Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

19,720 words·~90 min read·/register/2006/09/15/06-7621

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25582; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-42-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Model PC-7 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to do repetitive eddy-current, non-destructive inspections of the nose skin and adjacent structure above the left and right main landing gear bay and repetitive visual inspections of the forward support structure of the floor panel for crack damage. If you find any crack damage, this proposed AD would require you to contact Pilatus to obtain a repair solution and incorporate the repair. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Switzerland. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the nose skin and adjacent structure above the left and right main landing gear bay and in the forward support structure of the floor panel. Crack propagation in certain areas could lead to failure of the main wing torsion box, which could result in loss of control. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 63 19; fax: +41 41 619 6224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4059; facsimile:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-25582; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-42-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion The Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Switzerland, notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Pilatus PC-7 airplanes. The FOCA reports crack damage in some radii at the rear edge of the nose skin, part number (P/N) 111.34.07.434. The radii are adjacent to the left and right corners at the forward edge of the floor panel, P/N 111.34.07.530. Crack damage can also occur in the forward support structure of the floor panel adjacent to the skin panel. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in crack propagation in certain areas, which may lead to failure of the main wing torsion box. This failure could result in loss of control. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Pilatus PC-7 Service Bulletin No. 57-009, dated January 29, 2004. The service information describes procedures for visually inspecting the forward support structure of the floor panel and eddy-current, non-destructive inspecting the nose skin and adjacent structure above the left and right main landing gear bay for crack damage. Foreign Airworthiness Authority Information The FOCA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Swiss AD HB 2006-374, effective date August 2, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Switzerland. These Pilatus PC-7 airplanes are manufactured in Switzerland and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the FOCA has kept us informed of the situation described above. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we have examined the FOCA's findings, evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would require you to do repetitive eddy-current, non-destructive inspections of the nose skin and adjacent structure above the left and right main landing gear bay and repetitive visual inspections of the forward support structure of the floor panel for crack damage. If you find any crack damage, this proposed AD would require you to contact Pilatus to obtain a repair solution and incorporate the repair. Differences Between the FOCA AD, the Service Information, and This Proposed AD FOCA AD HB-2006-374, effective date August 2, 2006, allows continued flight if cracks are found in the nose skin that do not exceed certain limits. The applicable service bulletin specifies repair of the nose skin only if cracks are found exceeding limits illustrated in Pilatus PC-7 Service Bulletin No. 57-009, dated January 29, 2004, as does FOCA AD HB-2006-374, effective date August 2, 2006. This proposed AD, if adopted, does not allow continued flight if any crack is found. FAA policy is to disallow airplane operation when known cracks exist in primary structure, unless the ability to sustain ultimate load with these cracks is proven. The nose skin is considered primary structure, and the FAA has not received any analysis to prove that ultimate load can be sustained with cracks in this area. The requirements of this proposed AD, if adopted as a final rule, would take precedence over the provisions in the service information. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 10 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 3 work-hours × $80 per hour = $240 No parts required $240 $2,400 Any required “upon-condition” repairs would vary depending upon the damage found. Based on this, we have no way of determining the potential repair costs for each airplane or the number of airplanes that would need the repairs based on the result of the proposed inspections. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25582; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-42-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by October 16, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model PC-7 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 101 through 618 inclusive, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Switzerland. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the nose skin and adjacent structure above the left and right main landing gear bay and in the forward support structure of the floor panel. Crack propagation in certain areas could lead to failure of the main wing torsion box. This failure could result in loss of control. Compliance

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

(1)Inspect:

(i)The forward area of the floor panel and the related structure for cracks using magnified, visual methods.

(ii)The nose skin and adjacent structure above the left and right main landing gear bay for cracks using eddy-current, non-destructive methods. Initially inspect within the next 150 hours time-in-service or 6 calendar months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, unless already done. Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals specified in paragraph 2. B. of Pilatus PC-7 Aircraft Maintenance Manual

(AMM)05-10-00, dated March 4, 2005 Do the initial inspection following Pilatus PC-7 Service Bulletin No. 57-009, dated January 29, 2004. Do the repetitive inspections following the procedures in AMM 57-10-03, dated March 4, 2005, and AMM 05-30-05, dated February 28, 2006.

(2)If crack damage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, obtain an FAA-approved repair solution from the manufacturer through the FAA at the address specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD and incorporate the repair Before further flight after any inspection in which crack damage is found. Further flight with crack damage is not permitted. After incorporating the repair, repetitively inspect as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Obtain an FAA-approved repair solution from the manufacturer through the FAA at the address specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD and incorporate the repair. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4059; facsimile:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(g)The Federal Office for Civil Aviation Swiss AD HB-2006-374, effective date August 2, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 63 19; fax: +41 41 619 6224. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-25582; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-42-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 11, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-15342 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25824; Directorate Identifier 2004-SW-23-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-61L, N, R, and NM Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the specified Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) model helicopters. The AD would require, within a specified time, creating a component history card or equivalent record. The AD would also require recording the hours time-in-service

(TIS)and the external lift cycles (lift cycles) for each main gearbox input left and right freewheel unit

(IFWU)assembly. Also, the AD would require calculating a moving average of lift cycles per hour TIS at specified intervals on each IFWU assembly. The moving average would be used to determine if an IFWU assembly is used in repetitive external lift

(REL)or non-REL helicopter operations. If an IFWU assembly is used in REL operations, this AD would require a repetitive inspection, which requires a visual and dimensional inspection of the IFWU assembly at specified intervals. This AD would also require recording certain information and replacing each part that is beyond the wear limits or that exhibits visual surface distress with an airworthy part. In addition, this AD would require permanently marking the REL IFWU camshafts and gear housings with the letters “REL” on the surface of these parts. This proposal is prompted by an accident in which the left and right IFWU assembly on a helicopter slipped or disengaged resulting in both engines overspeeding, engine shutdowns, and loss of engine power to the transmissions. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent slipping in the IFWU assembly, loss of engine power to the transmissions, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically; • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically; • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590; • *Fax:* 202-493-2251; or • *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. You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Tech Support, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, Connecticut 06614, phone

(203)386-3001, fax

(203)386-5983. You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Gustafson, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone

(781)238-7190, fax

(781)238-7170. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the caption ADDRESSES . Include the docket number “FAA-2006-25824, Directorate Identifier 2004-SW-23-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the Docket Management System

