Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

17,482 words·~79 min read·/register/2006/10/12/06-8594

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 197 Thursday, October 12, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26043; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-010-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 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 McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting the power conversion distribution unit

(PCDU)to determine its part number, and modifying certain PCDUs. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of failed PCDUs, the loss of an electrical bus, and the presence of a strong electrical burning odor in the flight deck and forward cabin. We are proposing this AD to prevent the loss of an electrical bus due to a PCDU failure, which could result in an abnormally long time for all flight deck displays to reconfigure, and consequent emergency landing. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 27, 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. • *By fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL-401, on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2006-26043; the directorate identifier for this docket is 2005-NM-010-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Phan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5342; fax

(562)627-5210. 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 under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26043; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-010-AD” in the subject line 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 submitted 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 can review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You can 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 DMS receives them. Discussion We have received reports of failed power conversion distribution units (PCDUs). Such failures resulted, by design, in the loss of an electrical bus (both AC and DC power). Following the loss of the electrical bus, the flight deck displays took an abnormally long time to reconfigure, and a strong electrical burning odor was noted in the flight deck and forward cabin. Investigation revealed a short in the power supply of the PCDU's generator control unit. The strong electrical burning odor in the cabin has been attributed to a failed PCDU on which a short condition can result in overheating of the power supply T1 transformer. Further, service history has shown that an intermittent loss of engine N2 speed signal to the PCDU can result in a bus tie lockout condition and automatic activation of the emergency power. The loss of an electrical bus due to a failed PCDU could result in an abnormally long time for all flight deck displays to reconfigure, and consequent emergency landing. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028, Revision 1, dated December 20, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying PCDUs having part number 762904E. The modification involves modifying the printed wiring board

(PWB)assembly A4 and installing new PCDU firmware. The Boeing service bulletin refers to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-10, dated August 4, 2004, as an additional source of service information for the modification. Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-10 specifies the concurrent accomplishment of the actions specified in the Hamilton Sundstrand service bulletins listed in the following table: Concurrent Service Bulletins Actions Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin Revision level Date Reworking the transformer rectifier unit assembly

(TRU)40EGS22P-24-3 Original June 30, 2000. Reworking the W3 wiring harness assembly to install direct lead wires to the TRU. Adding a ground wire to the TRU transformer. Adding an insulated spacer to the PCDU top cover. Installing new PCDU 186 firmware 40EGS22P-24-4 Original April 26, 2001. 1 January 2, 2002. Installing new PCDU 186 firmware 40EGS22P-24-6 Original July 25, 2002. Modifying the top cover of the PCDU 40EGS22P-24-7 Original September 3, 2003. Modifying PWB assemblies A4 and A5 40EGS22P-24-8 Original September 4, 2003. Checking and applying torque seal to fasteners on the TRU assembly and to PCDU internal fasteners, if necessary. Modifying PWB assembly A4 40EGS22P-24-9 Original November 19, 2003. 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. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require identifying the part number of the PCDU and accomplishing the applicable actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 137 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet and 108 U.S.-registered airplanes. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs for Primary Actions Boeing Service Bulletin Work hours Labor rate per hour Parts cost Cost per airplane Part number identification 1 $80 $0 $80 Modification (717-24A0028) 12 80 0 960 Estimated Costs for Concurrent Actions Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin Work hours Labor rate per hour Parts cost Cost per airplane 40EGS22P-24-3 6 $80 $154, per airplane $634 40EGS22P-24-4 3 80 0 240 40EGS22P-24-6 3 80 0 240 40EGS22P-24-7 1 per PCDU 80 10 per PCDU, maximum 3 PCDUs per airplane 1 110 40EGS22P-24-8 10 80 0 800 40EGS22P-24-9 10 80 0 800 1 Maximum. 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. 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26043; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-010-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this AD action by November 27, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD was prompted by reports of failed power conversion distribution units (PCDUs), the loss of an electrical bus, and the presence of a strong electrical burning odor in the flight deck and forward cabin. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of an electrical bus due to a PCDU failure, which could result in an abnormally long time for all flight deck displays to reconfigure, and consequent emergency landing. 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. Identification of PCDU Part Number

(f)Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the PCDU to determine its part number. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number can be conclusively determined from that review.

(1)If the part number is 762904E, do the actions specified in paragraphs

(g)and

(h)of this AD.

(2)If the part number is not 762904E, no further work is required by this AD. Modification

(g)Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the PCDU in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028, Revision 1, dated December 20, 2005. A modification done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028, dated November 24, 2004, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028 refers to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-10, Revision 1, dated May 11, 2005, as an additional source of service information for the modification. Concurrent Requirements

(h)Before or concurrently with the modification required by paragraph

(g)of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Concurrent Service Bulletins Do the following— In accordance with Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin— Rework the transformer rectifier unit assembly

(TRU)40EGS22P-24-3, dated June 30, 2000. Rework the W3 wiring harness assembly to install direct lead wires to the TRU. Add a ground wire to the TRU transformer. Add an insulated spacer to the PCDU top cover. Install new PCDU 186 firmware 40EGS22P-24-4, Revision 1, dated January 2, 2002. Install new PCDU 186 firmware 40EGS22P-24-6, dated July 25, 2002. Modify the top cover of the PCDU 40EGS22P-24-7, dated September 3, 2003. Modify printed wiring board

(PWB)assemblies A4 and A5 40EGS22P-24-8, dated September 4, 2003. Check and apply torque seal to fasteners on the TRU assembly and to PCDU internal fasteners, as applicable. Modify the PWB assembly A4 40EGS22P-24-9, dated November 19, 2003. Credit for Accomplishment of Earlier Service Bulletin

(i)Installation of new PCDU 186 firmware before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-4, dated April 26, 2001, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph

(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(j)The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 3, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-16891 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26046; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-172-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting for discrepancies of the activation mechanism of certain chemical oxygen generators, and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD results from several incidents, on certain airplane models, of incorrect installation of the release pin into the safety pin hole of the activation mechanism of the chemical oxygen generator; this resulted in failure to activate the chemical oxygen generator when required. A separate incident occurred on a different airplane model during deployment of the cabin oxygen system, which resulted in failure of the release pin to activate the oxygen generator at a flight attendant station. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the activation mechanism of the chemical oxygen generator, which could result in the unavailability of supplemental oxygen and possible incapacitation of passengers and cabin crew during an in-flight decompression. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 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 Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Parillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7305; fax

