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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-10-13 · Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Department of Justice · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

42,986 words·~195 min read·/register/2006/10/13/06-8659

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1300 [Docket No. DEA-288F] RIN 1117-AB02 Technical Correction of Two Anabolic Steroid Names AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Department of Justice. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The purpose of this final rule is to correct the chemical names of two anabolic steroids in the Drug Enforcement Administration's
(DEA)regulations. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 included typographical errors in the chemical names of two anabolic steroids designated as Schedule III substances. Section 1180 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 corrects these typographical errors. This Final Rule amends DEA regulations to conform to the Act. Effective Date: October 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Sannerud, Ph.D., Chief, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537 at
(202)307-7183. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 22, 2004, the President signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-358), which became effective on January 20, 2005. Section 2(a) of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 amended the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA)by listing 59 specific substances as being Schedule III anabolic steroids (21 U.S.C. § 802(41)(A)). This list included two typographical errors in the chemical names of two anabolic steroids. Congress corrected this error under “Section 1180 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-162). Section 1180 amends the CSA (21 U.S.C. 802(41)(A)) by replacing the chemical names for the following anabolic steroids:13β-ethyl-17β -hydroxygon-4-en-3-one and stanozolol (17α-methyl-17β-hydroxy-[5α]-androst-2-eno[3,2-c]-pyrazole). By this Final Rule, DEA is amending its regulations to conform to statute. Consequently, public comments are not being solicited since they could not alter this rule. Regulatory Certifications Administrative Procedure Act An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from certain provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), including notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment, if it is determined to be unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest. The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109-162) made two technical corrections to the CSA to correct typographical errors that were made in previous legislation. This Final Rule merely makes conforming amendments to DEA regulations implementing the Act to correct these typographical errors. Therefore, DEA finds it unnecessary to publish this rule for public notice and comment. Further, the Administrative Procedure Act permits an agency to make this rule effective upon the date of publication if the agency finds good cause to do so (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). As delaying the effective date of typographical corrections to the Code of Federal Regulations would serve no purpose and could, in fact, cause confusion were a person to misinterpret existing regulations, DEA finds good cause to make this rule effective upon publication. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Deputy Administrator hereby certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation, and, by approving it, certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This Final Rule merely corrects typographical errors in the chemical names of two anabolic steroids. Executive Order 12866 The Deputy Administrator hereby certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in accordance with Executive Order 12866, § 1(b). DEA has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this action. Executive Order 12988 This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform. Executive Order 13132 This rulemaking does not preempt or modify any provision of state law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any state; nor does it diminish the power of any state to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $118,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in cost or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1300 Chemicals, Drug traffic control. For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1300 is amended as follows: PART 1300—DEFINITIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 802, 871(b), 951, 958(f). 2. Section 1300.01 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4)(xxiii) and (b)(4)(liv) to read as follows: § 1300.01 Definitions relating to controlled substances.