(DMS)Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located at the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building in Room PL-401 at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Discussion This document proposes adopting a new AD for the specified Sikorsky model helicopters. The AD would require, within a specified time, creating a component history card or equivalent record and counting and recording the hours TIS and the lift cycles for each IFWU assembly. A lift cycle is defined as an external load lift and subsequent release of that load. Also, the AD would require calculating a moving average of lift cycles per hour TIS at specified intervals on the IFWU assembly. The moving average would determine if an IFWU assembly is designated as an REL or non-REL IFWU assembly. REL operations are those operations in which more than 6 lift cycles per hour TIS are performed based on the moving average. Non-REL operations are those operations in which 6 or less lift cycles per hour TIS are performed based on the moving average. Once an IFWU assembly is designated as an REL IFWU assembly, the moving average would no longer need to be calculated for that IFWU assembly. If an IFWU assembly is designated as an REL IFWU assembly, this AD would require a repetitive visual and dimensional inspection of the IFWU assembly at 500 hours TIS or 7500 lift cycles whichever occurs first. This AD would also require recording inspection information, providing a copy of the information to the FAA, and replacing each part that is beyond the wear or surface distress limits with an airworthy part. In addition, this AD would require permanently marking the IFWU camshaft and gear housing with the letters “REL” on the surface of these parts. The proposal is prompted by an accident in which the left and right IFWU assembly on a helicopter slipped or disengaged resulting in both engines overspeeding, engine shutdowns, and loss of engine power to the transmissions. The main cause of the slippage has been traced to excessive and accelerated wear conditions in the IFWU assembly associated with repeated external lifting operations. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent slipping in the IFWU assembly, loss of engine power to the transmissions, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. We have reviewed Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 61835-67B, Revision B, dated August 11, 2003 (ASB). The ASB specifies implementing a moving average procedure for determining REL status. Tracking lift cycles and the moving average procedure is contained in Sikorsky All Operators Letter CCS-61AOL-04-0005. Further, the ASB describes procedures for establishing an inspection interval for REL and non-REL operations, which are defined in section 1.B. of the ASB. The ASB defines operations as REL when the average number of lift cycles exceeds 6 per flight hour during any 250 flight-hour period based on a moving average calculated at intervals not to exceed 50 hours of operations. The ASB defines operations as non-REL when the number of moving average lift cycles per hour is 6 or less. This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs. Therefore, the proposed AD would require the following: • Within 10 hours TIS, • Create an external lift component history card or equivalent record for each IFWU assembly, part number (P/N) 61074-35000-041 through 61074-35000-063, unless done previously, and • Count and, at the end of each day's operations, record the number of lift cycles performed and hours TIS. • Determine whether the IFWU assembly is an REL or non-REL IFWU assembly by using a 250-hour TIS moving average as follows: • Upon reaching 250 hours TIS, calculate the first moving average of lift cycles. • If the calculation results in more than 6 lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is an REL IFWU assembly. • If the calculation results in 6 or less lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly. • If you determine the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly based on the first calculation of the 250-hour TIS moving average for lift cycles, thereafter at intervals of 50 hours TIS, recalculate the average lift cycles per hour TIS. • If the calculation results in more than 6 lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is an REL IFWU assembly. • If the calculation results in 6 or less lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly. • Once an IFWU assembly is determined to be an REL IFWU assembly, it remains an REL IFWU assembly for the rest of its service life and is subject to the AD inspection requirements for REL IFWU assemblies. • Once an IFWU assembly is determined to be an REL IFWU assembly, you no longer need to perform the 250-hour TIS moving average calculation, but you must continue to count and record the lift cycles. • For each REL IFWU assembly, at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS or 7500 lift cycles, whichever occurs first, since the last IFWU assembly inspection, inspect for wear, surface distress, and endplay, record the information; and • Replace any IFWU assembly part whose average wear, wear marks, surface distress, or endplay exceeds the limits with an airworthy IFWU assembly part. • For each REL IFWU assembly, permanently mark IFWU camshafts, P/N S6135-20611, S6135-20614 and S6137-23075, and IFWU gear housings, P/N S6135-20695 and S6137-23057, with the letters “REL”. Mark the camshafts by applying etching ink on the surface of the part that is 0.5 inch square with the depth of the letters not to exceed 0.001 inch. After etching, neutralize the etched surface with oil to prevent corrosion. • For the next 24 months and within 10 days provide the recorded information required by this AD to the Manager of the Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. The actions would be required by following specified portions of the ASB described previously. We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 21 helicopters of U.S. registry and would take about: • 4 work hours to measure and record the inspected dimensions, • 1 work hour to mark the REL parts, and • 3 work hours per year per helicopter to do the cycle counting, recording the lift cycle count, and inspecting each IFWU assembly, and • Cost about $80 per work hour. • Required parts would cost about $600 to replace the IFWU rollers and $980 per helicopter to replace the IFWU Oilite bushings at each overhaul. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators would be $46,620, assuming you replace the IFWU rollers and Oilite bushings on every helicopter and every IFWU assembly is determined to be an REL IFWU assembly based on the first lift cycle calculation. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, this proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a draft economic analysis of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the DMS to examine the draft economic analysis. Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25824; Directorate Identifier 2004-SW-23-AD. Applicability Model S-61L, N, R, and NM helicopters, certificated in any category. Compliance Required as indicated. To prevent slipping of the main gearbox input freewheel unit

(IFWU)assembly, loss of engine power, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, do the following:

(a)Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS),

(1)Create an external lift component history card or equivalent record for each IFWU assembly, part number (P/N) 61074-35000-041 through 61074-35000-063, unless accomplished previously, and

(2)Count and, at the end of each days operations, record the number of external lift cycles (lift cycles) performed and the hours TIS. A “lift cycle” is defined as the lifting of an external load and subsequent release of the load.

(b)Determine whether the IFWU assembly is an REL or Non-REL IFWU assembly by using a 250-hour TIS moving average as follows:

(1)Upon reaching 250 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, calculate the first moving average of lift cycles by following the instructions in Section I of Appendix I of this AD.

(i)If the calculation under paragraph (b)(1) of this AD results in more than 6 lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is an REL IFWU assembly.

(ii)If the calculation under paragraph (b)(1) of this AD results in 6 or less lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly.

(2)If you determine the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly based on the first calculation of the 250-hour TIS moving average for lift cycles, thereafter at intervals of 50 hour TIS, recalculate the average lift cycles per hour TIS by following the instructions in Section II of Appendix 1 of this AD.

(i)If the calculation under paragraph (b)(2) of this AD results in more than 6 lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is an REL IFWU assembly.

(ii)If the calculation under paragraph (b)(2) of this AD results in 6 or less lift cycles per hour TIS, the IFWU assembly is a Non-REL IFWU assembly.

(3)Once an IFWU assembly is determined to be an REL IFWU assembly, it remains an REL IFWU assembly for the rest of its service life and is subject to the AD inspection requirements for REL IFWU assemblies.

(4)Once an IFWU assembly is determined to be an REL IFWU assembly, you no longer need to perform the 250-hour TIS moving average calculation, but you must continue to count and record the lift cycles. Note 1: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation issued an All Operators Letter

(AOL)CCS-61-AOL-04-0005, dated May 18, 2004, with an example and additional information about tracking cycles and the moving average procedure. You can obtain this AOL from the manufacturer at the address stated in the ADDRESSES portion of this AD.

(c)For each REL IFWU assembly, at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS or 7500 lift cycles, whichever occurs first, since the last IFWU assembly inspection:

(1)Inspect for wear, surface distress, and endplay by following paragraphs B.(1) through B.(6) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin No. 61B35-67B, Revision B, dated August 11, 2003 (ASB). Record all the information specified in Figures 1 through 3 attached to the ASB. You may record this information on any suitable maintenance record, or you may use the Sikorsky evaluation forms provided in the ASB. This AD does not require you to contact Sikorsky.

(2)Replace any IFWU assembly part whose average wear, wear marks, surface distress, or endplay exceeds the limits stated in paragraph B.(1) through B.(6) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the ASB with an airworthy IFWU assembly part. Note 2: Sikorsky S-61 Overhaul Manual, Number SA 4045-83, Revision 20, dated August 15, 2003, as revised by Temporary Revisions 65-193, -194, -195, and -196, contains the overhaul procedures for the IFWU assembly.

(d)For each REL IFWU assembly, permanently mark IFWU camshafts, P/N S6135-20611, S6135-20614 and S6137-23075, and IFWU gear housings, P/N S6135-20695 and S6137-23057, with the letters “REL”. Mark the camshafts by applying etching ink on the surface of the part that is 0.5 inch square with the depth of the letters not to exceed 0.001 inch. After etching, neutralize the etched surface with oil to prevent corrosion.

(e)For the next 24 months and within 10 days after completing the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, provide a copy of the recorded information to the Manager of the Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. Note 3: In the ASB, Sikorsky requests copies of the completed inspection forms, Figures 1 through 3 to their ASB. This AD does not require you to provide these forms to Sikorsky.

(f)Information collection requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

(g)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manger, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Kirk Gustafson, Aviation Safety Engineer, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone

(781)238-7190, fax

(781)238-7170, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance. Appendix I Section I: The first moving average of lift cycles per hour TIS. The first moving average calculation is performed on the IFWU assembly when the external lift component history card record reflects that the IFWU assembly has reached its first 250 hours TIS. To perform the calculation, divide the total number of lift cycles performed during the first 250 hours TIS by 250. The result will be the first moving average calculation of lift cycles per hour TIS. Section II: Subsequent moving average of lift cycles per hour TIS. Subsequent moving average calculations are performed on the IFWU assembly at intervals of 50 hour TIS intervals after the first moving average calculation. Subtract the total number of lift cycles performed during the first 50-hour TIS interval used in the previous moving average calculation from the total number of lift cycles performed on the IFWU assembly during the previous 300 hours TIS. Divide this result by 250. The result will be the next or subsequent moving average calculation of lift cycles per hour TIS. Section III: Sample calculation for subsequent 50 hour TIS intervals. Assume the total number of lift cycles for the first 50 hour TIS interval used in the previous moving average calculation = 450 lift cycles and the total number of lift cycles for the previous 300 hours TIS = 2700 lift cycles. The subsequent moving average of lift cycles per hour TIS = (2700−450) divided by 250 = 9 lift cycles per hour TIS. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 8, 2006. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-15331 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25581; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-41-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by an airworthiness authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address an unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *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. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gunnar Berg, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4141; facsimile:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decisionmaking responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-25581; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-41-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency, which is the airworthiness authority for the European Union, has issued Emergency AD No. 2006-0226-E, Issue date: July 21, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that the aircraft manufacturer has identified an unsafe condition resulting from an incomplete thermal treatment done on three hinge pin batches lowering their mechanical properties with a high risk of deformation under service loads. If not corrected, the nose landing gear

(NLG)hinge pin may rupture and cause an uncommanded NLG retraction. The MCAI requires that you first identify the concerned NLG, and second, detect the defective hinge pins on aircraft or on shelves and replace them with new ones. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the docket. Relevant Service Information EADS SOCATA has issued TBM Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, ATA No. 32, dated July 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between the Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable in a U.S. court of law. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These proposed requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 256 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to do the action and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,025 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $303,360, or $1,185 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **EADS SOCATA:** FAA-2006-25581; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-41-AD Comments Due Date

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

(AD)by October 16, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Model TBM 700 airplanes fitted with nose landing gear

(NLG)part number (P/N) 21130-001-02 with serial numbers (S/N) B168 through B173 and S/N EUR 174 through EUR 239, that are certificated in any U.S. category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states that the aircraft manufacturer has identified an unsafe condition resulting from an incomplete thermal treatment done on three hinge pin batches lowering their mechanical properties with a high risk of deformation under service loads. If not corrected, the NLG hinge pin may rupture and cause an uncommanded NLG retraction. Actions and Compliance

(e)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following except as stated in paragraph

(f)below.

