Proposed Rules. Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period

Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT)
Action: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period
Citation: FR Doc. 06-8425 · RIN 2120-AA64 · Docket No. FAA-2006-23842; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-145-AD · 14 CFR 39

Summary

The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 777-200 and 777-300 series airplanes. The original NPRM would have required repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the splined components that support the inboard end of the inboard trailing edge flap; related investigative, corrective, and other specified actions if necessary; a one-time modification of the inboard support of the inboard trailing edge flap by installing a new isolation strap and attachment hardware; and repetitive replacement of the torque tube assembly. The original NPRM resulted from reports of corrosion on the torque tube and closeout rib fittings that support the inboard end of the inboard trailing edge flap, as well as a structural reassessment of the torque tube joint that revealed the potential for premature fatigue cracking of the torque tube that would not be detected using reasonable inspection methods. This action revises the original NPRM by providing the terminating action for the repetitive inspections of modifying the inboard main flap. This action also revises the original NPRM by specifying prior or concurrent accomplishment, for certain Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes, of one-time inspections of the flap seal panels for cracking and minimum clearances, and of the torque tubes for damage; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and correct corrosion or cracking of the torque tube and closeout rib fittings that support the inboard end of the inboard trailing edge flap. Cracking in these components could lead to a fracture, which could result in loss of the inboard trailing edge flap and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Dates

We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by October 30, 2006.

Supplementary Information

Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-23842; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-145-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, 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 supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level in the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD (the “original NPRM”) for certain Boeing Model 777-200 and 777-300 series airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2006 (71 FR 6687). The original NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the splined components that support the inboard end of the inboard trailing edge flap; related investigative, corrective, and other specified actions if necessary; a one-time modification of the inboard support of the inboard trailing edge flap by installing a new isolation strap and attachment hardware; and repetitive replacement of the torque tube assembly. Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued In the original NPRM we stated that we considered the proposed actions to be interim. We stated that the manufacturer was currently developing a new, improved torque tube made from corrosion-resistant steel with thicker walls; and that installing this new, improved torque tube was expected to address the unsafe condition identified in theoriginal NPRM and eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections and torque tube assembly replacements. Since we issued the original NPRM, the manufacturer has developed the improved torque tube and made it available. We have approved the improved torque tube, and this action follows that approval. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57-0054, dated February 23, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the inboard main flap by installing a new corrosion-resistant (CRES) closeout rib fitting assembly; a new CRES torque tube; a new CRES torque tube retainer fitting; certain new components such as isolation straps, washers, and nuts; and assembling the parts using corrosion-inhibiting compound in lieu of grease. The service bulletin also specifies updating the maintenance practices for performing periodic inspections and maintenance of the torque tube splined joints, as given in the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) D622W001, Section 2, MPD Item 57-521-00, and Boeing 777 MPD D622W001, Section 9, Structural Significant Items (SSI) 57-53-I10 and SSI 57-53-I11. Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57-0054 states that, for certain airplanes, the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-27-0034, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2006, must be done prior to or concurrently with the modification of the inboard main flap. These prior/concurrent actions are a visual inspection of the flap seal panels for cracking and a measurement for minimum clearances; a close visual inspection of the torque tubes of the main flap for damage (breaks in the finish or finish that is not intact); and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include: • For the flap seal panels: Replacing the panel or doing a permanent repair and trim of the panel before further flight. If the cracking is within certain limits specified in the service bulletin, the service bulletin specifies the option of an immediate temporary repair followed by eventual permanent repair and trim, or replacement of the panel within 6 months after the temporary repair. If the cracking is outside certain limits specified in the service bulletin, the option for a temporary or permanent repair is not specified; instead, the panel must be replaced. The replacement includes measurement for minimum clearances. • For the torque tubes: Replacing the torque tube or repairing before further flight. The service bulletin specifies doing either a permanent repair or an immediate temporary repair, depending on the extent of the damage. The temporary repair includes the related investigative action of a visual inspection for corrosion, pitting, or cracks; and repair if necessary. If the temporary repair is done, the service bulletin specifies that it must be followed by eventual permanent repair or replacement of the torque tube within 6 months after the temporary repair. If the damage is outside certain limits specified in the service bulletin, the service bulletin states that the torque tube must be replaced rather than repaired, and that the replacement may be done in accordance with the service bulletin or in accordance with instructions given by Boeing. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Support for the Original NPRM Boeing reviewed the contents of the original NPRM and concurs with the contents. Request to Allow Credit for Original Revision of Service Bulletin Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of American Airlines, and British Airways request that we state that the original issue of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0048, dated September 9, 2004, is acceptable for compliance with the actions in the original NPRM. American Airlines points out that, according to Boeing, either release of the service bulletin is satisfactory. We agree. We cited only Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0048, Revision 1, dated June 9, 2005, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. Revision 1 of the service bulletin provides additional flexibility in accomplishing the modification specified in the original NPRM, and provides improvements in the procedure to determine the condition of the spline interface. However, actions accomplished in accordance with the original release of the service bulletin are also acceptable for compliance. We have added paragraph (n) to this supplemental NPRM to give credit for actions accomplished in accordance with the original release of the service bulletin. Request To Revise Cost Estimate British Airways states that the statement in the original NPRM that the work hours are negligible provided Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0048, Revision 1, is carried out at a scheduled inspection is incorrect because there is no scheduled inspection that calls for the torque tube to be disturbed. British Airways points out that the Boeing figures for accomplishing this service bulletin are 138 hours minimum per airplane. We infer that British Airways would like us to revise the cost estimate. We disagree. The cost information below describes only the direct costs of the specific action proposed in the original NPRM, which is the detailed inspection for discrepancies of the splined components. In this case, the installation of the isolation strap and the replacement of the torque tube assembly are done during the detailed inspection, when the entire assembly has been completely disassembled. Therefore, the replacement of the torque tube assembly will take less time because no inspections of the originally installed torque tube are required if it is simply being replaced. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators may incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time required to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which may vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. There is no need to revise the original NPRM in this regard. Request To Clarify Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) British Airways states that, presumably, an AMOC will need to be requested to cover those airplanes on which torque tube rework has been undertaken outside the scope of the instructions given in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0048, Revision 1. We agree that an AMOC will need to be requested. Paragraph (l) of the original NPRM (new paragraph (o) of this supplemental NPRM) gives procedures for requesting an AMOC. There is no need to revise the original NPRM in this regard. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of This Supplemental NPRM Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Difference Between This Supplemental NPRM and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-27-0034 Where Boeing Service Bulletin 777-27-0034 specifies to replace the torque tube in accordance with that service bulletin (or instructions from Boeing), this supplemental NPRM would require replacing the torque tube with a new CRES torque tube in accordance with the procedures in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57-0054. Clarification of Inspection Terminology Boeing Service Bulletin 777-27-0034 specifies a visual inspection of the flap seal panels for cracking and measurement for minimum clearances; in this supplemental NPRM we refer to that inspection as a general visual inspection. That service bulletin also specifies a close visual inspection of the torque tubes of the main flap for damage. In this supplemental NPRM we refer to that inspection as a detailed inspection. We have included a definition of both inspection types in notes in this supplemental NPRM. Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance After the original NPRM was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. Costs of Compliance There are about 353 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Detailed inspection for discrepancies of the splined components 20 None $1,600, per inspection cycle 132 $211,200, per inspection cycle. Modification (installing isolation strap and hardware) Negligible $17,156 $17,156 132 $2,264,592. Replacement of torque tube assembly Negligible 1 $24,230 $24,230 132 $3,198,360, per replacement cycle. Modification (terminating action) 32 to 36, depending on airplane configuration $145,659 $148,219 to $148,539 132 $19,564,908 to $19,607,148. Prior/concurrent inspection 1 None $80 Up to 132 As much as $10,560. 1 Provided that the replacement is performed at the same time as a scheduled inspection. 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 supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2006-23842; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-145-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 30, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57-0054, dated February 23, 2006. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from reports of corrosion on the torque tube and closeout rib fittings that support the inboard end of the inboard trailing edge flap, as well as a structural reassessment of the torque tube joint that revealed the potential for premature fatigue cracking of the torque tube that would not be detected using reasonable inspection methods. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion or cracking of the torque tube and closeout rib fittings that support the inboard end of the inboard trailing edge flap. Cracking in these components could lead to a fracture, which could result in loss of the inboard trailing edge flap and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Bulletin Reference (f) The term “service bulletin,” as used in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD, means Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0048, Revision 1, dated June 9, 2005. (g) Where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the issuance of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. Initial Inspection (h) For all airplanes: Do a detailed inspection for any discrepancy of the splined components of the inboard trailing edge flap, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. The splined components of the inboard trailing edge flap include the torque tube, closeout rib fitting assembly, carrier beam pillow block fitting assembly, and drive crank support. Discrepancies of the torque tube and closeout rib fitting include light contact wear, corrosion pits, corrosion, cracking, or fracture. Discrepancies of the carrier beam pillow block fitting assembly and drive crank support consist of light contact wear and damage to the cadmium plating. Do the initial inspection at the applicable time specified in Table 7 under paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” No Discrepancy/Other Specified Actions (i) If no discrepancy is found during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, perform all applicable specified actions, including the modification to install a new isolation strap and attachment hardware, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Then, repeat the inspection at the applicable time specified in Table 7 under paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Doing the modification in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph. Related Investigative/Corrective/Other Specified Actions and Repetitive Inspections (j) For any discrepancy found during any inspection required paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Before further flight, accomplish all applicable investigative, corrective, and other specified actions, including the modification to install a new isolation strap and attachment hardware, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Then, evaluate the spline rework to determine the appropriate repetitive interval, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the applicable interval specified in Table 7 under paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Doing the modification in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph. Replacement of Torque Tube Assembly (k) For all airplanes: Replace the torque tube assembly with a new torque tube assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Do the initial replacement at the applicable compliance time specified in Notes (c) and (d), as applicable, of Table 7 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD. Repeat the replacement thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Notes (c) and (d), of Table 7 under paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Doing the modification in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD terminates the repetitive replacement requirements of this paragraph. Modification (l) For all airplanes: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD. (1) Modify the inboard main flap in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57-0054, dated February 23, 2006. Doing this modification terminates the repetitive requirements of paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD. (2) Revise the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program for performing periodic inspections and maintenance of the torque tube splined joints in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57-0054, dated February 23, 2006. Concurrent Requirement (m) For Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-27-0034, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2006: Prior to or concurrently with the actions in paragraph (l) of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the flap seal panels for cracking and minimum clearances, and a detailed inspection of the torque tubes for damage; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-27-0034, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2006; except where the service bulletin specifies the corrective action of replacing the torque tube, the replacement must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57-0054, dated February 23, 2006. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Actions Done In Accordance With Previous Issues of Service Bulletins (n) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-27-0034, dated February 11, 1999; or Boeing Service Alert Bulletin 777-57A0048, dated September 9, 2004; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (o)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 22, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-16198 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25965; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-127-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 Series Airplanes Equipped With General Electric CF6-50 Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes equipped with General Electric CF6-50 engines. The existing AD currently requires deactivating both thrust reversers and revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to require performance penalties during certain takeoff conditions to ensure that safe and appropriate performance is achieved for airplanes on which both thrust reversers have been deactivated. This proposed AD would require one-time inspections of the directional pilot valve (DPV), the rocker arm and associated hardware, and corrective actions if necessary; reactivation of both thrust reversers; and repetitive inspections of the DPV and the associated control mechanism of the thrust reversers for incorrect assembly or excessive wear, and corrective actions if necessary. Accomplishing all of the proposed actions would allow the removal of the AFM limitations in the existing AD. This proposed AD results from reports indicating that the DPV was assembled incorrectly; further investigation revealed excessive wear on certain correctly assembled DPVs and the associated control mechanism. We are proposing this AD to prevent uncommanded in-flight deployment of a thrust reverser, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-25965; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-127-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On April 19, 2002, we issued AD 2002-08-51, amendment 39-12728 (67 FR 21569, May 1, 2002), for Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes equipped with General Electric CF6-50 engines. That AD requires deactivating both thrust reversers and revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to require performance penalties during certain takeoff conditions to ensure that safe and appropriate performance is achieved for airplanes on which both thrust reversers have been deactivated. That AD resulted from the issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. We issued that AD to prevent uncommanded in-flight deployment of a thrust reverser, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The actions required by AD 2002-08-51 are considered “interim action” until final action was identified. We have determined that further rulemaking action to address that final action is necessary; this proposed AD follows from that determination. Since AD 2002-08-51 was issued, Airbus issued service information that provides instructions for reactivating the thrust reversers through the implementation of a program that involves one-time and follow-on repetitive inspections, and parts replacement if necessary. We approved this program as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) with the requirements of AD 2002-08-51, allowing for reactivation of the thrust reversers and removal of the AFM limitations. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued All Operators Telex (AOT) A300-78A0024, dated May 29, 2002. The AOT describes using the procedures in the Airbus A300 Airplane Maintenance Manual to reactivate the thrust reversers after accomplishing an inspection for correct assembly or excessive wear of the directional pilot valve (DPV) and excessive wear of the DPV rocker arm, and corrective actions (parts replacement) if necessary. Accomplishing these actions would eliminate the need for the AFM limitations. Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300-78-0025, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 16, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive detailed visual inspections of the DPV and the associated control mechanism of the thrust reverser for incorrect assembly or excessive wear, and corrective actions if necessary. The inspections are done following reactivation of the thrust reversers. The corrective actions include repair of any discrepancies in the DPV and replacing any damaged parts in the associated control mechanism. The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, mandated the Airbus service information and issued French airworthiness directives 2002-293(B), dated June 12, 2002; and F-2005-208, dated December 21, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. The Airbus AOT refers to Middle River Aircraft Systems CF6-50 Alert Service Bulletin 78A3040, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2004, (including Honeywell Service Bulletin 121332-78-1620, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2004), as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the inspections. The Airbus service bulletin refers to Middle River Aircraft Component Maintenance Manual 78-31-06, Revision 10, dated May 31, 2005, as an additional source of service information for replacing defective components. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2002-08-51 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require inspections of the DPV and the rocker arm and associated hardware; reactivation of both thrust reversers; and repetitive inspections of the DPV and the associated control mechanism of the thrust reversers for incorrect assembly or excessive wear, and corrective actions if necessary. Accomplishing the inspections of the DPV and the rocker arm and associated hardware, followed by the reactivation of the thrust reversers, would eliminate the need for the AFM limitations required by the existing AD. Clarification of Inspection Terminology In this proposed AD, the “detailed visual inspection” specified in the Airbus service bulletin, and the “inspection” required by the French airworthiness directives, are referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the proposed AD. Change to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2002-08-51. Since AD 2002-08-51 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2002-08-51 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph (a) Paragraph (f). Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 30 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions that are required by AD 2002-08-51, and retained in this proposed AD take about 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $240 per airplane. The new proposed inspection and reactivation specified in Airbus AOT A300-78A0024 would take about 9 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new inspection and reactivation specified in this proposed AD for U.S. operators is $21,600, or $720 per airplane. The new proposed inspections specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-78-0025 would take about 7 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new inspections specified in this proposed AD for U.S. operators is $16,800, or $560 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-12728 (67 FR 21569, May 1, 2002) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2006-25965; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-127-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 2, 2006. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 2002-08-51. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with General Electric CF6-50 engines. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from reports indicating that the directional pilot valve (DPV) was assembled incorrectly; further investigation revealed excessive wear on certain correctly assembled DPVs and the associated control mechanism. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded in-flight deployment of a thrust reverser, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2002-08-51 Thrust Reverser Deactivation and Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision (f) Within 72 clock hours after May 6, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-08-51), accomplish paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD. (1) Deactivate both thrust reversers according to Airbus All Operators Telex A300/78A0023, dated April 5, 2002. (2) Revise the Limitations Section of the AFM to include the following (this may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM): “When the runway is wet or contaminated, reduce by five percent the corrected acceleration-stop distance resulting from the airplane flight manual takeoff performance analysis. ( Note: This supersedes any relief provided by the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL).)” New Requirements of This AD Inspections and Corrective Actions (g) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD in consecutive order, in accordance with the procedures specified in Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A300-78A0024, dated May 29, 2002, which ends the requirements in paragraph (f) of this AD. (1) Do a detailed inspection of the DPV on each thrust reverser for incorrect assembly, incorrect diameter, or excessive wear, by doing all the applicable actions, including all applicable corrective actions. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. (2) Do a detailed inspection of the rocker arm of the DPV for excessive wear by doing all the applicable actions, including all applicable corrective actions. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. (3) Reactivate both thrust reversers and do a one-time operational test before further flight. Note 1: Airbus AOT A300-78A0024, dated May 29, 2002, refers to Middle River Aircraft Systems CF6-50 Alert Service Bulletin 78A3040, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2004 (including Honeywell Service Bulletin 121332-78-1620, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2004), as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the inspections. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Actions (h) Within 18 months after accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the DPV and the associated control mechanism of the thrust reverser for incorrect assembly or excessive wear, by doing all the applicable actions, including all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-78-0025, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated February 16, 2005. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,000 flight hours. Note 3: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-78-0025, Revision 01, dated February 16, 2005, refers to Middle River Aircraft Systems Component Maintenance Manual 78-31-06, Revision 10, dated May 31, 2005, as an additional source of service information for replacing defective components. Actions Accomplished Previously (i) Inspections and corrective actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-78-0025, dated July 21, 2004, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2002-08-51, are not approved as AMOCs with this AD. (3) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (k) French airworthiness directives 2002-293(B), dated June 12, 2002, and F-2005-208, dated December 21, 2005, also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 22, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-16201 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25966; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-149-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A310 airplanes. This proposed AD would require doing repetitive inspections for any missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed wiper rings in the splined couplings of the flap transmissions shafts; inspections for any missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed rubber gaiters and straps on the sliding bearing/plunging joints of the flap transmission; and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD results from reviews in which the manufacturer determined that the splined couplings and sliding bearings of the flap transmission system could be affected by corrosion and wear. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damaged, missing, or incorrectly installed components of the flap transmission system, which could result in reduced functional integrity of the flap transmission system and consequent reduced control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-25966; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-149-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the airworthiness authority for the European Union, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A310 airplanes. The EASA advises that the manufacturer conducted high-time equipment reviews as part of the Model A310 aircraft design service goal extension work. The manufacturer determined that the splined couplings and sliding bearings of the flap transmission system could be affected by corrosion and wear. In addition, the manufacturer determined that the protective components of the flap transmission system could be defective. The protective components include the wiper rings and rubber gaiters. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced functional integrity of the flap transmission system and consequent reduced control of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-27-2099, dated February 17, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing an inspection for any missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed wiper rings in the splined couplings of the flap transmission shafts; an inspection for any missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed rubber gaiters and straps on the sliding bearing/plunging joints of the flap transmission; and corrective action if necessary. The corrective action is replacing any damaged, missing, or incorrectly installed wiper rings, rubber gaiters, or straps with serviceable components. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0111, dated May 12, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Clarification of Type of Inspection The service bulletin specifies to “visually inspect” the flap transmission shafts. We have determined that the procedures in the service bulletin should be described as a “general visual inspection.” Note 1 has been included in this proposed AD to define this type of inspection. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection, per inspection cycle 3 $80 $240 3 $15,120, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2006-25966; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-149-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 2, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from reviews in which the manufacturer determined that the splined couplings and sliding bearings of the flap transmission system could be affected by corrosion and wear. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged, missing, or incorrectly installed components of the flap transmission system, which could result in reduced functional integrity of the flap transmission system and consequent reduced control of the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Initial and Repetitive Inspections (f) Within 2,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection for any missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed wiper rings in the splined couplings of the flap transmission shafts; and a general visual inspection for any missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed rubber gaiters and straps on the sliding bearing/plunging joints of the flap transmission; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2099, dated February 17, 2006. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight cycles. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Corrective Actions (g) If any damaged, missing or incorrectly installed wiper rings, rubber gaiters, or straps are found during any inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD: Within 400 flight cycles after accomplishing the inspection, replace the applicable component with a serviceable component in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2099, dated February 17, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (i) The European Aviation Safety Agency's airworthiness directive 2006-0111, dated May 12, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 22, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-16204 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25973; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-178-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Boeing Model 777 airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive measurements of the freeplay of the right and left elevators, rudder, and rudder tab, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also require repetitive lubrications of the elevator, rudder, and rudder tab components. This proposed AD results from reports of freeplay-induced vibration of unbalanced control surfaces. Excessive freeplay of control surfaces can cause unacceptable airframe vibration during flight. The potential for vibration of the control surface should be avoided because the point of transition from vibration to divergent flutter is unknown. We are proposing this AD to prevent flutter, which can cause damage to the control surface structure and consequent loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6450; fax (425) 917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-25973; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-178-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received reports of freeplay-induced vibration of unbalanced control surfaces on Boeing Model 727, 737, 757, and 767 airplanes. Excessive corrosion and wear of components and/or interfaces allows excessive freeplay movement of the control surfaces and can cause excessive vibration of the airframe during flight. The potential for vibration of the control surface should be avoided because the point of transition from vibration to divergent flutter is unknown. Flutter can cause damage to the control surface structure during flight. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane. The control surfaces on Model 777 airplanes are similar to those on the affected Model 727, 737, 757, and 767 airplanes. Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, dated July 18, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for measuring the freeplay of the right and left elevators, rudder, and rudder tab. If the freeplay is greater than the given limit, the service bulletin specifies accomplishing related investigative and corrective actions to decrease the freeplay. The related investigative actions include inspecting for worn parts, which include hinges, bolts, actuator fittings, related bushings, power control unit (PCU) reaction links, kick link bearings, and hinge bolts. The corrective actions include replacing or repairing any worn parts; and repeating the freeplay measurement until the freeplay is less than the specified limits. The service bulletin also describes procedures for accomplishing repetitive lubrications of the elevator, rudder, and rudder tab components. Those components include hinge bearings for the elevators, rudder, and rudder tab; and reaction links and PCU rod ends for the elevators and rudder. The service bulletin also specifies doing the freeplay measurement before the lubrication, when the lubrication and freeplay measurement of a part are done during the same maintenance period. For the initial measurement of the freeplay of the right and left elevators, rudder, and rudder tab, the service bulletin specifies that the measurements be done within 36 months after the date of the service bulletin, or within 36 months after the date of issuance of the original standard certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later. The service bulletin specifies a measurement repeat interval of 12,000 flight hours, or 36 months, whichever occurs first. The service bulletin also specifies that any corrective actions be done before further flight. For the initial lubrication of the elevator, rudder, and rudder tab components, the service bulletin specifies that the lubrications be done within 16 months after the date of the service bulletin, or within 16 months after the date of issuance of the original standard certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later. The service bulletin specifies a lubrication repeat interval of 5,000 flight hours, or 16 months, whichever occurs first. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 695 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost Measurement of elevators, per measurement cycle 4 $320, per measurement cycle 145 $46,400, per measurement cycle. Lubrication of elevators, per lubrication cycle 17 $1,360, per lubrication cycle 145 $197,200, per lubrication cycle. Measurement of rudder, per measurement cycle 4 $320, per measurement cycle 145 $46,400, per measurement cycle. Lubrication of rudder, per lubrication cycle 7 $560, per lubrication cycle 145 $81,200, per lubrication cycle. Measurement of rudder tab, per measurement cycle 3 $240, per measurement cycle 145 $34,800, per measurement cycle. Lubrication of rudder tab, per lubrication cycle 5 $400, per lubrication cycle 145 $58,000, per lubrication cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2006-25973; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-178-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 17, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from reports of freeplay-induced vibration of unbalanced control surfaces. Excessive freeplay of control surfaces can cause unacceptable airframe vibration during flight. The potential for vibration of the control surface should be avoided because the point of transition from vibration to divergent flutter is unknown. We are issuing this AD to prevent flutter, which can cause damage to the control surface structure and consequent loss of control of the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Repetitive Measurements (f) At the applicable times specified in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, dated July 18, 2006, except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: Measure the freeplay of the right and left elevators, rudder, and rudder tab; and do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight; by accomplishing all the actions specified in Parts 1, 3, and 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, dated July 18, 2006, as applicable. Repeat the measurements and related investigative and corrective actions thereafter at the interval specified in Table 1, 2, or 3 of the service bulletin, as applicable. Repetitive Lubrications (g) At the applicable times specified in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, dated July 18, 2006, except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: Lubricate the elevator components, rudder components, and rudder tab components, by accomplishing all the actions specified Parts 2, 4, and 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, dated July 18, 2006, as applicable. Repeat the lubrications thereafter at the interval specified in Table 1, 2, or 3 of the service bulletin, as applicable. Concurrent Compliance Times (h) If a freeplay measurement of a specified part required by paragraph (f) of this AD and a lubrication of the same part required by paragraph (g) of this AD are due at the same time or will be accomplished during the same maintenance visit, the freeplay measurement and all related investigative and corrective actions must be done before the lubrication is accomplished. Exceptions to Compliance Times (i) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, dated July 18, 2006, recommends an initial compliance threshold of “Within 36 months after the date on this service bulletin” for Parts 1, 3, and 5 of the service bulletin, this AD requires an initial compliance threshold of “within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.” Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-27-0062, dated July 18, 2006, recommends an initial compliance threshold of “Within 16 months after the date on this service bulletin” for Parts 2, 4, and 6 of the service bulletin, this AD requires an initial compliance threshold of “within 16 months after the effective date of this AD.” Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 26, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-16307 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 388 [Docket No. RM06-23-000] Critical Energy Infrastructure Information Issued September 21, 2006. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is proposing to revise its regulations to: Allow an annual certification for repeat requesters of Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII); allow an authorized representative to file an executed non-disclosure agreement; make the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 (2000) fee schedule applicable to CEII requests; provide CEII appeal rights that are compatible with FOIA appeal rights; grant landowners the right to obtain alignment sheets directly from Commission staff; and abolish the non-Internet public category of information. This notice of proposed rulemaking also seeks comments on the CEII portions of various forms and reports submitted to the Commission. The proposed rule offers a more efficient process for handling CEII requests and provides submitters of CEII with guidance on what materials the Commission accepts as containing CEII. DATES: Comments are due November 2, 2006. Reply Comments are due November 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. RM06-23-000, by one of the following methods: • Agency Web site: http://ferc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments via the eFiling link found in the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble. • Mail: Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please refer to the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble for additional information on how to file paper comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresina A. Stasko, Office of the General Counsel, GC-13, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426; 202-502-8317. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction 1. In the three years since the issuance of Order No. 630, the Commission has continually monitored and evaluated the effectiveness of the Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) process. Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, Order No. 630, 68 FR 9857 (Mar. 3, 2003), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,140 (2003); order on reh'g, Order No. 630-A, 68 FR 46456 (Aug. 6, 2003), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,147 (2003). The most recent review indicates that changes are needed to assure the rules work in the manner intended. As explained below, the Commission seeks comments on: (1) Revisions to its regulations regarding CEII requests; (2) the limited portions of various forms and reports the Commission now defines as containing CEII; and (3) its proposal to abolish the non-Internet public (NIP) designation. In a final rule and notice of regulatory changes issued concurrently with this notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission: (1) Makes the following changes to its regulations (a) the definition of CEII is clarified, and (b) requesters are required to submit executed non-disclosure agreements (NDA) with their requests; (2) provides notice that, for CEII requests, the notice and opportunity to comment on a request will be combined with the notice of release; and (3) reiterates its requirement that submitters segregate CEII from other information and file as CEII only information which truly warrants being kept from public access. 2. The proposed rule (1) offers a more efficient process for handling CEII requests and (2) provides submitters with guidance on what materials the Commission accepts as containing CEII. Background 3. The Commission began its efforts with respect to CEII shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001. See Statement of Policy on Treatment of Previously Public Documents, 66 FR 52917 (Oct. 18, 2001), 97 FERC ¶ 61,130 (2001). The Commission's initial step was to remove from its public files and Internet page documents such as oversized maps that were likely to contain detailed specifications of facilities licensed or certified by the Commission, directing the public to request such information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process detailed in 5 U.S.C. 552 (2000) and in the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 388.108 (2001). In September 2002, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding CEII, which proposed an expanded definition of CEII to include detailed information about proposed facilities as well as those already licensed or certificated by the Commission. Notice of Rulemaking and Revised Statement of Policy, 67 FR 57994 (Sept. 13, 2002); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,564 (2002). The Commission issued its final rule on CEII on February 21, 2003, defining CEII to include information about proposed facilities, and to exclude information that simply identified the location of the infrastructure. Order No. 630, 68 FR 9857, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,140. After receiving a request for rehearing on Order No. 630, the Commission issued Order No. 630-A on July 23, 2003, denying the request for rehearing, but amending the rule in several respects. Order No. 630-A, 68 FR 46456, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,147. Specifically, the order on rehearing made several minor procedural changes and clarifications, added a reference in the regulation regarding the filing of NIP information, a term first described in Order No. 630, and added the aforementioned commitment to review the effectiveness of the new process after six months. Also on July 23, 2003, the Commission issued Order No. 643, which revised the Commission's regulations to require companies to make certain information available directly to the public under certain circumstances. These revisions were necessary to conform the regulations to Order No. 630. Order No. 643, 68 FR 52089, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,149 (2003). In Order No. 662, the Commission modified its CEII regulations to ease the burden on agents of owners or operators of energy facilities that are seeking CEII relating to the owner/operator's own facility. The rule also simplified Federal agencies' access to CEII. Order No. 662, 70 FR 37031, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,189 (2005). Proposed Revisions to Regulations A. Section 388.113—Accessing Critical Energy Infrastructure Information 4. The Commission proposes to revise § 388.113 of its regulations to allow an annual certification for repeat requesters, i.e. , repeat requesters would not be required to file a new non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with each subsequent request. The current regulation sets forth a process where a requester provides to the CEII Coordinator detailed information about the requester and his or her need for the information, which the CEII Coordinator uses in determining whether to release the information. The proposed regulation would provide that a requester provide such detailed information with an initial request. Once the CEII Coordinator determines that the requester does not pose a security risk, the requester would not have to provide such detailed information with subsequent requests during the calendar year. This would decrease the processing time of requests as Commission staff would not have to verify the requester with subsequent requests. It is important to note that the CEII Coordinator would continue to carefully consider submitters' responses that identify security risks associated with releasing CEII to particular requesters. 5. With each subsequent request, the requester would still be required to provide detailed information as to why he or she needs the information. Such need would be implicated, for example, if the requester is an intervener in a proceeding or a landowner affected by a proposed facility. Such individuals may require access to information in order to participate meaningfully in the proceeding. The requester would also be required to attest that the information supplied with an initial request has not changed. 