turbofan Engines Part No. Serial No. LK80622 LQDY6316 and higher. LK80623 CQDY5945 and higher. UL28267 All.
(2)Use the compliance schedule in Table 6 of this AD. Table 6.—Compliance Schedule for HP Turbine Discs Listed in Table 5 If disc CSN on January 1, 2005 are: Then eddy current inspect:
(i)More than 9,000 CSN Within 500 CIS after January 1, 2005, but before 11,000 CSN, whichever is sooner.
(ii)More than 1,500, but fewer than 9,001 CSN Before exceeding 9,500 CSN, or at the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(3)For discs that pass inspection, use paragraph 3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AE717, dated January 21, 2005, to permanently etch NMSB 72-AE717 onto the disc, adjacent to the part number. Other Conditions for All Engines
(h)Do not perform the actions of this AD to a disc until that disc has reached at least 1,500 CSN.
(i)Engines with an affected HP turbine disc at shop visit on the effective date of this AD and without the HP turbine rotor installed in the combustor outer case, must have the disc eddy current inspected before assembling the engine.
(j)Engines with an affected HP turbine disc at shop visit on the effective date of this AD with the HPT rotor installed in the combustor case need not have the disc eddy current inspected at this time.
(k)HP turbine discs previously eddy current inspected at fewer than 1,500 CSN must be inspected again using this AD.
(l)Replace cracked HP turbine discs with a serviceable disc. Definition
(m)For the purpose of this AD, next shop visit is defined as the first shop visit opportunity when the HPT rotor is removed from the combustion case.
(n)For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable part is one with cyclic life remaining and either not listed in any of the preceding tables or one listed in a preceding table, but previously eddy current inspected and permanently etch marked with the Service Bulletin
(SB)number NMSB 72-AE651 or NMSB 72-C877 on the disc. Previous Credit
(o)Previous credit is allowed for the actions in this AD for HP turbine discs with 1,500 CSN or more that were eddy current inspected using applicable RR SB No. RB.211-72-C817, Revision 2, dated March 7, 2001, RR TSD 594-J, Overhaul Processes Manual, Task 70-00-00-200-223, or RR SB No. RB.211-72-C877, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2001. Reporting Requirements
(p)For all except model RB211-22B-02 engines, report findings of the inspection using paragraph 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB RB.211-72-AE651, dated November 22, 2004. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the reporting requirements specified in paragraph 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB RB.211-72-AE651, dated November 22, 2004, and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056.
(q)For model RB211-22B-02 engines, report findings of the inspection using paragraph 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB RB.211-72-AE717, dated January 21, 2005. The OMB has approved the reporting requirements specified in paragraph 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB RB.211-72-AE717, dated January 21, 2005, and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(r)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Material Incorporated by Reference
(s)You must use the service information specified in Table 7 of this AD to perform the inspections required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of RR ASB RB.211-72-AE717, dated January 21, 2005, listed in Table 7 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The incorporation by reference of RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AE651, dated November 22, 2004, was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 13, 2005 (69 FR 77881, December 29, 2004). The incorporation by reference of RR SB No. RB.211-72-C877, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2001, was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 24, 2001 (66 FR 57859, November 19, 2001). You can get a copy from Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, Derby, England; telephone: 011 44 1332-249428, fax: 011 44 1332-249223, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Table 7.—Incorporation by Reference Service Bulletin Page Nos. Revision Date RB.211-72-AE651 All Original November 22, 2004. Total Pages—7 RB.211-72-AE717 All Original January 21, 2005. Total Pages—8 RB.211-72-C877 All 1 March 7, 2001. Total Pages—5 Related Information
(t)CAA Airworthiness Directive G-2004-0027, dated November 19, 2004, and CAA Airworthiness Directive G-2005-0003, dated January 24, 2005, also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 15, 2006. Thomas A. Boudreau, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13910 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24781; Airspace Docket No. 06-AWP-8] Modification of Class E Airspace; Half Moon Bay, CA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action modifies the Class E airspace area at Half Moon Bay, CA. The establishment of an Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Z Instrument Approach Procedure
(IAP)to Runway
(RWY)30 to Half Moon Bay Airport, Half Moon Bay, CA has made this action necessary. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth is needed to contain aircraft executing this RNAV
(GPS)ZIAP to RWY 30 at Half Moon Bay Airport. The intended effect of this action is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules operations at Half Moon Bay Airport, Half Moon Bay, CA EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC September 28, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Office of the Regional Western Terminal Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, OF 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, telephone
(310)725-6502. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On June 14, 2006, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace area at Half Moon Bay, CA (06 FR 34296). Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface is needed to contain aircraft executing the RNAV
(GPS)Z IAP RWY 30 to Half Moon Bay Airport. This action will provide adequate controlled airspace for aircraft executing the RNAV
(GPS)Z IAP RWY 30 to Half Moon Bay Airport, Half Moon Bay, CA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments to the proposal were received. Class E airspace designations for airspace extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9N, dated September 1, 2005, and effective September 15, 2005, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace area at Half Moon Bay, CA. The establishment of a RNAV
(GPS)Z IAP RWY 30 to Half Moon Bay Airport has made this action necessary. The effect of this action will provide adequate airspace for aircraft executing the RNAV
(GPS)Z IAP RWY 30 to Half Moon Bay Airport, Half Moon Bay, CA. 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. Therefore, this regulation—(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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule 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 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS, ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9N, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2005, and effective September 15, 2005, is amended as follows: *Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth.* AWP CA E5 Half Moon Bay, CA [Amended] Half Moon Bay Airport (Lat. 37°30′48″ N, long. 122°30′04″ W) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, bounded on the north by lat. 37°35′00″ N, on the east by long. 122°14′00″ W, on the south by lat. 37°18′00″ N, on the west by long. 122°35′04″ W. Issued in Los Angeles, California, on August 7, 2006. Leonard A. Mobley, Acting Area Director, Western Terminal Operations. [FR Doc. 06-7062 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 15
17 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 330
  • 9 CFR 94
  • 7 CFR 330.400
  • 9 CFR 94.5
  • 7 CFR 330.100
  • 7 CFR 330.402(a)(2)
  • 9 CFR 94.5(d)(1)(ii)
  • 7 CFR 3015
  • 7 CFR 1
  • 7 CFR 372
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • 9 CFR 94.1
  • 7 CFR 352
  • 7 USC 7701-7772
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 14 CFR 71
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 4321
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 450
U.S.C.§ 136
U.S.C.§ 9701
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Cite7 CFR 330
Cite9 CFR 94
Cite7 CFR 330.400
Cites 32 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.