(1)Verify the NLG serial number to determine its eligibility to this AD. If the NLG S/N is not listed in the applicability paragraph of this AD, no further action is required.

(2)For airplanes with the applicable NLG S/N, apply the operational procedure as indicated in paragraph A of the accomplishment instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, ATA No. 32, dated July 2006. This can be done by inserting into the airplane flight manual, the EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, ATA No. 32, dated July 2006.

(3)Identify the pin batch number as instructed in paragraph B of the accomplishment instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, ATA No. 32, dated July 2006. For airplanes with the correct pin batch numbers, no further action is required. Return the airplane to service as instructed in EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, ATA No. 32, dated July 2006.

(4)For airplanes with pins from the defective pin batch numbers or for which the batch number is unreadable, do all the actions as instructed in paragraphs B 5), C, and D of the accomplishment instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, ATA No. 32, dated July 2006.

(5)As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install on any EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplane, any NLG actuator hinge pins coming from the three defective batches identified as EUR BC 21344-000-01, EUR BD 21344-000-01, and EUR BF 21344-000-01 on NLG part number 21130-001-02. FAA AD Differences

(f)None. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, ATTN: Gunnar Berg, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4141; facsimile:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)*Return to Airworthiness:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)This AD is related to European Aviation Safety Agency Emergency AD No. 2006-0226-E, Issue date: July 21, 2006, which references EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-147, ATA No. 32, dated July 2006. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 11, 2006. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-15332 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis 15 CFR Part 801 [Docket No. 060824224-6224-01] RIN 0691-AA60 International Services Surveys: BE-120, Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets With Foreign Persons AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This proposed rule amends regulations of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce

(BEA)to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-120, Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Foreign Persons. This rule would replace the rule for a similar but more limited survey, the BE-20, Benchmark Survey of Selected Services Transactions with Unaffiliated Foreign Persons. The agency form number and survey title are being changed because the survey is being reconfigured to reflect changes in BEA's survey program for international services that have occurred since the previous BE-20 survey was conducted, as well as to begin collection of data on transactions with affiliated foreigners and unaffiliated foreigners using the same survey instruments. If adopted the BE-120 survey would be conducted once every five years beginning with fiscal year 2006. The proposed BE-120 survey is intended to cover the universe of selected services transactions and transactions in intangible assets with foreign persons. In nonbenchmark years, universe estimates covering these transactions would be derived from the sample data reported on BEA's follow-on quarterly survey, by extrapolating forward the universe data collected on the BE-120 benchmark survey. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule will receive consideration if submitted in writing on or before 5 p.m. November 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0691-AA60, and referencing the agency name (Bureau of Economic Analysis), by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For agency, select “Commerce Department-B all.” • *E-mail* : *Obie.Whichard@bea.gov.* • *Fax* : Office of the Chief, International Investment Division,

(202)606-5318. • *Mail* : Office of the Chief, International Investment Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, BE-50, Washington, DC 20230. • *Hand Delivery/Courier* : Office of the Chief, International Investment Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, BE-50, Shipping and Receiving, Section M100, 1441 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Public Inspection: Comments may be inspected at BEA's offices, 1441 L Street, NW., Room 7006, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time Monday though Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Obie G. Whichard, Chief, International Investment Division (BE-50), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; e-mail *Obie.Whichard@bea.gov* ; or phone

(202)606-9890. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule would amend 15 CFR Part 801.10 to replace the reporting requirements for the BE-20, Benchmark Survey of Selected Services Transactions with Unaffiliated Foreign Persons with requirements for the BE-120, Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Foreign Persons. The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Description of Changes The proposed BE-120 survey would be a mandatory survey and would be conducted, beginning with transactions for fiscal year 2006, once every 5 years by BEA under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101C3108), hereinafter, “the Act.” BEA would send the survey to potential respondents in January of 2007; responses would be due by March 31, 2007. BEA maintains a continuing dialogue with respondents and with data users, including its own internal users, to ensure that, as far as possible, the required data serve their intended purposes and are available from existing records, that instructions are clear, and that unreasonable burdens are not imposed. In designing the survey, BEA contacted Government and non-Government data users outside the Bureau and potential survey respondents to obtain their views on the proposed benchmark survey. In reaching decisions on what questions to include in the survey, BEA considered the Government's need for the data, the burden imposed on respondents, the quality of the likely responses (for example, whether the data are available on respondents' books), and BEA's experience in previous benchmark and related annual and quarterly surveys. BEA proposes the following five changes to the Code of Federal Regulations:

(1)Include services transactions that were previously collected on two annual surveys that have been discontinued—the BE-47, Annual Survey of Construction, Engineering, Architectural, and Mining Services Provided by U.S. Firms to Unaffiliated Foreign Persons and the BE-93, Annual Survey of Royalties, License Fees, and Other Receipts and Payments for Intangible Rights Between U.S. and Unaffiliated Foreign Persons. BEA is currently collecting these transactions on the surveys—the BE-22, Annual Survey of Selected Services Transactions Between U.S. and Unaffiliated Foreign Persons and the BE-25, Quarterly Survey of Transactions between U.S. and Unaffiliated Foreign Persons in Selected Services and in Intangible Assets—for which the BE-120 survey is designed to provide benchmark coverage.

(2)Include services transactions with affiliated parties ( *i.e.* , with foreign affiliates, foreign parents, and foreign affiliates of foreign parents). BEA is currently collecting these transactions on its quarterly direct investment surveys (the BE-577, Direct Transactions of U.S. Reporter with Foreign Affiliate, the BE-605, Transactions of U.S. Affiliate, except a U.S. Banking Affiliate, with Foreign Parent, and the BE-605 Bank, Transactions of U.S. Banking Affiliate with Foreign Parent). BEA proposes to remove quarterly collection of data on these affiliated services transactions from these surveys beginning with reports for the first quarter of calendar year 2007, and move them to a redesigned quarterly survey of transactions in selected services and in intangible assets (which will replace the current BE-22 and BE-25 surveys).

(3)Raise the exemption level for reporting sales from $1 million to $2 million. (The exemption level for purchases, for which transactions for a given firm may often be smaller than sales, will remain at $1 million).

(4)Combine several services into one “other selected services” category, which will include any services not individually covered by the survey or available from other sources.

(5)Eliminate several schedules from the prior benchmark survey that collected additional detail on computer and data processing services; data base and other information services (receipts only); telecommunications services; financial services (payments only); and operational leasing services (receipts only). Survey Background The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce, would conduct the survey under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108), hereinafter, “the Act.” Section 4(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 3103(a)) provides that the President shall, to the extent he deems necessary and feasible, conduct a regular data collection program to secure current information related to international investment and trade in services and publish for the use of the general public and United States Government agencies periodic, regular, and comprehensive statistical information collected pursuant to this subsection. In Section 3 of Executive Order 11961, as amended by Executive Orders 12318 and 12518, the President delegated his responsibilities under the Act for performing functions concerning international trade in services to the Secretary of Commerce, who has redelegated them to BEA. The survey would update and broaden data provided on the universe of transactions between U.S. and foreign persons in selected services and intangible assets. The data are needed to monitor trade in services and intangible assets; analyze their impact on the U.S. and foreign economies; compile and improve the U.S. international transactions, national income and product, and input-output accounts; support U.S. commercial policy on services and intangible assets; assess and promote U.S. competitiveness in international trade in services; and improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Executive Order 13132 This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federal assessment under E.O. 13132. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The requirement will be submitted to OMB as a request for a reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired under OMB control number 0608-0058. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. The BE-120 benchmark survey, as proposed, is expected to result in the filing of reports containing mandatory data from approximately 5,000 respondents. The respondent burden for this collection of information will vary from one respondent to another, but is estimated to average 12 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total respondent burden for the 2006 BE-120 survey is estimated at 60,000 hours, compared to 13,200 hours estimated for the previous, 2001, BE-20 survey. The increase in burden is a result of several factors: more U.S. persons with transactions in international services, the inclusion of transactions with affiliated foreign persons, and the coverage of transactions in intangible assets and in construction and related services. Comments are requested concerning:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the burden estimate;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be addressed to: Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, fax: 202-606-5311; and the Office of Management and Budget, O.I.R.A., Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0058, Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, via e-mail at *pbugg@omb.eop.gov* . or by fax at 202-395-7245. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that this proposed rulemaking, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The information collection excludes most small businesses from mandatory reporting. Companies that engage in international transactions in covered services or intangible assets tend to be relatively large. In addition, the reporting threshold for this survey is set at a level that will exempt most small businesses from reporting. The proposed BE-120 benchmark survey will be required from U.S. persons whose sales to foreign persons in any of the covered transactions exceeded $2 million during the fiscal year covered, or whose purchases from foreign persons in any of the covered transactions exceeded $1 million during the fiscal year covered. This amount is applied separately to each of the individual types of transactions covered by the survey. Thus, the exemption level will exclude most small businesses from mandatory coverage. Of those smaller businesses that must report, most will tend to have specialized operations and activities, so they will likely report only one type of transaction, often limited to transactions with a single partner country; therefore, the burden on them should be small. In addition, BE survey mailings are targeted mailings. Thus, since small businesses tend not to be involved in the transactions to be covered by the BE-120 survey, few small businesses should receive the survey. However, those receiving the survey are expected to incur a minimal burden in completing the exemption form. List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 801 International transactions, Economic statistics, Foreign trade, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. J. Steven Landefeld, Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA proposes to amend 15 CFR part 801, as follows: PART 801—SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN SERVICES BETWEEN U.S. AND FOREIGN PERSONS 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 801 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 15 U.S.C. 4908; 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108; and E.O. 11961, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p.86, as amended by E.O. 12318, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 173, and E.O. 12518, 3 CFR, 1985 Comp., p. 348. 2. Section 801.10 is revised to read as follows: § 801.10 Rules and regulations for the BE-120, Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Foreign Persons. The BE-120, Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Unaffiliated Foreign Persons, will be conducted covering fiscal year 2006 and every fifth year thereafter. All legal authorities, provisions, definitions, and requirements contained in §§ 801.1 through 801.9(a) are applicable to this survey. Additional rules and regulations for the BE-120 survey are given in paragraphs