(516)794-5531. 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-2006-26046; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-172-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 Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. TCCA advises that several incidents, on certain Bombardier airplane models, of incorrect installation of the release pin into the safety pin hole of the activation mechanism occurred in certain chemical oxygen generators; this resulted in failure to activate the chemical oxygen generators when required. A separate incident occurred on a Model CL-600-2C10 airplane during deployment of the cabin oxygen system, due to failure of the release pin to activate the oxygen generator at a flight attendant station. Investigation revealed that the release pin was not aligned with the lanyard tube in the mask container module, preventing activation of the oxygen generator. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the unavailability of supplemental oxygen and possible incapacitation of passengers and cabin crew during an in-flight decompression. The design of the activation mechanism of the oxygen generator of the flight attendant and passenger service units on certain Model CL-600-2B19 airplanes is similar to the design of the activation mechanism installed on certain Model CL-600-2C10 airplanes. Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the identified unsafe condition. Further rulemaking is currently in process to address this unsafe condition for Model CL-600-2C10 airplanes. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletin A601R-35-014, dated September 25, 2003. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting for discrepancies of the release pin in the lanyard tube in the mask container module of the activation (firing) mechanism in the chemical oxygen generator of each flight attendant and lavatory oxygen panel, and each passenger service unit of the passenger oxygen system; and corrective action if necessary. The discrepancies include misalignment of the release pin and failure of the pin to engage with the lanyard tube. The corrective action includes aligning the release pin and engaging it to the lanyard tube. Bombardier has also issued Service Bulletin 601R-35-016, dated September 8, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting for discrepancies of the release pin of the activation mechanism of the chemical oxygen generator, and corrective action if necessary. The discrepancies include incorrect installation of the release pin into the activation mechanism. The corrective action includes correctly installing the release pin. Service Bulletin 601R-35-016 refers to B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 117003-35-4, dated March 29, 2001, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the inspection and corrective action. Accomplishing the actions specified in the Bombardier service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. TCCA mandated the service information and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-11, dated May 31, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Canada 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, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes 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 Inspection Terminology In this proposed AD, the “detailed visual inspection” specified in the Canadian airworthiness directive is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 145 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection proposed in Service Bulletin A601R-35-014 would 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 proposed AD for U.S. operators is $34,800, or $240 per airplane. The inspection proposed in Service Bulletin 601R-35-016 would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $11,600, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this 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): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26046; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-172-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 13, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-35-014, dated September 25, 2003; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-016, dated September 8, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from several incidents, on certain airplane models, of incorrect installation of the release pin into the safety pin hole of the activation mechanism of the chemical oxygen generator; this resulted in failure to activate the chemical oxygen generator when required. A separate incident occurred on a different airplane model during deployment of the cabin oxygen system, and resulted in failure of the release pin to activate the oxygen generator at a flight attendant station. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the activation mechanism of the chemical oxygen generator, which could result in the unavailability of supplemental oxygen and possible incapacitation of passengers and cabin crew during an in-flight decompression. 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. Inspections/Corrective Action

(f)Do the detailed inspections for discrepancies of certain chemical oxygen generators of each flight attendant and lavatory oxygen panel, as applicable, and each passenger service unit of the passenger oxygen system, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

(1)For airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A. of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-35-014, dated September 25, 2003: Within 550 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time inspection for correct alignment and engagement of the release pin with the lanyard tube in the mask container module of the activation (firing) mechanism in the chemical oxygen generator by doing all the actions, including all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-35-014, dated September 25, 2003. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

(2)For airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-016, dated September 8, 2005: Within 1,100 flight hours after the effective date of this AD; do a one-time inspection for correct installation of the release pin of the activation mechanism of the chemical oxygen generator, by doing all the actions, including all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-016, dated September 8, 2005. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. 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.” Note 2: Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-016, dated September 8, 2005, refers to B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 117003-35-4, dated March 29, 2001, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the inspection and corrective action specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information

(h)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-11, dated May 31, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 3, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-16881 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26044; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-098-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 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 Fokker Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the left- and right-hand main landing gear

(MLG)downlock actuators or a review of the airplane maintenance records to determine the part number of each downlock actuator installed, and replacement of identified MLG downlock actuators with modified MLG downlock actuators. This proposed AD results from a report of a failed downlock actuator, which resulted in the left MLG collapsing during taxi after landing. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the downlock actuator, which could prevent the MLG side stay from locking properly, resulting in collapse of the MLG during ground maneuvers or upon landing. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 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 Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; 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-2006-26044; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-098-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

(MLG)collapsed. Investigation into the cause of the collapse revealed a failed downlock actuator. The failed downlock actuator prevented the MLG side stay assembly from locking properly, causing the MLG collapse. Investigators determined that the use of an improved (modified) version of the downlock assembly could prevent this condition. Failure of the downlock actuator, if not corrected, could prevent the MLG side stay from locking properly, resulting in collapse of the MLG during ground maneuvers or upon landing. The MLG downlock actuators installed on Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, and 4000 airplanes are identical to those installed on the Model F.28 Mark 3000 airplanes. Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the identified unsafe condition. Relevant Service Information Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin F28/32-163, dated March 8, 2004. The service bulletin describes procedures for removing the MLG downlock actuator, sending it to an approved Dowty Aerospace Hydraulics workshop for modification, and reinstalling the modified downlock actuator. The modification includes replacing certain parts ( *i.e.,* spring carrier, nuts, sub-assembly, certain end fittings, and bush inserts) and re-identifying certain other parts. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The CAA-NL mandated the service information and issued Dutch airworthiness directive 2004-047, dated April 20, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Netherlands. Fokker Service Bulletin F28/32-163 refers to Dowty Aerospace Hydraulics—Cheltenham Service Bulletin 32-501R, Revision 1, dated September 3, 1998, as an additional source of service information for modifying the MLG downlock actuator. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in the Netherlands 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 CAA-NL has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the CAA-NL's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD to require a one-time inspection of the left- and right-hand MLG downlock actuators or a review of the airplane maintenance records to determine the part number (P/N) of each MLG downlock actuator installed, and replacement of identified MLG downlock actuators with modified MLG downlock actuators. 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 Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection of both MLG downlock actuators (2 per airplane) 1 $80 $0 $80 6 As much as $480. Review of the airplane maintenance records in lieu of the inspection to determine P/N 1 80 0 80 6 As much as $480. Replacement of the MLG downlock actuators (2 per airplane) 1 4 80 1 16,511 33,662 6 As much as $201,972. 1 Per actuator. 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): **Fokker Services B.V.:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26044; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-098-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 13, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of a failed downlock actuator, which resulted in the left MLG collapsing during taxi after landing. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the downlock actuator, which could prevent the MLG side stay from locking properly, resulting in collapse of the MLG during ground maneuvers or upon landing. 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. Determination of the Part Number (P/N) of the MLG Downlock Actuators