(b)* * *
(4)* * * (xxiii) 13β-ethyl-17β-hydroxygon-4-en-3-one
(liv)stanozolol (17α-methyl-17β-hydroxy-[5α]-androst-2-eno[3,2-c]-pyrazole) Dated: September 29, 2006. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-16992 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans prescribe interest assumptions for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans. This final rule amends the regulations to adopt interest assumptions for plans with valuation dates in November 2006. Interest assumptions are also published on the PBGC's Web site *http://www.pbgc.gov.* DATES: Effective November 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed:
(1)A set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to part 4044),
(2)a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to part 4022), and
(3)a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to part 4022). This amendment
(1)adds to Appendix B to part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during November 2006,
(2)adds to Appendix B to part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during November 2006, and
(3)adds to Appendix C to part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during November 2006. For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 5.70 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.75 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions represent a decrease (from those in effect for October 2006) of 0.30 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and are otherwise unchanged. These interest assumptions reflect the PBGC's recently updated mortality assumptions, which are effective for terminations on or after January 1, 2006. See the PBGC's final rule published December 2, 2005 (70 FR 72205), which is available at *http://www.pbgc.gov/docs/05-23554.pdf* . Because the updated mortality assumptions reflect improvements in mortality, these interest assumptions are higher than they would have been using the old mortality assumptions. The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 2.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions represent a decrease (from those in effect for October 2006) of 0.25 percent in the immediate annuity rate and are otherwise unchanged. For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by the PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022). The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible. Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during November 2006, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication. The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866. Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2). List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 4022 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 29 CFR Part 4044 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions. In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows: PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344. 2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 157, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) *i* <sup>1</sup> *i* <sup>2</sup> *i* <sup>3</sup> *n* <sup>1</sup> *n* <sup>2</sup> * * * * * * * 157 11-1-06 12-1-06 2.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 157, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) *i* <sup>1</sup> *i* <sup>2</sup> *i* <sup>3</sup> *n* <sup>1</sup> *n* <sup>2</sup> * * * * * * * 157 11-1-06 12-1-06 2.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 4. The authority citation for part 4044 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362. 5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new entry for November 2006, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest Rates Used to Value Benefits For valuation dates occurring in the month— The values of *i* <sup>t</sup> are: *i* <sup>t</sup> for *t* = *i* <sup>t</sup> for *t* = *i* <sup>t</sup> for *t* = * * * * * * * November 2006 .0570 1-20 .0475 >20 N/A N/A Issued in Washington, DC, on this 5th day of October 2006. James C. Gerber, Acting Interim Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-16958 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA OAR-2003-0083; FRL-8231-1] Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action Compact Areas With Deferred Effective Dates AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action corrects the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Monroe County, Georgia by deleting a highway from the boundary description, and clarifies the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Murray County, Georgia by adding a boundary description. Monroe County, Georgia is part of the Macon, Georgia 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and a portion of Murray County, Georgia makes up the Murray County (Chattahoochee National Forest Mountains), Georgia 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The nonattainment boundaries for these two counties were described in EPA's final 8-hour ozone designations rule which was published in the **Federal Register** on April 30, 2004. EPA is clarifying the exact location of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Murray County by including the precise descriptions of the boundary in the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition, pursuant to Clean Air Act
(CAA)section 110(k)(6), EPA is also correcting an error made in identifying the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Monroe County. Effective Date: This action is effective: October 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID No. EPA OAR-2003-0083 (Designations) and EPA OAR-2003-0090 (Early Action Compacts). All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* Web site or in hard copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is
(202)566-1742. In addition, we have placed a copy of the rule and a variety of materials regarding designations on EPA's designation Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/glo/designations* and on the tribal Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal.* Materials relevant to Early Action Compact