(a)through

(c)of this section. More detailed instructions and descriptions of the individual types of transactions covered are given on the report form itself.

(a)The BE-120 survey consists of two parts and three schedules. Part I requests information needed to determine whether a report is required and which schedules apply. Part II requests information about the reporting entity. Each of the three schedules covers one or more types of transactions and is to be completed only if the U.S. reporter has transactions of the type(s) covered by the particular schedule.

(b)*Who must report* —(1) *Mandatory reporting.* A BE-120 report is required from each U.S. person that had sales to foreign persons that exceeded $2 million during the fiscal year covered of any of the types of services or intangible assets listed in paragraph

(c)of this section, or had purchases from foreign persons that exceeded $1 million during the fiscal year covered of any of the types of services or intangible assets listed in paragraph

(c)of this section.

(i)The determination of whether a U.S. person is subject to this mandatory reporting requirement may be judgmental, that is, based on the judgment of knowledgeable persons in a company who can identify reportable transactions on a recall basis, with a reasonable degree of certainty, without conducting a detailed records search. Because the reporting threshold ($2 million for sales and $1 million for purchases) applies separately to sales and purchases, the mandatory reporting requirement may apply only to sales, only to purchases, or to both sales and purchases.

(ii)U.S. persons that file pursuant to this mandatory reporting requirement must complete Parts I and II of Form BE-120 and all applicable schedules. The total amounts of transactions applicable to a particular schedule are to be entered in the appropriate column(s) and, except for sales of merchanting services, these amounts must be distributed among the countries involved in the transactions. For sales of merchanting services, the data are not required to be reported by individual foreign country, although this information may be provided voluntarily.

(iii)Application of the exemption levels to each covered transaction is indicated on the schedule for that particular type of transaction. It should be noted that an item other than sales or purchases may be used as the measure of a given type of transaction for purposes of determining whether the threshold for mandatory reporting of the transaction is exceeded.

(2)*Voluntary reporting.* If, during the fiscal year covered, the U.S. person's total transactions (either sales or purchases) in any of the types of transactions listed in paragraph

(c)of this section are $2 million or less for sales or $1 million or less for purchases, the U.S. person is requested to provide an estimate of the total for each type of transaction. Provision of this information is voluntary. The estimates may be judgmental, that is, based on recall, without conducting a detailed records search. Because the exemption threshold applies separately to sales and purchases, the voluntary reporting option may apply only to sales, only to purchases, or to both sales and purchases.

(3)Any U.S. person that receives the BE-120 survey form from BEA, but is not reporting data in either the mandatory or voluntary section of the form, must nevertheless complete and return the “Basis for not reporting data” included with the form to BEA. This requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with reporting requirements and efficient administration of the Act by eliminating unnecessary follow-up contact.

(c)*Covered types of services and intangible assets.* The BE-120 survey is intended to collect information on U.S. international trade in all types of services and intangible assets for which information is not collected in other BEA surveys and is not available to BEA from other sources. The major types of services transactions not covered by the BE-120 survey are travel, transportation, insurance (except for purchases of primary insurance), financial services (except for purchases by non-financial firms), and expenditures by students and medical patients who are studying or seeking treatment in a country different from their country of residence. Covered services are: Advertising services; accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services; auxiliary insurance services; computer and data processing services; construction services; data base and other information services; educational and training services; engineering, architectural, and surveying services; financial services (purchases only, by companies or parts of companies that are not financial services providers); industrial engineering services; industrial-type maintenance, installation, alteration, and training services; legal services; management, consulting, and public relations services (including allocated expenses); merchanting services (sales only); mining services; operational leasing services; other trade-related services; performing arts, sports, and other live performances, presentations, and events; premiums paid on purchases of primary insurance; losses recovered on purchases of primary insurance; research, development, and testing services; telecommunications services; and other selected services. “Other selected services” includes, but is not limited to: Account collection services; disbursements to fund news-gathering costs of broadcasters; disbursements to fund news-gathering costs of print media; disbursements to fund production costs of motion pictures; disbursements to fund production costs of broadcast program material other than news; disbursements to maintain government tourism and business promotion offices; disbursements for sales promotion and representation; disbursements to participate in foreign trade shows (purchases only); employment agencies and temporary help supply services; language translation services; mailing, reproduction, and commercial art; medical services (non-patient B *e.g.* , laboratory or diagnostic services); salvage services; satellite photography and remote sensing/satellite imagery services; security services; space transport (includes satellite launches, transport of goods and people for scientific experiments, and space passenger transport); transcription services; and waste treatment and depollution services. The intangible assets covered by the BE-120 survey are rights related to: Industrial processes and products; books, compact discs, audio tapes and other copyrighted material and intellectual property; trademarks, brand names, and signatures; performances and events pre-recorded on motion picture film and television tape, including digital recording; broadcast and recording of live performances and events; general use computer software; business format franchising fees; and other intangible assets, including indefeasible rights of users. [FR Doc. E6-15304 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-06-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Parts 203 and 291 [Docket No. FR-4887-N-02] RIN 2502-AI14 HUD's Accelerated Claim and Asset Disposition

(ACD)Program; Reopening of Public Comment Period AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: This notice announces the reopening of the public comment period on HUD's advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPR)regarding the Accelerated Claim and Asset Disposition

(ACD)program, published on June 5, 2006. The June 5, 2006, ANPR provided for a 60-day public comment period, which closed on August 4, 2006. In response to recent requests for additional time to submit public comments, HUD is announcing through this notice that it is reopening the public comment period for an additional 30-day period. DATES: *Comment Due Date:* Comments on the June 5, 2006, ANPR are due on or before October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Interested persons also may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically in order to make them immediately available to the public. All communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Facsimile

(FAX)comments and e-mail comments are *not* acceptable. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at

(202)708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access the above telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Information Service at

(800)877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen S. Malone, Director, Asset Sales Office, Office of Finance and Budget, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 3136, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone

(202)708-2625 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing and speech impairments may access the phone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8399. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32392), HUD published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPR)soliciting public comments on the Department's Accelerated Claim and Asset Disposition