(f)Within 66 months after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the left- and right-hand MLG downlock actuators to determine if P/N 200497005 or 200498005 is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the P/N of the MLG downlock actuators can be conclusively determined from that review. If an MLG downlock actuator does not have a subject P/N, no further action is required by this AD for that MLG only, except as provided by paragraph

(h)of this AD. Replacement of Subject MLG Downlock Actuators

(g)For any MLG downlock actuator identified during the inspection or maintenance records review required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, or for which the P/N cannot be determined: Within 66 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the MLG downlock actuator with a modified MLG downlock actuator in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin F28/32-163, dated March 8, 2004. Note 1: Fokker Service Bulletin F28/32-163 refers to Dowty Aerospace Hydraulics—Cheltenham Service Bulletin 32-501R, Revision 1, dated September 3, 1998, as an additional source of service information for modifying the MLG downlock actuator. Parts Installation

(h)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an MLG downlock actuator, P/N 200497005 or 200498005, on any airplane. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(j)Dutch airworthiness directive 2004-047, dated April 20, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 3, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-16894 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26045; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-145-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes 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 certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires modifying the wiring of the autopilot pitch torque limiter switch. This proposed AD would add repetitive operational tests of the autopilot disconnection upon pitch override, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from the determination that such operational tests are necessary following the modification. We are proposing this AD to prevent possible trim loss when the flightcrew tries to override the autopilot pitch control, which could result in uncontrolled flight of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 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: Thomas 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 “Docket No. FAA-2006-26045; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-145-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 June 14, 2005, we issued AD 2005-13-33, amendment 39-14170 (70 FR 36833, June 27, 2005), for certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes. That AD requires modifying the wiring of the autopilot

(AP)pitch torque limiter switch. That AD resulted from several reports of pitch trim disconnect caused by insufficient length in the wiring to the pitch torque limiter lever. We issued that AD to prevent possible trim loss when the flightcrew tries to override the autopilot pitch control, which could result in uncontrolled flight of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2005-13-33, it has been determined that repetitive operational tests of the autopilot disconnection upon pitch override are necessary following the modification to ensure the reliability of AP disconnection by stick force. Relevant Service Information AD 2005-13-33 cites Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-0117, dated September 7, 2004, as the appropriate source of service information for the modification. Airbus has since revised the service bulletin. Revision 01, dated April 20, 2005, and Revision 02, dated September 14, 2005, provide minor changes only. Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300-22-0118, including Appendix 01, dated May 18, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive operational tests of the autopilot disconnection upon pitch override. Related investigative and corrective actions for discrepant results include inspecting for discrepancies (including chafing) of the wiring between the relay and the autopilot flight director logic monitor (AP/FD L/M) computer, replacing the relay with a new relay having the same part number, repairing the torque limiter lever or replacing it with a new one having the same part number, and repairing or replacing the wiring. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-107, dated July 6, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. 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 2005-13-33 and retain the requirements of that AD. This proposed AD would add repetitive operational tests of the AP disconnection upon pitch override, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 29 airplanes of U.S. registry. 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 Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Modification 8-11 $80 $1,700-$4,280 $2,340-$5,160 $67,860-$149,640. Operational test 4 80 0 $320, per test cycle $9,280, per test 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 39-14170 (70 FR 36833, June 27, 2005) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26045; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-145-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 13, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-13-33. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus A300 aircraft, all certified models and all serial numbers, certificated in any category, except for:

(1)Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

(2)Models A300B4-220, A300B4-203, and A300B2-203 in forward facing crew cockpit certified configuration. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from the determination that repetitive operational tests are necessary following incorporation of the wiring modification required by AD 2005-13-33. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible trim loss when the flightcrew tries to override the autopilot pitch control, which could result in uncontrolled flight 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 2005-13-33 Modification

(f)Within 20 months after August 1, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-13-33), modify the wiring of the autopilot pitch torque limiter switch, by doing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-0117, dated September 7, 2004; Revision 01, dated April 20, 2005; or Revision 02, dated September 14, 2005. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 02 may be used. New Requirements of This AD Repetitive Operational Tests

(g)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do an operational test of the autopilot disconnection upon pitch override, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions. Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-0118, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 18, 2005; except that this AD does not require a report of the inspection results. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours.

(1)For airplanes modified before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-0117, dated September 7, 2004: Do the initial test within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

(2)For airplanes modified in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-0117, Revision 01, dated April 20, 2005; or Revision 02, dated September 14, 2005: Do the initial test within 2,000 flight hours after the modification required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, or within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. 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.