(EAC)areas are on EPA's Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac.* In addition, the public may inspect the rule and technical support at the following locations: Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dick Schutt, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-9033. Mr. Schutt can also be reached via electronic mail at *schutt.dick@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23858), EPA published a rule designating and classifying areas for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). That rule designated portions of both Monroe County and Murray County, Georgia, as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Those designations appear in 40 CFR 81.311. Today, EPA is clarifying the exact location of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Murray County by precisely describing the boundary as was recommended by the State of Georgia and approved by EPA in the April 2004 8-hour ozone designations rulemaking. In addition, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6), EPA is correcting an error made in identifying the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Monroe County. Murray County In letters dated October 20, 2003, and March 4, 2004, the State of Georgia recommended an 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Murray County, Georgia (Murray County, Chattahoochee National Forest Mountains, Georgia 8-hour ozone nonattainment area) and described the boundary as being “enclosed to the east by Murray County's eastern border, to the north by latitude of 34.9004 degrees, to the west by longitude 84.7200 degrees, and to the south by 34.7040 degrees. All mountain peaks within the Chattahoochee National Forest area of Murray County that have an elevation greater than or equal to 2,400 feet and that are enclosed by contour lines that close on themselves.” See, Letter from Ron Methier, Georgia Environmental Protection Division, to Kay Prince, EPA Region 4, dated March 4, 2004. EPA concurred with this nonattainment boundary for Murray County, but in our subsequent April 30, 2004, 8-hour ozone designations rulemaking we described the nonattainment boundary only generally as “Murray Co. (Chattahoochee Nat Forest), GA: Murray County (part).” See, 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004). The purpose of today's rule is not to change the Murray County, Georgia, 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary, but to clarify the exact boundary description as recommended by Georgia and concurred upon by EPA as part of the April 30, 2004 8-hour ozone designations rulemaking. Thus, EPA is more clearly describing the Murray County 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary (found at 40 CFR 81. 311) as: • The area enclosed to the east by Murray County's eastern border, to the north by latitude of 34.9004 degrees, to the west by longitude 84.7200 degrees, and to the south by 34.7040 degrees. All mountain peaks within the Chattahoochee National Forest area of Murray County that have an elevation greater than or equal to 2,400 feet and that are enclosed by contour lines that close on themselves. Monroe County Monroe County and Bibb County, Georgia make up the Macon, Georgia, 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. 69 FR 23857, 23894 (April 30, 2004). Monroe County is adjacent to the core Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area
(CMSA)county of Bibb and has a large source of nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) emissions from Georgia Power Company's Plant Scherer. Based on EPA's technical analysis in 2004, the portion of Monroe County that contains Plant Scherer was determined to be contributing to the 8-hour ozone violations recorded in Bibb County. In its initial designation recommendation in July 2003, Georgia did not recommend any portion of Monroe County be included as part of the designated 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. In EPA's December 2003 response to the State's recommendation, EPA indicated that Monroe County should be included as part of the designated nonattainment area. Just prior to EPA's signature on the 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations on April 15, 2004, EPA's Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards (OAQPS) requested that Georgia provide EPA with a boundary description for the Monroe County portion of the Macon, Georgia 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. In response, on April 13, 2004, the State of Georgia submitted a recommended boundary to OAQPS that included Georgia Power's Plant Scherer and that included the portion of the county that was contiguous to Bibb County. That recommendation included a road—U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87—as part of the recommended area to be designated nonattainment. The April 13, 2004 recommended boundary description read as follows: • From the point where Bibb and Monroe Counties meet at the Ocmulgee River, follow the Ocmulgee River boundary north to 33 degrees, 05 minutes, due west to 83 degrees, 50 minutes, due south to the intersection with Georgia Hwy 18, east along Georgia Hwy 18 to U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87, south on U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 to the Monroe/Bibb County line, and east to the intersection with the Ocmulgee River. Following EPA's signature on the 8-hour ozone designations rule on April 15, 2004, but just prior to EPA's announcement of its 8-hour ozone designations on April 30, 2004, the State of Georgia submitted a corrected boundary description for Monroe County (on April 29, 2004). The corrected boundary description was provided to EPA Region 4, rather than OAQPS and continued to be contiguous to Bibb County and continued to include Georgia Power's Plant Scherer. The correction, however, excluded U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87. The State's April 29, 2004 corrected boundary description for Monroe County read as follows: • From the point where Bibb and Monroe Counties meet at U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 