(ACD)program before HUD issues a proposed rule to codify the ACD requirements. When codified, the ACD program will become a permanent part of HUD's single family mortgage insurance programs. The ACD process is authorized under section 601 of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-276, approved October 21, 1998), which amended section 204 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1710) to increase recoveries, produce savings, and improve the overall efficiency of the disposition of HUD-acquired single family assets. Under amended section 204(a)(1)(A) of the National Housing Act, the Secretary of HUD is authorized to pay claims upon assignment of certain defaulted FHA-insured mortgage loans. Before implementing the new ACD disposition process on a nationwide basis, HUD has conducted an ACD Demonstration program involving a group of defaulted mortgages. This has allowed HUD to assess the overall effectiveness of this disposition process. HUD believes that improvements can be made to the program to make it more effective. Consequently, before proceeding with the regulatory codification of the ACD program, HUD issued the June 5, 2006, ANPR soliciting comments from all interested parties, especially those who participated or declined to participate in the Demonstration program, on possible improvements to the program. The June 5, 2006, ANPR provided for a 60-day public comment period, which closed on August 4, 2006. In response to recent requests for additional time to submit public comments, HUD is announcing through this notice that it is reopening the public comment period for an additional 30-day period. Interested persons should refer to the June 5, 2006, ANPR for additional information regarding the ACD process and on the topics on which HUD is specifically soliciting public comments. The public comments received by HUD, both in response to the original June 5, 2006, ANPR and this notice, will be used to develop the future proposed rule commencing the rulemaking process to codify the ACD program. Dated: September 5, 2006. Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner . [FR Doc. E6-15285 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-112994-06] RIN 1545-BF47 Guidance Under Section 7874 Regarding Expatriated Entities and Their Foreign Parents; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing; correction. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to a correction to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing that was published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 (71 FR 47158) relating to the determination of whether a foreign entity shall be treated as a surrogate foreign corporation under section 7874(a)(2)(B). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Milton Cahn at

(202)622-3860 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing (REG-112994-06) that is the subject of these corrections are under section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing (REG-112994-06) contains errors that may prove to be misleading are in need of correction. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing (REG-112994-06), that was the subject of FR Doc. E6-13424, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 47158, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *Correction of Publication* ”, numerical entry 5, lines 1-2 from the bottom of the column, the language, “Cahn at

(202)927-0889 or

(202)622-3918;” is corrected to read “Cahn at

(202)622-3860”. 2. On page 47159, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *Correction of Publication* ”, numerical entry 6, line 1 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “927-1443 (not toll-numbers)” is corrected to read “622-0392 (not toll-free numbers)”. LaNita Van Dyke, Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-15303 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P 71 179 Friday, September 15, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0146] Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Field Testing Marek's Disease Vaccine, Serotype 1, Live Herpesvirus Chimera AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared an environmental assessment concerning authorization to ship for the purpose of field testing, and then to field test, an unlicensed Marek's Disease Vaccine, Serotype 1, Live Herpesvirus Chimera. The environmental assessment, which is based on a risk analysis prepared to assess the risks associated with the field testing of this vaccine, examines the potential effects that field testing this veterinary vaccine could have on the quality of the human environment. Based on the risk analysis, we have reached a preliminary determination that field testing this veterinary vaccine will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, and that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. We intend to authorize shipment of this vaccine for field testing following the close of the comment period for this notice unless new substantial issues bearing on the effects of this action are brought to our attention. We also intend to issue a U.S. Veterinary Biological Product license for this vaccine, provided the field test data support the conclusions of the environmental assessment and the issuance of a finding of no significant impact and the product meets all other requirements for licensing. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0146 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0146, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0146. *Reading Room:* You may read environmental assessment, the risk analysis (with confidential business information removed), and any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Albert P. Morgan, Section Leader, Operational Support Section, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; phone

(301)734-8245, fax

(301)734-4314. For information regarding the environmental assessment or the risk analysis, or to request a copy of the environmental assessment (as well as the risk analysis with confidential business information removed), contact Dr. Patricia L. Foley, Risk Manager, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing VS, APHIS, 510 South 17th Street, Suite 104, Ames, IA 50010; phone

(515)232-5785, fax

(515)232-7120. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151 *et seq.* ), a veterinary biological product must be shown to be pure, safe, potent, and efficacious before a veterinary biological product license may be issued. A field test is generally necessary to satisfy prelicensing requirements for veterinary biological products. Prior to conducting a field test on an unlicensed product, an applicant must obtain approval from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as well as obtain APHIS' authorization to ship the product for field testing. To determine whether to authorize shipment and grant approval for the field testing of the unlicensed product referenced in this notice, APHIS conducted a risk analysis to assess the potential effects of this product on the safety of animals, public health, and the environment. Based on the risk analysis, APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment

(EA)concerning the field testing of the following unlicensed veterinary biological product: *Requester:* Schering-Plough Corporation. *Product:* Marek's Disease Vaccine, Serotype 1, Live Herpesvirus Chimera. *Field Test Locations:* Alabama, Georgia, Missouri. The above-mentioned product is a live recombinant chimera, i.e., a hybrid of two parental organisms, consisting of certain sequences of the avirulent herpesvirus of turkeys

(HVT)and certain sequences of a strain of Marek's disease virus. The vaccine is for use in 18-day-old embryos or day-of-age chicks as an aid in the prevention of losses due to Marek's disease caused by very virulent Marek's disease virus. The EA has been 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 provision 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). Unless substantial issues with adverse environmental impacts are raised in response to this notice, APHIS intends to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) based on the EA and authorize shipment of the above product for the initiation of field tests following the close of the comment period for this notice. Because the issues raised by field testing and by issuance of a license are identical, APHIS has concluded that the EA that is generated for field testing would also be applicable to the proposed licensing action. Provided that the field test data support the conclusions of the original EA and the issuance of a FONSI, APHIS does not intend to issue a separate EA and FONSI to support the issuance of the product license, and would determine that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. APHIS intends to issue a veterinary biological product license for this vaccine following completion of the field test provided no adverse impacts on the human environment are identified and provided the product meets all other requirements for licensing. Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151-159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of September 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-15326 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding Land Use Fees in the Alaska Region AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of proposed policy; request for comment. SUMMARY: The Alaska Region is proposing to adopt a long-term flat fee policy for outfitters and guides operating in the Alaska Region. Under the flat fee policy, a single land use fee would be charged for each type of service provided by outfitters and guides in the Alaska Region. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by December 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Regional Forester, Attention: Recreation, Lands and Minerals, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628; via electronic mail to *comments-alaska-regional-office@fs.fed.us* ; or via facsimile to

(907)586-7866. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, will be placed in the record and will be available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received on this proposed policy in the Recreation, Lands and Minerals Staff, Room 519D, Federal Office Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, Alaska, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trish Clabaugh,

(907)586-8855, or Neil Hagadorn,

(907)586-9336. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest Service issues special use authorizations for a variety of uses of National Forest System

(NFS)lands, including outfitting and guiding. Outfitting is defined as “renting on or delivering to National Forest System lands for pecuniary remuneration or other gain any saddle or pack animal, vehicle, boat, camping gear, or similar supplies or equipment. The term ‘outfitter’ includes the holder's employees and agents” (36 CFR 251.51). Guiding is defined as “providing services or assistance (such as supervision, protection, education, training, packing, touring, subsistence, transporting people, or interpretation) for pecuniary remuneration or other gain to individuals or groups on National Forest System lands. The term ‘guide’ includes the holder's employees and agents” (36 CFR 251.51). The Forest Service charges a land use fee for special use authorizations, including outfitting and guiding permits. Applicable Law The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952

(IOAA)authorizes each Federal agency to collect a fee “for a service or thing of value provided by the agency” (31 U.S.C. 9701(b)). The IOAA requires that each fee charged to fair and be based on factors such as the costs to the Government, the value of the service or thing to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant facts (31 U.S.C. 9701(b)). Pursuant to the IOAA, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)issued a circular which “establish[es] guidelines for Federal agencies to assess fees for Governmental services and for the sale or use of Government property or resources” (OMB Circular No. A-25, 58 FR 38142 (September 23, 1959, as amended July 15, (1993)). Paragraph 6a(2)(b) of OMB circular No. A-25 instructs agencies that when the Federal government is not acting in the capacity of a sovereign, but rather is acting in a proprietary capacity, as it is here in authorizing the use of Federal land for commercial purposes, user charges or fees are to be “based on market prices.” OMB Circular No. A-25 further provides that under such conditions, user charges need not be limited to the recovery of full costs, but may yield net revenues (OMB Circular No. A-25, ¶ 6a(2)