(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2005-13-33 are not approved as AMOCs with this AD. Related Information

(i)French airworthiness directive F-2005-107, dated July 6, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 3, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-16880 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26047; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-146-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-605R Airplanes and Model A310-308, -324, and -325 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 certain Airbus Model A300 B4-605R airplanes and Model A310-308, -324, and -325 airplanes. This proposed AD would require modifying the Bruce floor plan electrical emergency path marking system (FPEEPMS) and, for certain airplanes, modifying the automatic switching of the emergency lighting system. This proposed AD results from a report that in the case of vertical separation of the fuselage forward of door 1, the FPEEPMS and the exit signs do not turn on. We are proposing this AD to prevent inadequate lighting and marking of the escape path, which could delay or impede the flightcrew and passengers when exiting the airplane during an emergency landing. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 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 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 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-2006-26047; Directorate identifier 2006-NM-146-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 certain Airbus Model A300 B4-605R airplanes and Model A310-308, -324, and -325 airplanes. The EASA advises that a report has shown that in the case of vertical separation of the fuselage forward of door 1, the Bruce floor plan electrical emergency path marking system (FPEEPMS) and the exit signs do not turn on. This condition, if not corrected, could result in inadequate lighting and marking of the escape path, which could delay or impede the flightcrew and passengers when exiting the airplane during an emergency landing. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-33-6047, Revision 01, dated January 20, 2006 (for Model A300 B4-605R airplanes); and Service Bulletin A310-33-2045, Revision 01, dated January 20, 2006 (for Model A310-308, -24, and -325 airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for modifying the Bruce FPEEPMS. The modification includes the following actions, depending on the configuration of the airplane: • Modifying equipment and wiring between air bleed panel 436VU and the avionics compartment. • Modifying terminal block 5700 VT and installing wiring. • Modifying terminal blocks 4701VT, 4903VT, 5503VT, and 5702VT. • Removing, installing, and modifying wiring in various locations, such as from the aft power supply unit through the cabin with connection to all other power supply units and the EMERG LIGHT switch 28WL. Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2045, Revision 01, dated January 20, 2006, also specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2025, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2001, for modifying the automatic switching of the emergency lighting system. The modification of the automatic switching involves the following actions: • Modifying equipment and wiring in the relay box 104VU. • Modifying equipment and wiring in the relay box 107VU. • Modifying wiring in the alternating current power center 101VU. • Modifying equipment and wiring in the avionics compartment, zone 120. • Modifying wiring between the flight compartment, zone 210, and the avionics compartment, zone 120. • Doing the actions specified in A310-33-2025 concurrently or prior to the modification of the automatic switching. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated Airbus Service Bulletin A300-33-6047, Revision 01, and Service Bulletin A310-33-2045, Revision 01, and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0077, dated April 3, 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 airplanes 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. Difference Between the EASA Airworthiness Directive and This Proposed AD The applicability of EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0077 excludes airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2045, Revision 01, or A300-33-6047, Revision 01, have been accomplished in service. However, we have not excluded those airplanes in the applicability of this proposed AD; rather, this proposed AD includes a requirement to accomplish the actions specified in Revision 01 of those service bulletins, as applicable. This requirement would ensure that the actions specified in the applicable service bulletin and required by this proposed AD are accomplished on all affected airplanes. Operators must continue to operate the airplane in the configuration required by this proposed AD unless an alternative method of compliance is approved. Clarification of Concurrent Service Bulletin EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0077 does not specify doing Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2025, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2001, which is a concurrent service bulletin for Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2045, Revision 01, dated January 20, 2006. This proposed AD specifies doing Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2025, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2001. We have coordinated with the EASA that this concurrent action is necessary to ensure continued safety. 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 Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Modification of FPEEPMS 44 to 47 $80 $2,570 to $2,690 $6,090 to $6,450 1 $6,090 to $6,450. Modification of automatic switching 14 80 $534 to $727 $1,654 to $1,847 1 $1,654 to $1,847. 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-2006-26047; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-146-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 13, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-605R airplanes and Model A310-308, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category; on which Airbus Modification 06810 or 06934 (Bruce floor proximity emergency escape path marking system (FPEEPMS)) has been installed in production; or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-33-6047 or A310-33-2045, both dated March 5, 2004, has been done. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that in the case of vertical separation of the fuselage forward of door 1, the FPEEPMS and the exit signs do not turn on. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadequate lighting and marking of the escape path, which could delay or impede the flightcrew and passengers when exiting the airplane during an emergency landing. 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. Modification

(f)Within 16 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the Bruce FPEEPMS in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-33-6047, Revision 01, dated January 20, 2006 (for Model A300 B4-605R airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2045, Revision 01, dated January 20, 2006 (for Model A310-308, -324, and -325 airplanes); as applicable.

(g)For Model A310-308, -324, and -325 airplanes: Prior to or concurrently with the modification required in paragraph

(f)of this AD, modify the automatic switching of the emergency lighting system in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2025, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2001. Modifications Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

(h)Modifications accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2025, dated March 1, 1993, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(j)European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)airworthiness directive 2006-0077, dated April 3, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 3, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-16882 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 143 [DOD-2006-OS-0057] RIN 0790-AH99 DoD Policy on Organizations That Seek To Represent or Organize Members of the Armed Forces in Negotiation or Collective Bargaining AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This part contains uniform Department of Defense policies for organizations that seek to represent or organize members of the Armed Forces in negotiation or collective bargaining. This updated rule contains editorial changes only as required for internal Department of Defense mandated reconsideration every 5 years. DATES: Comments must be received by December 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Colonel Mark Gingras, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Program Integration, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” It has been determined that 32 CFR part 143 is not a significant regulatory action. The rule does not:

(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a section of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency;

(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Section 202, Pub. L. 104-4) It has been certified that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. 601) It has been certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. By its terms, this rule applies to state and local governments. It has no impact on “small entities”. Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)” It has been certified that this rule does impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements have been submitted to OMB for review. Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” It has been certified that this rule does not have federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:

(1)The States;

(2)The relationship between the National Government and the States; or

(3)The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 143 Government employees, Labor management relations, Military personnel. Accordingly 32 CFR part 143 is proposed to be revised to read as follows: PART 143—DOD POLICY ON ORGANIZATIONS THAT SEEK TO REPRESENT OR ORGANIZE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN NEGOTIATION OR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Sec. 143.1 Purpose. 143.2 Applicability. 143.3 Definitions. 143.4 Policy. 143.5 Prohibited activity. 143.6 Activity not covered by this part. 143.7 Responsibilities. 143.8 Guidelines. Authority: 10 U.S.C 801-940; and 10 U.S.C. 976. § 143.1 Purpose. This part provides DoD policies and procedures for organizations whose objective is to organize or represent members of the Armed Forces of the United States for purposes of negotiating or bargaining about terms or conditions of military service. The policies and procedures set forth herein are designed to promote the readiness of the Armed Forces to defend the United States. This part does not modify or diminish the existing authority of commanders to control access to, or maintain good order and discipline on, military installations; nor does it modify or diminish the obligations of commanders and supervisors under 5 U.S.C. 7101-7135 with respect to organizations representing DoD civilian employees. § 143.2 Applicability.