follow the Bibb/Monroe County line westward 150′ from the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline, proceed northward 150′ west of and parallel to the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline to 33 degrees, 04 minutes, 30 seconds; proceed westward to 83 degrees, 49 minutes, 45 seconds; proceed due south to 150′ north of the Georgia Hwy 18 centerline, proceed eastward 150′ north of and parallel to the Georgia Hwy 18 centerline to 1150′ west of the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline, proceed southward 1150′ west of and parallel to the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline to the Monroe/Bibb County line; then follow the Monroe/Bibb County line to 150′ west of the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline. EPA Region 4 reviewed this corrected boundary recommendation at the time it was submitted and agreed with the recommendation, finding that it continued to include Georgia Power's Plant Scherer and was consistent with EPA's 11-factor nonattainment boundary guidance. However, at the time EPA Region 4 received Georgia's corrected boundary description for Monroe County, it was unaware that Georgia had previously provided a different description to OAQPS. In addition, EPA Region 4 believed, erroneously, that Georgia had simultaneously provided its April 29, 2004 corrected boundary description to OAQPS. Yet, Georgia had not provided its boundary correction to OAQPS and as a result, no effort was made by either EPA Region 4 or OAQPS to correct the Monroe County boundary description prior to the June 15, 2004, effective date of designation. EPA is taking action today to correct its error in failing to correct the boundary prior to the area's effective date of designation. Because the April 29, 2004 letter was submitted in sufficient time for EPA to have corrected the boundary prior to the effective date of designation and such correction was not made due to a breakdown in communication between two EPA offices, EPA is today correcting its error. The corrected boundary description will read as follows: • From the point where Bibb and Monroe Counties meet at U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 follow the Bibb/Monroe County line westward 150′ from the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline, proceed northward 150′ west of and parallel to the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline to 33 degrees, 04 minutes, 30 seconds; proceed westward to 83 degrees, 49 minutes, 45 seconds; proceed due south to 150′ north of the Georgia Hwy 18 centerline, proceed eastward 150′ north of and parallel to the Georgia Hwy 18 centerline to 1150′ west of the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline, proceed southward 1150′ west of and parallel to the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline to the Monroe/Bibb County line; then follow the Monroe/Bibb County line to 150′ west of the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline. EPA is making this correction pursuant to the authority of CAA section 110(k)(6). Section 110(k)(6) provides: • “Whenever the Administrator determines that the Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification, or reclassification was in error, the Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation, revise such action as appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State and public.” As discussed above, the Administrator erroneously allowed the 8-hour ozone area designation for Monroe County, Georgia to become effective without reflecting Georgia's April 29, 2004 correction of its boundary recommendation. EPA's recent discovery of this error prompted today's correction. Public Participation EPA is clarifying the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Murray County, Georgia without notice and comment in accordance with CAA section 107(d)(2), which exempts the promulgation or announcement of a designation (including boundary determinations) from the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In addition, EPA is correcting the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Monroe County, Georgia without notice and comment for several reasons. First, CAA section 110(k)(6) provides that corrections to the promulgation of area designations (including boundary corrections) may be accomplished by the Administrator “in the same manner” as the promulgation. EPA's April 30, 2004 final 8-hour ozone designations rule was published as a final rule without public notice and comment in accordance with CAA section 107(d)(2), which exempts the promulgation or announcement of a designation (including boundary determinations) from the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, EPA's correction of the Monroe County, Georgia, 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary falls under the “good cause” exemption in APA section 553(b)(3)(B). Section 553(b)(3)(B) provides that, upon finding “good cause,” agencies may dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for EPA's correction of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Monroe County, Georgia, is unnecessary because the correction makes no substantive difference to EPA's analysis of the designation status of the Macon, Georgia, 8-hour nonattainment area, as set out in EPA's April 30, 2004, final 8-hour ozone designations rule (69 FR 23858). In the April 30, 2004 rulemaking, EPA included, as part of the Macon, Georgia, 8-hour ozone nonattainment, the portion of Monroe County that contains Georgia Power's Plant Scherer because that portion was determined to be contributing to the 8-hour ozone violations recorded in Bibb County, Georgia. Today's correction of the boundary for Monroe County does not impact this prior technical analysis since the boundary continues to include Georgia Power's Plant Scherer and continues to be consistent with EPA's 11-factor ozone nonattainment boundary guidance. Finally, EPA can identify no particular reason why the public would be interested in being notified of this correction or in having the opportunity to comment on the correction prior to this action being finalized, since the corrected boundary for Monroe County continues to include Georgia Power's Plant Scherer and continues to be consistent with EPA's 11-factor ozone nonattainment boundary guidance. Effective Date EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for today's actions to become effective on the date of publication of this final rule. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule merely corrects the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Monroe County, Georgia, to exclude a highway, and clarifies the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Murray County, Georgia, by adding a boundary description to 40 CFR part 81. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for today's actions to become effective on the date of publication of this final rule. Final Actions EPA is taking two actions today. First, EPA is clarifying the exact location of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Murray County by including the boundary that was recommended by the State of Georgia and approved by EPA in the April 2004 ozone designations rulemaking, but that was not included in 40 CFR part 81. Second, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6), EPA is also correcting the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundary for Monroe County to reflect Georgia's April 29, 2004 recommended boundary. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews: A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 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 the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because none of the above factors applies. As such, this final rule was not formally submitted to OMB for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* This rule only clarifies and corrects the 8-hour nonattainment boundaries for Murray County and Monroe County, Georgia. This rule does not establish any new information collection burden apart from that required by law. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other statute unless the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.);
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. This rule only clarifies and corrects the 8-hour nonattainment boundaries for Murray County and Monroe County, Georgia. The clarification and correction of these boundaries will not impose any requirements on small entities. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's final rule does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. It does not create any additional requirements beyond those of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone (62 FR 38894; July 18, 1997), and therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. This rule only clarifies and corrects the 8-hour nonattainment boundaries for Murray County and Monroe County, Georgia. EPA believes that any new controls imposed as a result of this rule will not cost in the aggregate $100 million or more annually. Thus, this Federal rule will not impose mandates that will require expenditures of $100 million or more in the aggregate in any one year. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects 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.” This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The Clean Air Act establishes the scheme whereby states take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS. This rule will not modify the relationship of the states and EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA discussed the designation process and compact program with representatives of state and local air pollution control agencies, and tribal governments, as well as the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, which is also composed of state and local representatives. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have “tribal implications” as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule only clarifies and corrects the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundaries for Murray County and Monroe County, Georgia. The Clean Air Act provides for states to develop plans to regulate emissions of air pollutants within their jurisdictions. The Tribal Authority Rule
(TAR)gives tribes the opportunity to develop and implement Clean Air Act programs such as programs to attain and maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but it leaves to the discretion of the tribe whether to develop these programs and which programs, or appropriate elements of a program, they will adopt. This rule only clarifies and corrects the 8-hour ozone nonattainment boundaries for Murray County and Monroe County, Georgia, of which no tribal land is included. This final rule does not have tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, since no tribe has implemented a Clean Air Act program to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at this time. Furthermore, this rule does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. The Clean Air Act and the TAR establish the relationship of the Federal government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Because this rule does not have tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, prior to designations action promulgated on April 15, 2004, EPA did outreach to tribal representatives regarding the designations and to inform them about the compact program and its impact on designations. EPA supports a national “Tribal Designations and Implementation Work Group” which provides an open forum for all tribes to voice concerns to EPA about the designation and implementation process for the NAAQS, including the 8-hour ozone standard. These discussions informed EPA about key tribal concerns regarding designations as the rule was under development. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that