(a)and (b)). The Circular directs that “[i]n the absence of substantial competitive demand, market price will be determined by taking into account the prevailing prices for goods, resources, or services that are the same or substantially similar to those provided by the Government, and then adjusting the supply made available and/or price of the good, resource, or service so that there will be neither a shortage nor a surplus” (OMB Circular No. A-25, ¶ 6d(2)(b)). Consistent with the IOAA and OMB Circular No. A-25, Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251.57(a) provide that special use permit fees “will be based upon the fair market value of the rights and privileges authorized by appraisal or other sound business management principles.” Development of the Alaska Region's Interim Flat Fee Policy In general, the gross revenues of a business conducted on NFS lands are an accurate reflection of the value of the business's use of those lands. However, in Alaska many outfitters and guides base a significant percentage of their client charges on activities that occur off NFS lands. Thus, flat land use fees that are based on an average of the revenues generated by outfitters and guides conducting activities on NFS lands more accurately reflect the value of the use of NFS lands for outfitting and guiding in the Alaska Region. Consistent with this assessment, in 1997, the Alaska Region issued for public comment a proposed flat fee schedule for outfitting and guiding in the Alaska Region. This fee schedule was recommended for consideration in the development of an outfitting and guiding fee system by a working group from Federal and State agencies assisting the Alaska Land Use Council (ALUC). *See* Final Fee Recommendations of the Alaska Land Use Council Outfitter and Guide Working Group (May 15, 1985). Based on comments received on the proposed fee schedule, the Alaska Region revised some fee categories and added others to accommodate all outfitting and guiding activities authorized on NFS lands in Alaska. The Alaska Region incorporated some of respondents' suggestions, such as using actual tour prices reported by permit holders, rather than advertised prices, to determine land use fees and using the number of service days by trip to weight the fee calculations. In addition, the Alaska Region responded to respondents' concerns that land use fees by determined according to the types of uses, recreational setting, and facilities involved. At the time the flat fee schedule was issued for public comment, an outfitter and guide conducting boat-based tours with stops on NFS lands in Alaska challenged the Forest Service's national outfitting and guiding land use fee policy, which was still in effect in the Alaska Region and which bases land use fees on 3 percent of an outfitter's or guide's adjusted gross revenue. Concerned that different fees were being charged for the same type of commercial use of NFS lands, the magistrate judge recommended that the federal district court require the Forest Service to devise a land use fee system that would be fair to the plaintiff, as well as based on the market value of the use of NFS lands. The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and ruled that there was “insufficient evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the fees charged plaintiff were both fair and based upon the value of the use of Forest Service lands available to the plaintiff.” The *Tongass Conservancy* v. *Glickman,* No. J97-029-CV (D. Alaska October 5, 1998), slip op September 19, 1998. Accordingly, the court ordered the Forest Service to undertake further actions consistent with the court's ruling and applicable law. In response, on July 21, 1999, the Alaska Region published in the **Federal Register** for public notice and comment a proposed interim flat fee policy for all outfitting and guiding in the Alaska Region (Alaska Region interim flat fee policy or ARIFFP) (64 FR 39114, July 21, 1999). The ARIFFP developed flat fees for 24 outfitting and guiding activities that fall into five categories:

(1)Guiding for big game hunting;

(2)guiding for activities other than big game hunting;

(3)road-based and remote-setting activities;

(4)outfitting; and

(5)visitor centers. The Alaska Region based the proposed ARIFFP on the proposed flat fee schedule issued for public comment in 1997. As with the fees in the proposed schedule, the Alaska Region developed the fees in the proposed ARIFFP by determining the average price charged each client per day for each category of outfitting and guiding activities in the Alaska Region. Under the ARIFFP, the same flat fee is charged for similar commercial uses of NFS lands. To avoid basing flat fees on revenues that result from services provided off NFS lands, the Alaska Region eliminated from the pool used to develop the flat fees certain high-cost operators, such as those who provide overnight accommodations on tour boats in the category of remote-setting nature tours. Descriptions of derivation of the flat fees for each category of outfitting and guiding activities under the ARIFFP follow. Big Game Hunting Fees for guiding big game hunting are charged by the hunt. The flat fees for day use were calculated to reflect a 40 percent discount for use off NFS lands. Hunt types were categorized based on the species hunted and whether the hunt involves an overnight stay on NFS lands. Fee data for 1998 were used to calculate an average charge per client per service day (a day or any part of a day on NFS lands for which an outfitter or guide provides goods or services, including transportation, to a client) for each type of hunt. The average was calculated by dividing the total amount of client charges for each type of hunt by the total number of service days. An average hunt length (in days) was also calculated for each type of hunt. A fee per service day was derived for each category of hunt by matching the indicated average per client per service day with the ALUC schedule and adjusting for the percentage of time spent off NFS lands. A flat fee (rounded to the nearest $5) for each category was then calculated by multiplying the fee per client per service day by the average hunt length. A fee for camping is reflected in the flat fees for guiding big game hunting involving overnight camping on NFS lands. Therefore, no additional fee for camping is charged for guiding big game hunting. Activities Other Than Big Game Hunting Fees for guiding activities other than big game hunting are charged per client per service day. To determine the flat fee for guiding activities other than big game hunting, the Alaska Region determined the average price charged each client per day for each type of activity in that category. The average price for each type of activity was determined by dividing the total amount of client charges for all operators in the category by the total number of service days of all the operators. The average price for each type of activity was matched to a fee per client per service day from the ALUC fee schedule and adjusted by the percentage of time spent off NSF lands for that activity, pursuant to Forest Service Handbook

(FSH)2709.11, section 37.21e. The resulting fees were rounded to the nearest $0.25. Fees for guiding activities other than big game hunting are charged only for those days when clients are on NFS lands. Where multiple activities are involved, flat fees are charged for the highest valued use authorized. For example, if an outfitted and guided trip involving an activity other than big game hunting includes overnight camping on NFS lands, the camping flat fee of $4.00 is charged for each client per service day spent on NFS lands. A single overnight say, therefore, is calculated as two service days at the camping rate of $4.00 per client per service day, for a fee of $8.00 per client. The camping fee includes other lower valued activities, such as hiking. Road-Based and Remote-Setting Activities Road-based and remote-setting activities were developed as separate fee categories to reflect the different values that outfitters and guides and their clients place on activities in these settings. The value of outfitting and guiding activities, such as hiking and viewing wildlife, is distinctly different in road-based environment than in a remote setting. In a road-based environment, clients typically experience a more developed setting. Clients are likely to encounter other recreationists and a modified landscape ( *i.e.,* a timber harvest or other landscape modifications) and generally are exposed to a more human-manipulated environment. The road-based nature tours flat fee was developed by averaging the reported service days multiplied by the client day charges of each of 12 permit holders who conduct road-based nature tours. In a remote area, in contrast, clients typically experience the characteristics of a pristine setting and are likely to encounter few other forest visitors. These activities typically occur in a primitive environment, where human modifications are highly unlikely or absent, with the possible exception of low-impact developments such as a trail to facilitate foot travel. These activities have outstanding opportunities for solitude and recreating in more natural settings. These features are what draw many tourists to Alaska. The remote-setting nature tours flat fee was developed by averaging the reported service days multiplied by the client day charges of each of 21 nature tour permit holders who operate in remote settings. Outfitting The flat fee per vehicle per day for outfitting was established by applying the ALUC fee schedule to the average daily rental charge for boats reported by outfitters providing boats for unguided trips on NFS lands. Visitor Centers The Alaska Region adopted short-stop flat fees that had been developed for Forest Service visitor center in Alaska using a methodology similar to that used in calculating the other flat fees in the ARIFFP. Copies of the proposed ARIFFP were sent with a request for comment to all holders of Forest Service outfitting and guiding permits in Alaska and other potentially interested parties. The Alaska Region received 34 comments on the proposed ARIFFP. The Alaska Region addressed the comments in the final interim policy. The notice for the final ARIFFP was published in the **Federal Register** , and went into effect on February 14, 2000 (65 FR 1846, January 12, 2000). Concern About Market Value While a flat fee based on a percentage of gross revenue is fair for outfitters and guides, since outfitters and guides providing similar services are paying the same flat fee, the Forest Service has been and continues to be concerned that the ARIFFP may not yield a fair return to the Federal government for the use of its resources. The primary intent of Congress in enacting the IOAA was to ensure that the Government not undercharge for the use of its property or services; “overcharging was not considered” ( *Yosemite Park & Curry Co.* v. *United States,* 686 F.2. 925, 929 (Ct. Cl. 1982)). In 1996, the Government Accountability Office

(GAO)analyzed the Forest Service's current fee policy for recreation special use permits to determine if the fees charged for the permits reflect market value (GAO Report, “Fees for Recreation Special-Use Permits Do Not Reflect Fair Market Value” (Sept. 1996)). GAO concluded that adjusted gross revenue was an appropriate measure of the fair market value of the use authorized by Forest Service permits, but criticize the Forest Service for charging less than market prices by using a lower percentage of gross revenue in comparison to other State and Federal agencies (e.g., the State of Idaho charges 5 percent of gross revenue, and the State of Colorado charges 7 percent). In the **Federal Register** notice for the final ARIFFP, the Alaska Region stated that it would conduct an ongoing review of the ARIFFP; that the Alaska Region would develop a long-term flat fee policy for outfitting and guiding in the Region based on that review; that the Alaska Region would make adjustments to the ARIFFP as appropriate, based on appraisals or other methods for determining fair market value; and that the Forest Service might conclude that higher land use fees are needed to ensure a fair return to the Federal government for the use of its resources (65 FR 1846, January 12, 2000). Development of the Alaska Region Long-Term Flat Fee Policy On June 23, 2000, the Alaska Region issued a request for proposals

(RFP)for an outfitter and guide use valuation for the Alaska Region. According to the RFP, the primary objective of the use valuation is identification of a fee schedule that can be used to develop a long-term flat fee policy for outfitting and guiding in the Alaska Region. To achieve this objective, the RFP provides for two phases of work:

(1)Analysis of potential methodologies, including the ARIFFP, for determining the market value of the use of NFS lands in the Alaska Region for outfitting and guiding that is not associated with commercial public service sites, such as a resort or lodge; the analysis will address fairness to outfitters and guides, as well as to the Federal government for the use of its resources; and

(2)development of alternative fee systems based on viable potential methodologies (RFP at 11). The RFP further states that it is the Alaska Region's intent to develop an outfitting and guiding fee system that will result in stable fees that do not vary widely over time; will not require competitive award of permits except in circumstances of limited new outfitting and guiding opportunities where demand to provide services exceeds supply; is fair in that it would charge similar fees for similar uses of NFS lands; and will be simple to administer and will not result in an undue reporting or record-keeping burden on permit holders (RFP at 11). The Alaska Region awarded the contract for the outfitter and guide use valuation to Black-Smith & Richards, Inc. (BSR), an appraisal firm in Anchorage, Alaska. BSR prepared three reports, one for Phase I (Phase I Report) and a preliminary and final report for Phase II (Preliminary and Final Phase II Reports). The Final Phase II Report incorporates the Phase I Report and Preliminary Phase II Report (Final Report at 2, 11). Both the Phase I and Final Phase II Reports contain certifications stating that BSR has no present or prospective interest in Forest Service special use authorizations; that BSR has no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved in the outfitting and guiding use valuation; that BSR's employment was not conditioned on, nor its compensation contingent upon, the reporting of a predetermined objective or direction that favors the cause of the Forest Service or any other party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event; and that BSR's analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and the reports prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Phase I Report at 4; Final Phase II Report at 5). Phase I: Analysis of Potential Methodologies BSR's Phase I Report analyzes potential methodologies for determining the market value of the use of NFS lands in the Alaska Region for outfitting and guiding, including a review of the Forest Service's national outfitting and guiding fee policy and the ARIFFP. In analyzing Options A and B, the two principal methods for determining outfitting and guiding fees under the national policy, the Phase I Report concludes that Options A and B are pricing methods, rather than measures of value. Under both Options A and B, gross revenues are processed into client-day fees using a percentage multiplier. Using virtually the same fee schedule as the ALUC, Option A processes 3 percent of adjusted gross revenues into a per client day fee. The number of client days (the number of service days for a trip multiplied by the number of clients on the trip) is multiplied by the client day fee corresponding to a price bracket in the fee schedule representing the average day charge (adjusted gross revenue divided by the total number of client days). The client day fees are derived from 3 percent of the median daily client charge for each price bracket (Phase I Report at 42-43; Final Phase II Report at 12). Under Option B, the land use fee is 3 percent of an outfitter/guide's annual adjusted gross revenue, minus any applicable adjustment for use off NFS lands (Phase I Report at 42-43; Final Phase II Report at 13). Options A and B produce results that are reasonably similar. Either option is easily applied to both existing and new activities. However, the ability of these methods to develop prices that are fair to the Federal government depends on the appropriateness of the percentage rate component. Although the 1966 GAO report indicated that the Forest Service's rate (3 percent) is below those charged by some state agencies (5 to 15 percent) for similar uses of land, the rate has not been adjusted. In addition, a universal percentage applied to adjusted gross revenue does not establish similar market prices for similar activities, nor does it differentiate among categories of use, as required by *The Tongass Conservancy* ruling (Phase I Report at 43-44; Final Phase II Report at 13). According to the Phase I report, the ARIFFP is a modification of Option A under the Forest Service's national outfitting and guiding fee policy. For most activities, the ARIFFP yields outfitting and guiding fees that are not significantly different from those calculated under Option A or B of the Forest Service's national policy. The additional steps in the ARIFFP assign unique prices (flat fees) to specific categories of activities so that outfitters and guides pay similar fees for similar activities. In terms of the criteria established by *The Tongass Conservancy* ruling, the Phase I Report concludes that the ARIFFP is thus arguably fair to the permit holders (Phase I Report at 48-50). However, the Phase I Report states that the ARIFFP client day fees are often less than what unguided users pay for the same activity. This comparison suggests that the 3 percent multiplier, and/or the discount for use off NFS lands, result in fees that are not fair to the Forest Service. The Phase I Report also notes that because the ARIFFP is an interim policy, periodic recalculation of ARIFFP fees has not been scheduled. The Phase I Report concludes that without modifications that address these deficiencies, the ARIFFP cannot establish or maintain prices that are fair to the Forest Service (Phase I Report at 48-50). In Phase I, BSR screened several additional pricing methods for their potential to meet the RFP's objectives (BSR Phase I Report at 52-63). BSR analyzed three of these methods with the greatest potential to meet the RFP's objectives:

(1)The modified ARIFFP;