(a)The provisions of this part apply to:

(1)The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter referred collectively as the “DoD Components”).

(2)Individuals and groups entering, using, or seeking to enter or use military installations.

(b)This part does not limit the application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in title 10 U.S.C., sections 901-940 or 10 U.S.C. 976 including the prohibitions and criminal penalties set forth therein with respect to matters that are the subject of this part or that are beyond its scope. § 143.3 Definitions.

(a)*Member of the Armed Forces.* A member of the Armed Forces who is serving on active duty, or a member of a Reserve component while performing inactive duty training.

(b)*Military labor organization.* Any organization that engages in or attempts to engage in:

(1)Negotiating or bargaining with any civilian officer or employee, or with any member of the Armed Forces, on behalf of members of the Armed Forces, concerning the terms or conditions of military service of such members in the Armed Forces;

(2)Representing individual members of the Armed Forces before any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the Armed Forces, in connection with any grievance or complaint of any such member arising out of the terms or conditions of military service of such member in the Armed Forces; or

(3)Striking, picketing, marching, demonstrating, or any other similar form of concerted action which is directed against the Government of the United States and that is intended to induce any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the Armed Forces, to:

(i)Negotiate or bargain with any person concerning the terms or conditions of military service of any member of the Armed Forces,

(ii)Recognize any organization as a representative of individual members of the Armed Forces in connection with complaints and grievances of such members arising out of the terms or conditions of military service of such members in the Armed Forces, or

(iii)Make any change with respect to the terms or conditions of military service of individual members of the Armed Forces.

(c)*Civilian officer or employee.* An employee, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105.

(d)*Military installations.* Includes installations, reservations, facilities, vessels, aircraft, and other property controlled by the Department of Defense.

(e)*Negotiation or bargaining.* A process whereby a commander or supervisor acting on behalf of the United States engages in discussions with a member or members of the Armed Forces (purporting to represent other such members), or with an individual, group, organization, or association purporting to represent such members, for the purpose of resolving bilaterally terms or conditions of military service.

(f)*Terms or conditions of military service.* Terms or conditions of military compensation or duty including but not limited to wages, rates of pay, duty hours, assignments, grievances, or disputes. § 143.4 Policy. It is the policy of the United States under Public Law 95-610 that:

(a)Members of the Armed Forces of the United States must be prepared to fight and, if necessary, to die to protect the welfare, security, and liberty of the United States and of their fellow citizens.

(b)Discipline and prompt obedience to lawful orders of superior officers are essential and time-honored elements of the American military tradition and have been reinforced from the earliest articles of war by laws and regulations prohibiting conduct detrimental to the military chain of command and lawful military authority.

(c)The processes of conventional collective bargaining and labor-management negotiation cannot and should not be applied to the relationships between members of the Armed Forces and their military and civilian superiors.

(d)Strikes, slowdowns, picketing, and other traditional forms of job action have no place in the Armed Forces.

(e)Unionization of the Armed Forces would be incompatible with the military chain of command, would undermine the role, authority, and position of the commander, and would impair the morale and readiness of the Armed Forces.

(f)The circumstances that could constitute a threat to the ability of the Armed Forces to perform their mission are not comparable to the circumstances that could constitute a threat to the ability of Federal civilian agencies to perform their functions and should be viewed in light of the need for effective performance of duty by each member of the Armed Forces. § 143.5 Prohibited activity.

(a)*Membership and enrollment.*

(1)A member of the Armed Forces, knowing of the activities or objectives of a particular military labor organization, may not:

(i)Join or maintain membership in such organization; or

(ii)Attempt to enroll any other member of the Armed Forces as a member of such organization.

(2)No person on a military installation, and no member of the Armed Forces, may enroll in a military labor organization any member of the Armed Forces or solicit or accept dues or fees for such an organization from any member of the Armed Forces.

(b)*Negotiation or bargaining.*

(1)No person on a military installation, and no member of the Armed Forces, may negotiate or bargain, or attempt through any coercive act to negotiate or bargain, with any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the Armed Forces, on behalf of members of the Armed Forces, concerning the terms or conditions of service of such members.

(2)No member of the Armed Forces, and no civilian officer or employee, may negotiate or bargain on behalf of the United States concerning the terms or conditions of military service of members of the Armed Forces with any person who represents or purports to represent members of the Armed Forces.

(c)*Strikes and other concerted activity.*

(1)No person on a military installation, and no member of the Armed Forces, may organize or attempt to organize, or participate in, any strike, picketing, march, demonstration, or other similar form of concerted action involving members of the Armed Forces that is directed against the Government of the United States and that is intended to induce any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the Armed Forces, to:

(i)Negotiate or bargain with any person concerning the terms or conditions of service of any member of the Armed Forces,

(ii)Recognize any military labor organization as a representative of individual members of the Armed Forces in connection with any complaint or grievance of any such member arising out of the terms or conditions of service of such member in the Armed Forces, or

(iii)Make any change with respect to the terms or conditions of service in the Armed Forces of individual members of the Armed Forces.

(2)No person may use any military installation for any meeting, march, picketing, demonstration, or other similar activity for the purpose of engaging in any activity prohibited by this part.

(3)No member of the Armed Forces, and no civilian officer or employee, may permit or authorize the use of any military installation for any meeting, march, picketing, demonstration, or other similar activity that is for the purpose of engaging in any activity prohibited by this part.

(d)*Representation.* A military labor organization may not represent, or attempt to represent, any member of the Armed Forces before any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the Armed Forces, in connection with any grievance or complaint of any such member arising out of the terms or conditions of service of such member in the Armed Forces. § 143.6 Activity not covered by this part.

(a)This part does not limit the right of any member of the Armed Forces to:

(1)Join or maintain membership in any lawful organization or association not constituting a “military labor organization” as defined in § 146.3 of this part;

(2)Present complaints or grievances concerning the terms or conditions of the service of such member in the Armed Forces in accordance with established military procedures;

(3)Seek or receive information or counseling from any source;

(4)Be represented by counsel in any legal or quasi-legal proceeding, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations;

(5)Petition the Congress for redress of grievances; or

(6)Take such other administrative action to seek such administrative or judicial relief, as is authorized by applicable laws and regulations.