6. The Commission also proposes to revise § 388.113 of its regulations to allow an authorized representative of an organization to execute an NDA on behalf of all that organization's employees. The Commission would verify an organization and require that the organization verify its own users. In the event of an unauthorized disclosure of CEII by a member or employee of the organization, the Commission will hold the authorized representative and the entity accountable and take all action available to the Commission to deal with the violation. Repeat requests would be subject to the annual certification described above. 7. The Commission further proposes to revise § 388.113 of its regulations to include a fee provision. Commission staff currently expends valuable time and resources searching, reviewing, and copying documents responsive to CEII requests. The current regulations would be modified to follow the fee schedule used for FOIA requests. 8. Another regulatory change the Commission proposes is to revise 18 CFR § 388.113(d)(3)(ii). Currently, the CEII Coordinator, or his or her designee, issues a delegated order in response to a CEII request. Section 388.113(d)(3)(ii) provides that this decision is subject to rehearing pursuant to § 375.713 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission proposes that CEII determinations no longer be subject to rehearing. As explained below, CEII requests would be processed in a manner similar to other requests for non-public information. 9. The September 11, 2001 attacks prompted the Commission to remove from easy public access previously public documents that detail the specifications of proposed or existing energy facilities licensed or certificated by the Commission. Before the attacks, the Commission was never faced with such security issues. Therefore, in these early days of CEII, the Commission sought to reconcile its regulatory responsibilities under its enabling statutes and Federal environmental laws with the need to protect the safety and well being of American citizens from attacks on our nation's energy infrastructure. To that end, the Commission allowed the CEII Coordinator, or her designee, to make CEII determinations by delegated orders, which are subject to rehearing. 10. In light of over three years experience processing CEII requests, the Commission now finds that CEII determinations need not be made by delegated orders. In making this determination, the Commission is in no way compromising the security of the information or unduly restricting the public access to it. 11. Under existing procedures, a request for rehearing concerning a CEII determination is reviewed by the entire Commission and is then subject to review by the appropriate appellate court. See 18 CFR 385.713 (2006). Other than CEII requests, when the Commission makes a determination regarding the release of non-public information, it is not subject to rehearing. For example, by statute, when the agency informs a requester of non-public information, i.e. a FOIA requester, of the reason(s) for withholding information, the requester is limited to filing an administrative appeal to the Commission's General Counsel, with no right to a Commission rehearing. This promotes judicial economy and preserves Commission resources. If the requester is dissatisfied with the General Counsel's determination, the requester must seek a de novo review in a U.S. District Court prior to going before an appellate court. 18 CFR 388.108(c)(1), 388.110 (2006). 12. The Commission emphasizes that CEII, like other non-public documents, is maintained in the Commission's non-public files pursuant to § 388.107 of its regulations. The Commission's determination to place CEII or other non-public information in its non-public files or to release such information need not be done by a Commission order which allows the right to rehearing. Rather, a release of CEII should be processed similarly to the release of other non-public information specified in § 388.107 of its regulations. Therefore, the Commission proposes that the CEII Coordinator, or her designee, issue a letter providing notice of a determination to grant or deny a CEII request. As CEII by definition is exempt from release under the FOIA, the Commission's determination to release CEII is a voluntary one that is analogous to a discretionary release under the FOIA. Accordingly, a dissatisfied CEII requester may seek the information pursuant to the FOIA and may ultimately pursue a remedy in district court pursuant to the court's jurisdiction under the FOIA. A dissatisfied submitter may seek injunctive relief similar to that sought in a reverse FOIA action. 1 Thus, even though the Commission would no longer subject CEII determinations to rehearing, comparable administrative and judicial remedies remain available. 1 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has defined a “reverse” FOIA action as one in which the “submitter of information—usually a corporation or other business entity” that has supplied an agency with “data on its policies, operations or products—seeks to prevent the agency that collected the information from revealing it to a third party in response to the latter's FOIA request.” CNA Fin. Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132, 1133 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 13. In revised § 388.113(d), the Commission proposes to grant access to alignment sheets filed pursuant to § 380.12(3) of the Commission's regulations to landowners for the route across or in the vicinity of their property. Such landowners would be able to obtain alignment sheets from the CEII Coordinator without submitting an NDA. Thus, landowners will not be restricted from discussing the information shown in the detailed alignment sheets with others even though the detailed alignment sheets are CEII. The Commission encourages landowners to first request this information from applicants. B. Section 388.112—Requests for Special Treatment of Documents Submitted to the Commission 14. By way of background, in Order No. 630, the Commission explained that it considers the following types of gas and hydropower location information outside the definition of CEII: (1) USGS 7.5-minutes topographic maps showing the location of pipelines, dams, or other aboveground facilities; (2) alignment sheets showing the location of pipeline and aboveground facilities, right of way dimensions, and extra work areas; (3) drawings showing site or project boundaries, footprints, building locations and reservoir extent; and (4) general location maps. In order to alleviate concerns about making this information so easily available, the Commission instructed filers to segregate this non-CEII location information into a separate volume or appendix, clearly label it NIP, and submit it with instructions that it not be placed on the Internet. The information remained, and still remains, publicly available through the Public Reference Room. 15. The NIP designation has resulted in much confusion, with many individuals utilizing the CEII or the FOIA procedures in an effort to obtain NIP information. The Commission proposes to abolish the NIP designation. The Commission has concluded that there is little to be gained by protecting information that can be gleaned from a visual inspection of the facility, or that is otherwise easily attainable from other sources, such as the United States Geological Survey or commercial mapping firms. See 67 FR 57994, 58000. Most of the information designated as NIP is readily available on the Internet. For companies that currently file maps showing simply the location of pipeline and aboveground facilities as NIP, they would file these documents as public. For companies that file detailed alignment sheets pursuant to § 380.12(c)(3) of the Commission's regulation, they would all be filed as CEII. We note that this proposed change would be prospective and any documents currently filed as NIP would retain that designation. Proposed Revisions to CEII Designation for Information Collected 16. The CEII process was not intended as a mechanism for companies to withhold from public access information that does not pose a risk of attack on the energy infrastructure. Therefore, in an effort to achieve proper designation while avoiding misuse of the CEII designation, the Commission requires submitters to segregate public information from CEII and to file as CEII only information which truly warrants being kept from ready public access. To this end, the Commission emphasizes that the Commission's regulation at 18 CFR 388.112(b)(1) requires that submitters provide a justification for CEII treatment. The way to properly justify CEII treatment is by describing the information for which CEII treatment is requested and explaining the legal justification for such treatment. 17. The Commission retains its concern for CEII filing abuses and will take action against applicants or parties who knowingly misfile information as CEII, including rejection of an application where information is mislabeled as CEII. The Commission offers the following proposals on how various types of documents should be filed. We note that these proposals are for prospective filings. All documents currently filed at the Commission will retain their current designations. The Commission directs the Director of the Office of External Affairs to post on the Commission's Web site, from time to time, clarifying guidelines regarding CEII. A. Guidelines for Filing Resource Report 13 18. These proposed guidelines provide instructions on how to file Resource Report 13. In the Commission's experience, Resource Report 13 contains public information, CEII, and privileged information. It is imperative that the information submitted be filed in its proper designation. Pursuant to 388.112(b) of the Commission's regulations, these designations must be clearly labeled and filed as separate volumes. The Commission emphasizes that submitters must segregate public information, CEII, and privileged information and file them in separate volumes. Further, submitters must only file as CEII or privileged information which truly warrants exemption from ready public access. 1. Public 19. The filing of Resource Report 13 should include a public volume for posting on eLibrary. In general, narratives such as descriptions of facilities and processes are public. However, if there are specific engineering details or design details of a critical infrastructure in narrative form, the information may be CEII or privileged. Examples of public aspects of Resource Report 13 include design, engineering, and operating philosophies, as well as general descriptions of hazard detection and control. 2. CEII 20. Only limited information meets the CEII category and should be filed as such. CEII only includes specific engineering and detailed design information about liquefied natural gas facilities, components, tanks, and systems. Examples of CEII include: Detailed piping and instrumentation diagrams; equipment and tank detail drawings; and detailed hazard detection and control location specifics. 3. Privileged 21. In general, manufacturer's proprietary or business confidential design information, and cultural resource reports are examples of privileged documents. Privileged documents are generally documents that are exempt from release pursuant to an act of Congress. For example, cultural resources may be exempt from release pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act and should be filed as privileged. Also, material which a submitter can justify as exempt from public release pursuant to FOIA exemption 4 should be filed under this criterion. In order to qualify for Exemption 4 protection, the information must be (1) commercial or financial, (2) obtained from a person, and (3) privileged or confidential. Generally, in order to be “confidential” for purposes of Exemption 4, disclosure of the information must either impair the government's ability to obtain similar information in the future, or cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the submitter of the information. See National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). B. Guidelines for Filing Natural Gas Pipeline Flow Diagrams and Associated Information 22. These proposed guidelines provide instructions on how to file natural gas pipeline flow diagrams and associated information including the diagrams filed in Exhibits G and G-1 of pipeline certificate applications, Exhibit V of abandonment applications, FERC Form 567, and other flow diagrams submitted for the analysis of gas pipeline applications. 