(2)the bottom-up pricing method; and

(3)the flat fee plus percentage method. The ARIFFP derives flat fees by processing a percentage of outfitting and guiding gross revenues into per client day or per hunt charges. The process includes adjustment for time spent off NFS lands. The modified ARIFFP calculates fees based on a percentage multiplier that reflects market value and provides for periodic recalculation of fees. Determination of an optimum rate is aided by a comparison of the flat fees with unguided fees for similar activities. BSR refers to the modified ARIFFP as a top-down pricing method because it starts with an outfitter's or guide's gross revenue, in contrast to the bottom-up pricing method, which starts with the value of unguided use (Phase I Report at 68-70). The bottom-up pricing method prices outfitter and guide use in terms of the value of comparable unguided use evidenced in the market place. The bottom-up pricing method develops flat fees based on these comparable unguided use values and applies them to outfitter and guide client volumes to determine annual outfitting and guiding land use fees. The landowner receives from outfitters and guides what unguided users are willing to pay for an equivalent unit of use (per day or per hunt) for the same or a similar activity. Flat fees per client day or per hunt are derived from market comparisons of unguided fees for similar activities. The market comparison entails generation of price data by survey and a correlation to the outfitting and guiding activities recognized by the Alaska Region. The only permit holder data required are annual reports of client volumes. There is no percentage component (Phase I Report at 71-72; Final Phase II Report at 20-21). Under the flat fee plus percentage method, outfitting and guiding land use fees consist of two components: Flat fees that are developed by the bottom-up pricing method and a percentage of client charges or gross revenues. Per client day and per hunt fees are derived from a market comparison of unguided fees for similar activities. The flat fee is merely a cost of production: A unit of use that is acquired from the landowner and resold to a client. The percentage component represents an increment of price attributable to the privilege of conducting business on the owner's land. The flat fees are differentiated by type of activity, while the percentage component is applied universally. The sum of the flat fees and the percentage charges would be different for each operator in a category (Phase I Report at 73-75). Phase II: Development of a Fee System Based on the Most Viable Methodology The Preliminary Phase II Report analyzes the three methodologies with the most potential to meet the objectives of the RFP. The modified ARIFFP, the bottom-up pricing method, and the flat fee plus percentage method. The three methodologies were applied to 2001 outfitting and guiding permit holder data for six Alaska Region outfitting and guiding activities: Road-based nature tours; remote-setting nature tours; helicopter land tours; visitor centers; day use brown bear hunting; and overnight mountain goat hunting. Based on the conclusions in the Preliminary Phase II Report, BSR and the Forest Service jointly decided that BSR should further study the modified ARIFFP and bottom-up pricing method, but not the flat fee plus percentage method (Final Phase II Report at 9). In the Preliminary Phase II Report, BSR concluded that the ability of the flat fee plus percentage method to yield fees that are similar for similar activities is subject to interpretation. The flat fees are differentiated by type of activity, while a percentage component is applied universally. The sum of the flat fees and the percentage charges would be different for each operator in a category. In addition, the amount of analysis, related data requirements, and subjectivity are maximized (Final Phase II Report at 73, 76). The Final Phase II Report develops flat fee systems using the bottom-up pricing method and the modified ARIFFP (Final Phase II Report at 20-71). The analysis relies primarily on the market data gathered for the Preliminary Phase II Report and the 2002 permit holder data provided by the Alaska Region (Final Phase II Report at 11). Table 1 from the Final Phase II Report compares flat fees derived under the ARIFFP using 1998 permit holder data; under the ARIFFP using 1998 permit holder data that have been index-adjusted; under the ARIFFP using 2002 permit holder data; under the bottom-up pricing method; and under the modified ARIFFP (Final Phase II Report at 67). BILLING CODE 3410-11-M EN15SE06.000 EN15SE06.001 EN15SE06.002 In the Final Phase II Report, BSR recognized that while both the modified ARIFFP and the bottom-up pricing method could be used to develop an outfitting and guiding permit fee system for the Alaska Region in compliance with *The Tongass Conservancy* ruling, the bottom-up method was less likely to meet the objectives of the RFP. Implementation of the bottom-up pricing method requires a small number of related activity categories. The data are too limited to develop unique values in the bottom-up pricing method for the diverse activities recognized in the Alaska Region. Also, in the bottom-up pricing method, client charges are not a component of the fee development process, so sensitivity to change in Alaska Region market condition is limited to fluctuations in client volumes and comparable fees charged elsewhere. In addition, this method relies heavily on data from outside the Alaska Region. While the data can be meaningful, they are too limited to isolate percentage or dollar considerations for the positive and negative attributes of the Alaska Region. There is no reliable means of adjusting for these differences (Final Phase II Report at 59-60). In contrast, the modified ARRIFFP is fair to outfitters and guides, in that it assigns flat fees to specific categories of activities so that outfitters guides pay similar fees for similar activities. Further, since the modified ARIFFP is sensitive to both client volumes and local client charges, the method is particularly responsive to the unique conditions of the various Alaska Region submarkets represented by each of the six categories of outfitting and guiding activities in the Region: By recognizing local operator data, the method is sensitive to the economics of Alaska Region submarkets, yet support is derived from the broader market. Data requirements are comparatively minor and subjective correlations are minimized. Permit holder reporting requirements are generally not objectionable. Finally, it is the only apparent method that can develop unique prices for the wide variety of outfitting and [guiding] activities recognized by the Alaska Region (Phase I Report at 78). Equally important, the modified ARIFFP is fair to the Federal government because this method calculates fees based on a percentage rate that reflects market value and because this method provides for periodic recalculation of fees based on surveys of similar outfitting and guiding activities on Federal, State, and private lands. Thus, BSR concluded that the modified ARIFFP has the best potential to meet the objectives of the RFP (Final Phase II Report at 68-69, 75-76). Identification of a Market-Based Percentage Rate The 1996 GAO report concluded that the 3 percent rate under the national outfitting and guiding fee policy (which is also the basis of the ARIFFP) was below market. Data from both public agencies and the private sector support this finding (Preliminary Phase II Report at 18, Final Phase II Report at 61-62). Thus, the ARIFFP results in fees that are below what the market will support. the modified ARIFFP includes an additional analytical step to determine a market-based percentage rate (Phase I Report at 73 and 76). In the modified ARIFFP, an appropriate multiplier was developed from a range of rates identified from data collected from a survey of public and private landowners. The data reflect a broad range of gross revenue multipliers from 3 to 12.5 percent (Final Phase II Report at 65), as shown in Table 2. The 3 percent rate is below market value, while the upper-end rates reflect high demand or exclusivity of the use. The rate reported with the greatest frequency is 5 percent. However, a simple selection of 5 percent based on frequency does not adequately address the objective of creating a fee policy that is fair to the outfitting and guiding industry as well as to the Government (Final Phase II Report at 63). Based on these findings, BSR concluded that an appropriate rate for outfitting and guiding in the Alaska Region would fall within a narrower range of 4 to 8 percent (Preliminary Phase II Report at 18, Final Phase II Report at 65). BSR further concluded that an appropriate rate would produce flat fees that are closely supported by the indicated values for individual units of use (net of outfitting and guiding services) produced by the bottom-up pricing method (Preliminary Phase II Report at 18; Final Phase II Report at 63-64). Thus, flat fees produced by the bottom-up pricing method will corroborate the flat fees produced by the modified ARIFFP using an appropriate multiplier. Table 2 displays the flat fees using the 2002 data and compares the varied percentage rates. In Table 2, the first column of fees is shaded and displays the flat fees generated by applying the ARIFFP (with a 3 percent rate) to the 2002 permit holder. The next ten columns display flat fees generated by applying the percentage rates suggested by the market data (4 to 12.5 percent) to the 2002 permit holder data. The last column displays the values for individual units of use developed by the bottom-up pricing method. The values in the middle columns that are shown in bold and lightly shaded approximate the values developed by the bottom-up pricing method in the last column (Final Phase II Report at 65). BILLING CODE 3410-11-M EN15SE06.003 EN15SE06.004 Table 2 shows that for 8 of the 10 activities, the 3 percent rate applied in the ARIFFP yields fees that are less than the indicated values for individual (unguided) units of use generated by the bottom-up pricing method for a comparable activity. Thus, Table 2 confirms that the 3 percent rate is below market value for the Alaska Region. Rates above 8 percent are suggested by only two of the activities, based on exclusivity of the use or high demand. The comparisons for most of the activities (6 out of 10) support a narrower range of multipliers from 4 to 8 percent (Final Phase II Report at 65). The indicated mean and median reflected by the majority of the comparisons is 5.5 percent. Thus, the analysis establishes a rate of 5.5 percent as an appropriate multiplier for the modified ARIFFP (Final Phase II Report at 66). Future updates that reapply the fee calculation process to updated permit holder data may result in a different percentage rate. Implementation of the Alaska Region Long-Term Flat Fee Policy The proposed Alaska Region long-term flat fee policy is based on the analysis, findings, and conclusions in BSR's Phase I and Preliminary and Final Phase II Reports, which were approved by the Alaska Regional Appraiser. Based on these reports, the Alaska Region is proposing to adopt the modified ARIFFP for outfitting and guiding land use fees in the Alaska Region, with a market rate of 5.5 percent. The Alaska Region is proposing to implement the 5.5 percent rate beginning in January, 2008. The activity rates will be adjusted annually by the percentage of change in the Implicit Price Deflator-Gross National Product (IPD-GNP) from the second quarter of the previous year to the second quarter of the current year. According to the Final Phase II Report, the modified ARIFFP cannot be applied to new activities without a lead-in period that is sufficient to generate the necessary data. However, in the interim, the fee for the most similar activity may be applied (Final Phase II Report at 19, 73). Based on those findings, the proposed Alaska Region long-term flat fee schedule for outfitting and guiding has six activities that were added after the Final Phase II Report was issued in 2003: Black bear camping, moose hunts day use; elk hunts day use; elk hunts camping; Dall sheep hunts day use; and Dall sheep hunts camping. Fees for the black bear, moose and elk hunts are the same. Fees for Dall sheep hunts are the same as those for mountain goat hunts. Fees for the added activities would remain linked to existing activities until data can be collected to establish a set fee. The proposed flat fee for each category of outfitting and guiding activity in the Alaska Region is shown in the shaded column in Table 3. Those fees are based on the modified ARIFFP and index adjusted to 2006. The proposed fees are based on 2002 revenue data from permit holders. The last column is the fees that are charged under the current fee schedule that is based on 1998 revenue data from permit holders. The second column with the modified ARIFFP Fee using 2002 data is the same as the last column shown in Table 1 and is taking from the BSR study. Publication of this proposed flat fee policy in the **Federal Register** constitutes formal notice per the Regional Forester's letter dated November 24, 1997, regarding a fee increase for Forest Service outfitting and guiding permits in the Alaska Region. BILLING CODE 3410-11-M EN15SE06.005 EN15SE06.006 BILLING CODE 3410-11-C Regulatory Certifications Environmental Impact This proposed policy would establish administrative fee categories and procedures for calculating permit fees for outfitters and guides operating in the Alaska Region of the Forest Service. Section 31.12 (formerly section 31.1b) of FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 43180, September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “rules, regulations or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes or instructions.” The Alaska Region's preliminary assessment is that this proposed policy falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist, which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. A final determination will be made on adoption of the final policy. Regulatory Impact This proposed policy has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866 on regulatory planning and review. It has been determined that this is not a significant policy. The proposed policy would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor would it adversely affect productivity, composition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local government. This proposed policy would not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor would it raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this proposed action would not alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, this proposed policy is not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, this proposed policy has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). It has been determined that this proposed policy would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Act because the proposed action would not impose recordkeeping requirements on them; it would not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities, and it would not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. No Takings Implications This proposed policy has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630. It has been determined that the proposed policy would not pose the risk of a taking of private property. Civil Justice Reform This proposed policy has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. If this proposed policy were adopted,

(1)All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this proposed policy or which would impede its full implementation would be preempted;

(2)no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed policy; and

(3)it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions. Unfunded Mandates Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Alaska Region has assessed the effects of the proposed policy on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed policy would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under Section 202 of the act is not required. Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments The Alaska Region has considered this proposed policy directive under the requirements of Executive Order 13132 on federalism and has determined that the proposed policy would conform with the federalism principles set out in this Executive Order; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Alaska Region has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary. Moreover, this proposed policy would not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with the Indian Tribal Governments,” and therefore advance consultation with Tribes is not required. Energy Effects This proposed policy has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” It has been determined that this proposed policy would not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive Order. Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public This proposed policy does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. The information collection being requested as a result of this action has been approved by OMB. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply. Dated: September 5, 2006. Dennis E. Bschor, Regional Forester, Alaska Region. [FR Doc. 06-7621 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 22

Traces to 22 documents

CFR