(b)This part does not prevent commanders or supervisors from giving consideration to the views of any member of the Armed Forces presented individually or as a result of participation on command-sponsored or authorized advisory councils, committees, or organizations.

(c)This part does not prevent any civilian employed at a military installation from joining or being a member of an organization that engages in representational activities with respect to terms or conditions of civilian employment. § 143.7 Responsibilities.

(a)The Heads of DoD Components shall:

(1)Ensure compliance with this part and with the guidelines contained in § 143.8.

(2)Establish procedures to ensure that any action initiated under this part is reported immediately to the Head of the DoD Component concerned.

(3)Report any action initiated under this part immediately to the Secretary of Defense.

(b)The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program Integration) shall serve as the administrative point of contact in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for all matters relating to this part. § 143.8 Guidelines. The guidelines for making certain factual determinations are as follows:

(a)In determining whether an organization is a military labor organization, whether a person is a member of a military labor organization, or whether such person or organization is in violation of any provision of this part, the history and operation of the organization (including its constitution and bylaws, if any) or person in question may be evaluated, along with evidence on the conduct constituting a prohibited act.

(b)In determining whether the commission of a prohibited act by a person can be imputed to the organization, examples of factors that may be considered include: the frequency of such act; the position in the organization of persons committing the act; whether the commission of such act was known by the leadership of the organization; whether the commission of the act was condemned or disavowed by the leadership of the organization.

(c)Any information about persons and organizations not affiliated with the Department of Defense needed to make the determinations required by this part shall be gathered in strict compliance with the provisions of DoD Directive 5200.27 1 and shall not be acquired by counterintelligence or security investigative personnel. The organization itself shall be considered a primary source of information. 1 Copies are available at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives* . Dated: October 5, 2006. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E6-16926 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [USCG-2006-25767; CGD09-06-123] Safety Zones; U.S. Coast Guard Water Training Areas, Great Lakes AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is announcing that it is adding three more public meetings to its current schedule of public meetings to discuss issues relating to the proposed permanent safety zones located in the Great Lakes to conduct live gunnery training exercises. These meetings will be open to the public and are in addition to the four currently scheduled public meetings. DATES: The Coast Guard will hold three additional public meetings as follows: Monday, October 30, 2006 in Rochester, NY; Wednesday, November 1, in the Milwaukee, WI/Chicago, IL area; and Friday, November 3, in Charlevoix, MI. Comments and materials related to these public meetings must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before October 20, 2006. If you are unable to attend, you may submit comments to the Docket Management Facility by November 13, 2006. You may submit your comments and related material by one of the following means:

(1)By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-2006-2567), U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(2)By delivery to 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. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(3)By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.

(4)Electronically through the Web site for the Docket Management System at *http://dms.dot.gov* . The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for the rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL-401, located on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the same address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may electronically access the public docket by performing a “Simple Search” for docket number 25767 on the internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Electronic forms of all comments received into any of our dockets can be searched by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor unit, etc.) and is open to the public without restriction. You may review the Department of Transportation'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/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning this notice and the public meeting, contact Commander Gustav Wulfkuhle, Chief Enforcement Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District, Cleveland, Ohio at

(216)902-6091. If you have any questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Meetings The Coast Guard will hold three additional public meetings as follows: Monday, October 30, 2006 in Rochester, NY; Wednesday, November 1, in the Milwaukee WI/Chicago, IL area; and Friday, November 3, in Charlevoix, MI. These meetings will be held to take comments regarding the proposed Safety Zones; U.S. Coast Guard Water Training Areas, Great Lakes, published on August 1, 2006, in the **Federal Register** at 71 FR 43402. Specific times, locations and additional information for the public meetings will be announced in a subsequent notice in the **Federal Register** . The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to submit written data, views, or comments. Persons submitting comments should please include their name and address and identify the docket number (USCG-2006-2567). You may submit your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax or electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES . Regulatory History On August 1, 2006, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)(71 FR 43402) to establish permanent safety zones throughout the Great Lakes to conduct live fire gun exercises. The initial comment period for this NPRM ended on August 31, 2006. In response to public requests, the Coast Guard re-opened the comment period on this NPRM. (71 FR 53629, September 12, 2006) Re-opening the comment period from September 12, 2006 to November 13, 2006, provides the public more time to submit comments and recommendations. In addition, the Coast Guard announced on September 19, 2006 it would hold public meetings in Duluth, MN; Grand Haven/Spring Lake, MI; Port Huron/Marysville, MI; and Cleveland, OH to discuss issues related to the proposed permanent safety zones. See, 71 FR 54792. The times and locations of these four meetings were announced in the **Federal Register** on September 27, 2006. (71 FR 56420) This document announces the decision to include three additional meetings to the list of currently scheduled public meetings. These added meetings will be held as follows: Monday, October 30, 2006 in Rochester, NY; Wednesday, November 1, in the Milwaukee, WI/Chicago, IL area; and Friday, November 3, in Charlevoix, MI. Specific times, locations and additional information for the public meetings will be announced in a subsequent notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose These safety zones are necessary to protect vessels and people from hazards associated with live fire gun exercises. Such hazards include projectiles that may ricochet and damage vessels and/or cause death or serious bodily harm. The thirty-four zones will be located throughout the Great Lakes in order to accommodate 56 separate Coast Guard units. The proposed safety zones are all located at least three nautical miles from the shoreline. Procedural The meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may close early if all business is finished. If you are unable to attend, you may submit comments to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES by November 13, 2006. Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities If you plan to attend the public meeting and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, please contact us as indicated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Requests for special assistance should reach the Coast Guard within seven