23. In general, natural gas pipeline flow diagrams are considered CEII. However, supporting information submitted with these flow diagrams often contains information that should be public. In the Commission's experience, information filed with the flow diagrams contains public information, CEII, and privileged information. Again, it is crucial that the information submitted be filed in its proper designation and in separate, clearly labeled volumes. See 18 CFR 388.112(b) (2006). 1. Public 24. In general, narratives such as descriptions of facilities and processes are public. However, if there are specific engineering details and design details of a critical infrastructure in narrative form, the information may be CEII or privileged. Examples of public information include design assumptions, engineering and operating philosophies, most design specifications of equipment and pipelines, and narrative descriptions of pipeline operations. 2. CEII 25. CEII only includes specific engineering and detailed design information about pipeline facilities, components, and equipment. Examples of CEII include detailed natural gas flow diagrams filed in Exhibits G and G-1 of pipeline certificate applications, Exhibit V of abandonment applications, and FERC Form No. 567. Also, pipeline computer simulation models may be considered CEII unless they contain proprietary or business confidential information, in which case they should be filed as privileged. 3. Privileged 26. In general, documents containing manufacturer's proprietary or business confidential design information are examples of privileged documents. Material which a submitter can justify as exempt from public release pursuant to FOIA exemption 4 should be filed under this criterion. C. Guidelines for Filing Documents Pertaining to the Commission's Division of Dam Safety and Inspections 27. These proposed guidelines provide further instructions on how to file documents relating to hydropower projects with the Commission's Division of Dam Safety and Inspections (D2SI). Some D2SI documents contain only public information and some only CEII. In general, D2SI documents are not filed with a claim of privilege. 1. Public 28. In general, narratives such as descriptions of facilities and processes are public. However, if there are specific engineering details and design details of a critical infrastructure in narrative form, the information may be CEII or privileged. Examples of public information include general design, engineering, and operating philosophies. 2. CEII 29. Only limited information meets this category and should be filed as CEII. CEII only includes engineering, security, and detailed design information about proposed or existing critical infrastructure. Examples of CEII include detailed drawings and specifications, numerical analyses in inspection reports, dam safety and technical reports, emergency action plans, hazard classification, construction design reports, public safety plans, and extreme event reports. D. Guidelines for Filing Documents Pertaining to the Commission's Division of Hydropower Licensing 30. These proposed guidelines provide further instructions on how to file documents relating to applications to license hydropower projects with the Commission's Division of Hydropower Licensing (DHL). In hydropower licensing, only Exhibit F is considered to be CEII material. Exhibit F consists of design drawings of critical energy infrastructure information and a Supporting Design Report. Exhibit F is contained in applications for hydropower licenses. All other DHL documents contain only public information. In general, DHL documents are not filed with a claim of privilege. E. Guidelines for Filing FERC Form 715 Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report 31. These proposed guidelines provide further instructions on how to file parts of the FERC Form 715, Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report (Form 715). The Form 715 is comprised of the following parts: Part 1, Identification and Certification; Part 2, Power Flow Base Cases; Part 3, Transmitting Utility Maps and Diagrams; Part 4, Transmission Planning Reliability Criteria; Part 5, Transmission Planning Assessment Practices; and Part 6, Evaluation of Transmission System Performance. Some parts of the Form 715 contain public information and some contain CEII. In general, Form 715 does not contain privileged information. 1. Public 32. In general, narratives such as descriptions of facilities and processes are public. The information found in Part 1 contains the filer's identification and contact information. This information should be filed publicly. Similarly, Parts 4 and 5 contain generic criteria used in evaluating and testing the filer's system. This generic information does not qualify as CEII and should be filed publicly. 2. CEII 33. CEII only includes engineering, security, and detailed design information about proposed or existing infrastructure. Information in Part 2 provides an electrical model and analysis of the filer's actual transmission system. Part 3 provides detailed one-line diagrams and geographic location and identification of all system components. Part 6 provides details of potential weaknesses of the filer's transmission system including possible solutions. These three parts contain CEII and should be filed as such. Information Collection Statement 34. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) regulations require that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. See 5 CFR 1320.12 (2006). This notice of proposed rulemaking does not impose any additional information collection requirements. Therefore, the information collection regulations do not apply to this final rule. Environmental Analysis 35. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusions are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended. 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). This notice of proposed rulemaking is procedural in nature and therefore falls under this exception; consequently, no environmental consideration is necessary. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 36. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires rulemakings to contain either a description and analysis of the effect that the rule will have on small entities or a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 2 Most companies to which the rules proposed herein would apply, if finalized, would not fall within the RFA's definition of small entity. 3 Consequently, the rules proposed herein, if finalized, will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 2 5 U.S.C. 603 (2000). 3 5 U.S.C. 601(3)(2000), citing to section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (2000). Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines a “small business concern” as a business that is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. 15 U.S.C. 632 (2000). The Small Business Size Standards component of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) defines, for example, a small electric utility as one that, including its affiliates, is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and whose total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed four million MWh. NAICS defines a natural gas pipeline company as one that transports natural gas and whose annual receipts (total income plus cost of goods sold) did not exceed $6.5 million dollars for the preceding year. 13 CFR 121.201. Public Comments 37. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due on or before November 2, 2006. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM06-23-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization he or she represents, if applicable, and his or her address. 38. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats, and commenters may attach additional files with supporting information in certain other file formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. Commenters who are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 39. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this notice of proposed rulemaking are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. Document Availability 40. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. 41. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in the Commission's document management system, eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 42. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or 202-502-6652 (e-mail at FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov ), or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-8371, TTY 202-502-8659 (e-mail at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov ). List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 388 Confidential business information; Freedom of information. By direction of the Commission. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Part 388, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations , as follows: PART 388—INFORMATION AND REQUESTS 1. The authority citation for part 388 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301-305, 551, 552 (as amended), 553-557; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. 2. Revise § 388.109(b) introductory text to read as follows: § 388.109 Fees for record requests. (b) * Fees for records not available through the Public Reference Room (FOIA or CEII requests). * The cost of duplication of records not available in the Public Reference Room will depend on the number of documents requested, the time necessary to locate the documents requested, and the category of the persons requesting the records. The procedures for appeal of requests for fee waiver or reduction are provided in § 388.110. 3. In § 388.112, paragraph (a)(3) is removed and paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: § 388.112 Requests for special treatment of documents submitted to the Commission. (b) Procedures. A person claiming that information warrants special treatment as CEII or privileged must file: (1) A written statement requesting CEII or privileged treatment for some or all of the information in a document, and the justification for special treatment of the information; and (2) The following, as applicable: (i) An original plus the requisite number of copies of the public volume filed and marked in accordance with instructions issued by the Secretary; (ii) An original plus two copies of the CEII volume, if any, filed and marked in accordance with instructions issued by the Secretary; and (iii) An original only of the privileged volume, if any, filed and marked in accordance with instructions issued by the Secretary. 4. Amend § 388.113 by redesignating paragraph (d)(3) as paragraph (d)(4), by adding new paragraph (d)(3), revising redesignated paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii), redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(iii) as paragraph (d)(4)(iv), and adding new paragraphs (d)(4)(iii) and (e) to read as follows: § 388.113 Accessing critical energy infrastructure information. (d) * * * (3) A landowner whose property is crossed by or in the vicinity of a project may received detailed alignment sheets containing CEII directly from the CEII Coordinator without submitting a non-disclosure agreement as outlined in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. A landowner must provide the CEII Coordinator with proof of his or her property interest in the vicinity of a project. (4) * * * (i) File a signed, written request with the Commission's CEII Coordinator. The request must contain the following: Requester's name (including any other name(s) which the requester has used and the dates the requester used such name(s)), date and place of birth, title, address, and telephone number; the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity on whose behalf the information is requested; a detailed statement explaining the particular need for and intended use of the information; and a statement as to the requester's willingness to adhere to limitations on the use and disclosure of the information requested. Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, a requester must also file an executed non-disclosure agreement. A requester is also requested to include his or her social security number for identification purposes. A requester who seeks the information on behalf of all employees of an organization should clearly state that the information is sought for the organization, that the requester is authorized to seek the information on behalf of the organization, and that the requester agrees to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement which will be applied to all individuals who access to the CEII. (ii) Once the request is received, the CEII Coordinator will determine if the information is CEII, and, if it is, whether to release the CEII to the requester. The CEII Coordinator will balance the requester's need for the information against the sensitivity of the information. If the requester is determined to be eligible to receive the information requested, the CEII Coordinator will determine what conditions, if any, to place on release of the information. (iii) Once a CEII requester has been verified by Commission staff as a legitimate requester who does not pose a security risk, his or her verification will be valid for the remainder of that calendar year. Such a requester is not required to provide detailed information about himself with subsequent requests during the calendar year. The requester also is not required to file an NDA with subsequent requests during the calendar year. (e) Fees for processing CEII requests will be determined in accordance with § 388.109. [FR Doc. E6-15822 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [CGD08-06-026] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations for the Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX anchorage in order to improve navigation safety for vessels entering and exiting Cheniere Energy's Liquefied Natural Gas terminal. This proposed rule would reduce the overall size of the existing anchorage. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130-3396, Attn: Doug Blakemore. The Eighth Coast Guard District Commander maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Blakemore, Waterways Management Branch for the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 671-2109. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-06-026], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register . Background and Purpose Cheniere Energy is constructing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on the eastern waterfront of the Sabine Pass Channel. This facility is located immediately north and adjacent to the Sabine Pass Channel anchorage. Due to the angle that the terminal berth lays relative to the channel, vessels intending to berth at or depart the LNG terminal would have to follow a path that passes through the existing anchorage. Vessels anchored in the existing anchorage would be at an increased risk for being struck by an arriving or departing vessel. In order to reduce this risk, the Coast Guard proposes to make the overall size of the anchorage area smaller. This action would reduce the possible conflict associated with vessels that may anchor too close to the entrance of the LNG terminal. It would also provide a larger maneuvering area for vessels arriving to or departing from the LNG terminal, which consequently will reduce the possibility of a grounding or collision with another vessel in the area. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations for the Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX anchorage in order to improve navigation safety for vessels entering and exiting Cheniere Energy's Liquefied Natural Gas terminal. This proposed rule would reduce the overall size of the existing anchorage. The current description of the anchorage is found in 33 CFR 110.196 and is listed as follows: “The navigable waters of Sabine Pass within a trapezoidal area 1,500 feet wide and varying uniformly in length from 5,800 feet to 3,000 feet with the long side adjacent to the northeasterly edge of Sabine Pass Channel at a location opposite the town of Sabine Pass.” This proposed rule would shorten the “long side”, also referred to as the channel side, from 5,800 feet to approximately 5,000 feet. This would be accomplished by shortening the northern portion of this side by 800 feet. No other changes to the anchorage would be made. In order to eliminate confusion regarding the geographic boundary of the proposed anchorage, the current description would be replaced with geographic coordinates that would define the boundary of the anchorage. The proposed coordinates of the anchorage would be: Latitude Longitude 29°44′14″ N 93°52′24″ W 29°44′18″ N 93°52′06″ W 29°43′53″ N 93°51′47″ W 29°43′32″ N 93°51′52″ W Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Current information indicates that this anchorage area is rarely used, and the overall reduction in anchorage area would not significantly impact those vessels desiring to use the anchorage. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor in the Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX anchorage. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this anchorage area is believed to be rarely used. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Doug Blakemore at (504) 671-2109. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule would not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant adverse environmental impact as described in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, an Environmental Analysis Check List and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are not required because this proposed rule would reduce the size of the existing anchorage. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage regulations. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. In § 110.196, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 110.196 Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, Tex. (a) The anchorage area. The waters bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates: Latitude Longitude 29°44′14″ N 93°52′24″ W 29°44′18″ N 93°52′06″ W 29°43′53″ N 93°51′47″ W 29°43′32″ N 93°51′52″ W Dated: August 28, 2006. Joel R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-16315 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07-06-050] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Venetian Causeway (West) Drawbridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 1088.6, and Venetian Causeway (East) Drawbridge, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Miami-Dade County, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing the Venetian Causeway (West) drawbridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1088.6, and Venetian Causeway (East) drawbridge, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. This proposed rule will require these drawbridges to open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays the drawbridges will open on the hour and half-hour. This proposed rule will change the individual Federal holiday dates and align it with all Federal holidays. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131-3050. Commander (dpb) maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131-3050 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lieberum, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, telephone number 305-415-6744. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-06-050], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register . Background and Purpose The existing regulation of the Venetian Causeway (West) Drawbridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway mile 1088.6, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, requires the draw to open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given. The existing regulation of the Venetian Causeway (East) Drawbridge, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, requires the draw to open on signal; except that, from November 1 through April 30 from 7:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. Monday through Friday, the draw need not be opened. However, the draws shall open at 7:45 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 5:15 p.m., and 5:45 p.m. if any vessels are waiting to pass. The draw shall open on signal on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, New Year's Day and Washington's Birthday. The draw shall open at any time for public vessels of the United States, tugs with tows, regularly scheduled cruise vessels, and vessels in distress. The residents of Venetian Causeway requested the regulations of both drawbridges (East and West) be changed to allow for a 30-minute opening schedule from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays in order to relieve vehicular traffic delays. On April 3, 2006, we published a test deviation entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Venetian Causeway (West) drawbridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1088.6, and Venetian Causeway (East) drawbridge, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida in the Federal Register (71 FR 16492). We received eight comments all in favor of the temporary deviation. There has been confusion on which Federal holiday schedule the Venetian Causeway (East) Bridge should follow as the individual holidays listed do not follow the Federal Holiday Schedule. This proposed rule will align the Venetian Causeway (East) Bridge to the Federal Holiday Schedule and eliminate the confusion. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Venetian Causeway (West) drawbridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1088.6, and Venetian Causeway (East) drawbridge, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. This proposed rule will require these drawbridges to open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays the drawbridges will open on the hour and half-hour. This proposed rule will remove the individual Federal holiday list and align it with the current Federal holiday schedule. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the Venetian Causeway (West) Bridge and vessels needing to transit Biscayne Bay in the vicinity of the Venetian Causeway (East) Bridge, persons intending to drive over the bridges, and nearby business owners. The revision to the opening schedule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vehicle traffic and small business owners in the area might benefit from the improved traffic flow that regularly scheduled openings will offer this area. Although bridge openings will be less frequent, vessel traffic will still be able to transit the Intracoastal Waterway and Biscayne Bay in the vicinity of the Venetian Causeway (East and West) Bridges pursuant to the revised opening schedule. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch at the address under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. However, comments on this section will be considered before the final rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. In § 117.261 revise paragraphs (nn)-(pp) to read as follows: § 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marys River to Key Largo. (nn) The Venetian Causeway Bridge (West), mile 1088.6, shall open on signal, except that from 7 am to 7 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the bridge need only open on the hour and half-hour. (oo)-(pp) [Reserved.] 3. Revise § 117.269 to read as follows: § 117.269 Biscayne Bay. The Venetian Causeway Bridge (East) shall open on signal, except that from 7 am to 7 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the bridge need only open on the hour and half-hour. Dated: September 21, 2006. J.A. Watson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, Acting. [FR Doc. E6-16274 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07-05-158] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Stickney Point (SR 72) Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 68.6, Sarasota, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing a supplemental change to its notice of proposed rulemaking for modifying the Stickney Point (SR 72) drawbridge operating regulation. This proposal addresses changes based on comments received from a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on December 21, 2005, and a test deviation that was held from April 24, 2006 until July 21, 2006. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131-3050. Commander (dpb) maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131-3050 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, telephone number 305-415-6743. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-05-158], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold another public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register . Background and Purpose The existing regulation of the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, mile 68.6 at Sarasota, published in 33 CFR 117.5 requires the draw to open on signal. On December 21, 2005 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 75767). This proposal was for an on the hour and half-hour opening schedule. We received 48 comments from the public. All of the comments were against changing the regulation to twice an hour openings. From April 24, 2006, until July 21, 2006, a test of a twenty minute opening schedule (as published in the Federal Register at 71 FR 16491) was conducted per the request of City officials of Sarasota. The test was conducted because city officials did not believe the current drawbridge regulation was meeting the needs of vehicular traffic. During the test, we received five public comments. Four of the comments were from motorists who were in favor of the twenty minute schedule and one comment was against changing the current regulation. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule would require the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, mile 68.6, at Sarasota to open on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour. The objective of this revision is to allow local vehicular traffic to plan their bridge crossings, especially during peak periods of increased road congestion. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the Stickney Point bridge, persons intending to drive over the bridge, and nearby business owners. The revision to the opening schedule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vehicle traffic and small business owners in the area might benefit from the improved traffic planning that regularly scheduled openings will offer this area. Although bridge openings will be less frequent, vessel traffic will still be able to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the Stickney Point Bridge pursuant to the revised openings schedule. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch at the address under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. However, comments on this section will be considered before the final rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Revise § 117.287(b-1) and add (c) to read as follows: § 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. (b-1) Stickney Point (SR 72) Bridge, mile 68.6. The draw need only open on the hour, 20-minutes after the hour, and 40-minutes after the hour, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. (c) The draw of the Siesta Drive Bridge, mile 71.6 at Sarasota, Florida shall open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need open only on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour. On weekends and Federal holidays, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour. Dated: September 21, 2006. J. A. Watson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District Acting. [FR Doc. E6-16285 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Part 30 [FAR Case 2005-027; Docket 2006-0020; Sequence 9] RIN 9000-AK60 Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2005-027, FAR Part 30—CAS Administration AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement recommendations to change the regulations related to the administration of the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the FAR Secretariat on or before December 4, 2006 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by FAR case 2005-027 by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov . Search for any document by first selecting the proper document types and selecting “Federal Acquisition Regulation” as the agency of choice. At the “Keyword” prompt, type in the FAR case number (for example, FAR Case 2006-001) and click on the “Submit” button. You may also search for any document by clicking on the “Advanced search/document search” tab at the top of the screen, selecting from the agency field “Federal Acquisition Regulation”, and typing the FAR case number in the keyword field. Select the “Submit” button. • Fax: 202-501-4067. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2005-027 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.go v, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For clarification of content, contact Mr. Jeremy Olson, at (202) 501-3221. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR case 2005-027. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background On March 9, 2005, the Councils issued a final rule (FAR case 1999-025) revising FAR Part 30, “CAS Administration” which significantly streamlined the process for submitting, negotiating, and resolving cost impacts resulting from a change in cost accounting practice or noncompliance with stated practices. Subsequent to this, a number of recommended changes to FAR Part 30 have been submitted by both government and industry representatives. These recommendations have been evaluated and, where warranted, changes are being proposed herein. B. Discussion The Councils are proposing to revise the following FAR provisions: 1. FAR 30.001 includes minor changes to the definitions of a number of terms. Related changes are made to the FAR clause at 52.230-6(a). These changes are made to ensure that each term is consistently defined in both locations. 2. FAR 30.601(c) is added to require that the cognizant Federal agency official (CFAO) request and consider the advice of the auditor, as appropriate, when administering the Cost Accounting Standards. As a result, the phrase “with the assistance of the auditor” is deleted from several other sections of FAR Part 30. 3. FAR 30.602(d) is revised to include references to FAR 30.603, 30.604, and 30.605. 4. FAR 30.604(g) and 30.605(f) are revised to specify that the CFAO must evaluate the Detailed Cost Impact (DCI) proposal for cost accounting practice changes or noncompliances when a contractor is required to submit a DCI. 5. FAR 30.604(h)(4) is revised to indicate that the Changes clause is to be used to negotiate equitable adjustments related to required or desirable changes. 6. 30.605(h)(6) is added (and the current (h)(6) is redesignated as (h)(7)) to specify that the cost impact of a noncompliance that affects both cost estimating and cost accumulation shall be determined by combining the separate cost impacts of both the cost estimating and cost accumulation noncompliances. Two other related issues were considered by the Councils no changes will be made in response to those recommendations. These include the following: Issue: The Councils were informed of a concern about precluding contract awards when a contractor has submitted a revised Disclosure Statement, but that Disclosure Statement has not yet been determined adequate by the contracting officer. Councils' Position: The Councils believe that the regulations currently provide adequate flexibility to address any such circumstances that may arise, including the waiver authority contained in the CAS/FAR. Furthermore, to date the Councils are unaware of any instances in which awards have been delayed pending determinations about the adequacy and/or compliance of revised Disclosure Statements. Issue: Currently, FAR 30.606(a) prohibits combining the cost impacts of two unilateral accounting changes unless they both result in increased costs. The Councils were informed that such a rule may reduce contracting officer flexibility and may be contrary to established practices. Councils' Position: FAR 30.606(a) is consistent with current statutory requirements which do not permit the combining of cost impacts for two or more unilateral changes. The Councils note that the contracting officer in such cases should separately determine whether each change is desirable, based on the criteria in FAR Part 30. Should the contracting officer determine that certain of the changes are desirable, the contracting officer would then have the authority to combine the cost impacts of those changes in determining the amount of the equitable adjustment resulting from the desirable changes. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because contracts and subcontracts awarded to small businesses are exempt from the Cost Accounting Standards. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Part 30 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 2005-027), in correspondence. D. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 30 Government procurement. Dated: September 22, 2006. Ralph De Stefano, Director, Contract Policy Division. Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR part 30 as set forth below: PART 30—COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 30 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 2. Amend section 30.001 by— a. Adding to the definition “Cognizant Federal agency official (CFAO)” “the ” following “administer”; b. Removing from the definition “Desirable change” “unilateral” and adding “compliant” in its place; and c. Revising paragraph (1) of the definition “Required change” to read as follows: 30.001 Definitions. Required change means— (1) A change in cost accounting practice that a contractor is required to make in order to comply with applicable Standards, modifications or interpretations thereto, that subsequently becomes applicable to an existing CAS-covered contract or subcontract due to the receipt of another CAS-covered contract or subcontract; or 3. Amend section 30.601 by removing from paragraph (b) “52.230-6(b)” and adding “52.230-6(l)” in its place; and by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 30.601 Responsibility. (c) In performing CAS administration, the CFAO shall request and consider the advice of the auditor as appropriate (see also 1.602-2). 4. Amend section 30.602 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: 30.602 Materiality. (d) For required, unilateral, and desirable changes, and CAS noncompliances, when the amount involved is material, the CFAO shall follow the applicable provisions in 30.603, 30.604, 30.605, and 30.606. 5. Amend section 30.604 by— a. Removing from the introductory text of paragraphs (b) and (f) “, with the assistance of the auditor,”; b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (g); c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (h)(4) and removing paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii); and d. Removing from paragraph (i)(1) “With the assistance of the auditor, estimate” and adding “Estimate” in its place. The revised text reads as follows: 30.604 Processing changes to disclosed or established cost accounting practices. (g) Detailed cost-impact proposal. If the contractor is required to submit a DCI proposal, the CFAO shall promptly evaluate the DCI proposal and follow the procedures at 30.606 to negotiate and resolve the cost impact. The DCI proposal— (h) * * * (4) For required or desirable changes, negotiate an equitable adjustment as provided in the Changes clause of the contract. 6. Amend section 30.605 by— a. Removing from the introductory text of paragraph (c)(2) “, with the assistance of the auditor,”; b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (f); and c. Redesignating paragraph (h)(6) as (h)(7) and adding a newly designated paragraph (h)(6). The revised text reads as follows: 30.605 Processing noncompliances. (f) Detailed cost-impact proposal. If the contractor is required to submit a DCI proposal, the CFAO shall promptly evaluate the DCI proposal and follow the procedures at 30.606 to negotiate and resolve the cost impact. The DCI proposal— (h) * * * (6) The cost impact of each noncompliance that affects both cost estimating and cost accumulation shall be determined by combining the cost impacts in paragraphs (h)(3), (h)(4), and (h)(5) of this section; and PART 52—SOLICITATIONS PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 7. Amend section 52.230-6 by— a. Revising the date of the clause; b. Removing from the definition “Fixed-price contracts and subcontracts” the word “FAR” each time it appears (4 times); c. Amending the definition “Flexibly-priced contracts and subcontracts” by revising paragraph (1); and by removing from paragraphs (2) through (5) the word “FAR”; and d. Revising paragraph (1) of the definition “required change”. The revised text reads as follows: 52.230-6 Administration of Cost Accounting Standards. ADMINISTRATION OF COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS (DATE) (a) * * * Flexibly-priced contracts and subcontracts means— (1) Fixed-price contracts and subcontracts described at 16.203-1(a)(2), 16.204, 16.205, and 16.206; Required change means— (1) A change in cost accounting practice that a Contractor is required to make in order to comply with applicable Standards, modifications or interpretations thereto, that subsequently become applicable to existing CAS-covered contracts or subcontracts due to the receipt of another CAS-covered contract or subcontract; or (End of clause) [FR Doc. 06-8425 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am]