(7)business days of the meeting. Dated: October 3, 2006. John E. Crowley, Jr., Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-16903 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 242 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 100 Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska; Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Membership AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice solicits written comments and suggestions on the membership qualifications for Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils established under Subsistence Management Regulations. The Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA)requires that advisory councils be constituted with a balanced membership. The current Federal regulations set a goal of 70 percent subsistence users to 30 percent sport and commercial users on the Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils. This notice is the first step in an administrative action with respect to that regulation, made necessary because of an order entered by the U.S. District Court for Alaska. Because the U.S. District Court has enjoined application of the current 70/30 percent goal after 2006, it is necessary to give further reconsideration to alternative methods for assuring balance in membership for Regional Advisory Councils in time to make any decision applicable to the 2007 appointments. Therefore, no extension of the review deadline will be granted. DATES: The Federal Subsistence Board must receive your written public comments and suggestions on this proposed rule no later than November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of several methods: 1. *E-mail: Subsistence@fws.gov* . See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file formats and other information. 2. *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Office of Subsistence Management, 3601 C Street, Suite 1030, Anchorage, AK 99503. 3. You may submit comments via the Federal E-Rulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Pete Probasco, Office of Subsistence Management;

(907)786-3888. For questions specific to National Forest System lands, contact Steve Kessler, Regional Subsistence Program Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region,

(907)786-3592. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic submission of comments to *Subsistence@fws.gov* is preferred. You may submit comments and suggested alternatives and other data as Adobe Acrobat

(PDF)or MS Word files, avoiding the use of any special characters and any form of encryption. Background Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126) requires that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture implement a program to grant a preference for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources on Federal public lands and waters, unless the State of Alaska enacts and implements laws of general applicability that are consistent with ANILCA and that provide for the subsistence definition, preference, and participation specified in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA. The State implemented a program that the Department of the Interior previously found to be consistent with ANILCA. However, in December 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in *McDowell* v. *State of Alaska* that the rural preference in the State subsistence statute violated the Alaska Constitution. The Court's ruling in *McDowell* required the State to delete the rural preference from the subsistence statute and, therefore, negated State compliance with ANILCA. The Court stayed the effect of the decision until July 1, 1990. As a result of the *McDowell* decision, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, responsibility for implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA on Federal public lands and waters. On June 29, 1990, the Temporary Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska were published in the **Federal Register** (55 FR 27114). With the State unable to create a program in compliance with Title VIII by May 29, 1992, the Departments published a final rule in the **Federal Register** (57 FR 22940). On January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1276), the Departments published a final rule to extend jurisdiction to include certain waters in which there exists a Federal reserved water right. This amended rule became effective October 1, 1999, and conformed the Federal Subsistence Management Program to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in *Alaska* v. *Babbitt* . In Subparts A, B, and C of these regulations, as revised January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1276), the Departments established a Federal Subsistence Board (Board) to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board's composition consists of a Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. National Park Service; the Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through the Board, these agencies participate in the development of the Federal Subsistence Management Regulations (Subparts A, B, C, and D). Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils Pursuant to the Record of Decision, Subsistence Management Regulations for Federal Public Lands in Alaska, April 6, 1992, and the Subsistence Management Regulations for Federal Public Lands in Alaska, 36 CFR 242.11

(1999)and 50 CFR 100.11 (1999), and for the purposes identified therein, Alaska is divided into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council. The Regional Councils provide a forum for the residents of the particular region with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Alaska Federal public lands and waters. The Board reviews applications for membership on the Regional Councils and makes recommendations to the Secretaries on the appointments to the Councils. The appointments themselves are then made by the Secretary of the Interior with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Regional Council members represent varied geographical areas, cultures, interests, and resource users within each region. A Regional Council member must be a resident of the region in which he or she is appointed and be knowledgeable about the region and subsistence uses of the Federal public lands and waters therein. In 1998, Safari Club International and others filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. This suit, among other things, challenged the balance of membership on the Regional Councils required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA)of 1972, Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 ( *Safari Club* v. *Demientieff,* No. A98-0414-CV). In the meantime, the Secretary of the Interior, as part of a national review of advisory councils and in response to inquiries related to the Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils in Alaska, requested the Board examine its process for selecting nominees, and “see that” groups such as “residents of non-rural areas, commercial users of fish and wildlife resources and sportsmen are represented on the RACs.” Based on Board recommendations following that in-depth examination, the Secretary of the Interior, with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, in 2002 increased the size of nine of the Regional Councils; established the goal of making appointments to the Regional Council so as to achieve, where possible, a representation goal of 70 percent subsistence users and 30 percent sport/commercial users; revised the application/evaluation/selection process and forms; and approved a 3-year implementation period (67 FR 30559, May 7, 2002). The Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government *et al.* were permitted to intervene in the Safari Club case and to challenge the 70/30 ratio representational goals established by the Secretaries. In January 2004, the U.S. District Court for Alaska entered an order recognizing that with respect to the Regional Councils “* * * a council comprised of only subsistence users is not fairly balanced. Subsistence users are not the only persons directly affected by regional advisory council recommendations and subsistence users are not the only persons who might be interested in the management of fish and wildlife on Federal lands * * *. Non-subsistence users of fish and wildlife are directly affected by management of fish and wildlife for subsistence uses and have a legitimate interest in the proper scientific management of same * * *. While *all* points of view and all persons directly affected are not entitled to representation on a FACA committee, in this instance, a cross-section of those affected by fish and wildlife management on Federal public lands must be, in a reasonable and fair manner, afforded representation on regional advisory councils.” In ruling on the cross-claim of the Native Village of Venetie, the Court also invalidated the Secretaries' policy of a goal of a 70/30 (subsistence users/sport and commercial users) membership representation for failure to procedurally comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act found at 5 U.S.C. 553, and found that the policy should have been put before the public for comment in a rulemaking process. The District Court also ordered that the Secretaries promptly initiate and conclude a rulemaking to promulgate an appropriate Regional Council regulation consistent with FACA after compliance with 5 U.S.C. 553. The Secretaries initiated action with a proposed rule published on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19964), and received testimony on the proposed rule at a May 2004 public hearing. On October 14, 2004, the Secretaries published a final rule in the **Federal Register** (69 FR 60957). The underlying purpose of the change to § __.11(b), while complying with the District Court's order, was to ensure continued compliance with both the fairly balanced representational requirements of FACA and the requirements and purposes of Title VIII of ANILCA in the appointments to the Regional Councils. In the change, the Secretaries recognized that some persons with interests other than subsistence uses are entitled under FACA to be represented on the Regional Councils, while recognizing that Congress intended in Title VIII for rural Alaska residents “who have personal knowledge of local conditions and requirements * * * to have a meaningful role in the management of fish and wildlife and of subsistence uses on public lands in Alaska,” and that Congress also intended that “large urban population centers” not be allowed to dominate the Regional Council system. This rule established the 70/30 representational goal in the change to § __.11(b). The purpose was to assure the appropriate representation and meaningful majority role for rural Alaska residents, while providing an appropriate representation for the interests of nonrural residents and nonsubsistence users. The interveners then challenged the final rule, and on August 8, 2006, the Court declared the 70/30 membership structure to be arbitrary and capricious because the Secretaries and the Board had failed to adequately explain the analysis of the relevant factors and to articulate their rationale in adopting the final rule. That order stated that “the court has not concluded that the 70/30 rule for RAC membership is contrary to law. The court's holding is that defendants have not submitted to the court an administrative record that provides a rationale for that rule.” The purpose of the process that the Secretaries and the Board are undertaking, in this notice, is to fulfill the requirements of the district court's August 8, 2006, decision, to lay out a full administrative record, display a complete assessment of alternatives considered, and provide a fuller explanation for the option selected for providing a balanced membership on the Regional Councils. The Regional Councils must have a balanced membership in accordance with FACA and the court's rulings. This necessitates that representatives from groups such as commercial users of fish and wildlife resources and sportsmen must be sitting as members of each Council. In order to implement that balanced membership, the Secretaries and the Board must have some method of identifying which interest or interests a prospective Council member would represent. Self-identification by an applicant is the best way to obtain that information. Many individuals using the fish and wildlife resources of Alaska do so within different user groups. Subsistence fishermen frequently hold commercial fishing licenses; commercial fishermen may also be sport fishermen or hunters. Sport hunters may have personal use fishing permits, while hunting guides may also hold sport fishing licenses. In almost all cases, however, an individual usually holds certain convictions and beliefs that would cause him or her to represent one of his or her interests more strongly than another interest when making recommendations on potential regulations or policies that would impact his or her use of the resource. For that reason, the Secretaries and the Board requested that each applicant for a Regional Council identify a primary interest. In this way, the Board can identify and recommend to the Secretaries applicants who would provide a balanced membership for each Regional Council. Even though FACA requires a membership balanced in viewpoints, the purpose of the Regional Councils is to provide Alaska residents “who have personal knowledge of local conditions and requirements * * * to have a meaningful role in the management of fish and wildlife and of subsistence uses on public lands in Alaska.” The Secretaries believe that, in order to fulfill this mandate, subsistence interests must constitute a majority of members on each Regional Council. Likewise, since sport and commercial users are also entitled to be represented (where such qualified individuals may be present), a Regional Council composed of only subsistence users is not a Regional Council that meets the requirements of FACA. The Secretaries and the Board, in adopting the current regulations, therefore, considered subsistence, sport, and commercial membership ratios of 60/40, 70/30, 80/20, and 90/10 percent, respectively. The Secretaries discarded the 90/10 ratio because a single individual on a 10-member Regional Council could not adequately represent both sport and commercial interests and could easily be intimidated by the remaining 90 percent of the Council. Council meetings are routinely held in remote villages and some Council members have difficulty attending meetings, particularly if they are engaged in harvesting fish or wildlife resources at the time or are weathered out. If that is the single person representing sport and commercial users when that happens, then there is no representation of those viewpoints. The Board also discarded the 60/40 ratio. A Council with a 60/40 ratio with one or two members representing subsistence missing from the meeting could easily be dominated by sport and commercial interests. The same domineering situation could exist with an 80/20 membership ratio if one of the sport or commercial representatives were absent. A 70/30 membership ratio provides a majority representation for subsistence users without domination by sport or commercial interests, but the 30 percent membership would also allow both sport and commercial interests to be meaningfully represented. All Regional Council members are still expected to examine each proposal, policy, or plan and develop Regional Council recommendations based on recognized principles of fish and wildlife conservation, satisfaction of subsistence needs, and substantial evidence, consistent with Title VIII of ANILCA, and are not expected to act as only single interest representatives. The Regional Councils were first constituted with a 70/30 membership representation goal before their winter 2004 meetings. Since then, the 10 Regional Councils have held 50 regularly scheduled meetings. In almost every instance, these meetings have occurred without rancor or hostility among represented interests. Many members have expressed gratitude for the opportunity to associate and learn from members representing other interests. Part of the success of the balanced Councils results from the fact that all these interests depend on the same fish and wildlife resources, with conservation the main concern. By way of this notice, the Board and Secretaries are requesting your comments on the existing 70/30 representational membership goal that is currently in regulation for the Regional Councils. This membership requirement is set forth at 36 CFR 242.11(b) and 50 CFR 100.11(b). Your suggestions for any modifications to the existing 70/30 goal are also sought. The Board and Secretaries also invite you to submit any suggested alternative ideas for providing a balanced membership that complies with FACA, while still meeting the intent of ANILCA. Following the close of the comment period as identified in the DATES section, the public comments, suggestions, and identified alternatives will be presented to the Regional Councils during their winter 2007 meetings. This procedure will allow both the Regional Councils and the public to have an opportunity to present ideas and testimony related to the issue of a methodology for achieving balanced Regional Councils. This is not required by Section 805(c) of ANILCA and any recommendations the Councils may make are not recommendations subject to Section 805(c). Any suggestions, alternatives, or recommendations from the Regional Councils will then be presented to the Federal Subsistence Board at its May 2007 meeting. There will also be another opportunity for the public to submit suggestions or alternatives at this Board meeting. Following public testimony and Council recommendations, the Board will deliberate various options and recommend a course of action to the Secretaries. A formal rulemaking process would follow, if necessary. The recommendation may also be to make no changes to the current regulations but merely to offer further explanation of that rule. Drafting Information William Knauer drafted this notice under the guidance of Pete Probasco of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Chuck Ardizzone, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management; Greg Bos, Carl Jack, and Jerry Berg, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Sandy Rabinowitch and Nancy Swanton, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service; Warren Eastland and Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Steve Kessler, Alaska Regional Office, USDA-Forest Service, provided additional guidance. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733. Dated: September 19, 2006. Peter J. Probasco, Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board. Steve Kessler, Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest Service. [FR Doc. 06-8594 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

U.S. Code