(1)is determined to be (economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. Nonetheless, we have evaluated the environmental health and safety effects of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS on children. The results of this risk assessment are contained in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule (62 FR 38855-38896; specifically, 62 FR 38854, 62 FR 38860 and 62 FR 38865). H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Information on the methodology and data regarding the assessment of potential energy impacts is found in Chapter 6 of U.S. EPA 2002, Cost, Emission Reduction, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Rule Establishing the Implementation Framework for the 8-Hour, 0.08 ppm Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, prepared by the Innovative Strategies and Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC April 24, 2003. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards
(VCS)in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any VCS. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective October 13, 2006. K. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by *December 12, 2006* . Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: October 5, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. 40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows: PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 2. In § 81.311 the table entitled (Georgia—Ozone (8-hour standard) is amended: a. By adding footnote 3 to heading “Macon, GA:”, b. Under Macon, GA by revising entries for “Monroe County (part)” and “Murray Co (Chattahoochee Nat Forest), GA:” to read as follows: § 81.311 Georgia Georgia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Macon, GA: 3 * * * * * * * Monroe County
(part)Nonattainment Subpart 1. From the point where Bibb and Monroe Counties meet at U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 follow the Bibb/Monroe County line westward 150′ from the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline, proceed northward 150′ west of and parallel to the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline to 33 degrees, 04 minutes, 30 seconds; proceed westward to 83 degrees, 49 minutes, 45 seconds; proceed due south to 150′ north of the Georgia Hwy 18 centerline, proceed eastward 150′ north of and parallel to the Georgia Hwy 18 centerline to 1150′ west of the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline, proceed southward 1150′ west of and parallel to the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline to the Monroe/Bibb County line; then follow the Monroe/Bibb County line to 150′ west of the U.S. Hwy 23/Georgia Hwy 87 centerline. * * * * * * * Murray Co (Chattahoochee Nat Forest), GA: Murray County
(part)Nonattainment Subpart 1. The area enclosed to the east by Murray County's eastern border, to the north by latitude of 34.9004 degrees, to the west by longitude 84.7200 degrees, and to the south by 34.7040 degrees. All mountain peaks within the Chattahoochee National Forest area of Murray County that have an elevation greater than or equal to 2,400 feet and that are enclosed by contour lines that close on themselves. * * * * * * * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. * * * * * 3 The boundary change is effective October 13, 2006. [FR Doc. E6-17012 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 62 RIN 1660-AA41 National Flood Insurance Program; Appeal of Decisions Relating to Flood Insurance Claims AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule amends and finalizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) May 2006 interim rule establishing an appeals process for National Flood Insurance policyholders as required under section 205 of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. DATES: This final rule is effective November 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Shortley, Director of Claims, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3418 (Phone),
(202)646-2818 (facsimile), or *James.Shortley@dhs.gov* (e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In the face of mounting flood losses and escalating costs of disaster relief to the taxpayers, the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP)was established by Congress as part of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (the Act). Pub. L. 90-448, Title XII (Aug. 1, 1968), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001, *et seq.* The intent of the NFIP is to reduce future flood damage through community floodplain management ordinances, and to make risk-based flood insurance generally available for property owners. FEMA was designated by Congress to be the administrator of the NFIP. In 1983, FEMA partnered with the private insurance industry to expand the NFIP policy base. This partnership between FEMA and the private sector property insurance companies is termed the Write Your Own
(WYO)Program. The WYO Program is a cooperative undertaking between the insurance industry and FEMA. The WYO Program allows participating property and casualty insurance companies to issue and service the NFIP Standard Flood Insurance policies (SFIPs) in their own names. FEMA also uses the services of contractors to process NFIP policy information from the WYO Companies and the agents and to service SFIPs sold directly by FEMA. Contractors are sometimes employed by the WYO Companies to handle and adjust claims. Section 205 of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act
(FIRA)of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-264 (June 30, 2004), 42 U.S.C. 4011) requires FEMA to establish by regulation a formal process for the appeal of decisions of flood insurance claims issued through the NFIP. On May 26, 2006, FEMA issued an interim rule establishing a formal appeals process and soliciting comments from the public. *See* 71 FR 30294. The process implemented under the interim rule codifies FEMA's existing NFIP appeals practice and enables policyholders to formally appeal the decisions of any insurance agent or adjuster, or insurance company, or any FEMA employee or contractor with respect to their SFIP claims, proofs of loss, and loss estimates. Under the formal appeals process, FEMA will acknowledge receipt of a policyholder's appeal in writing and advise the policyholder if additional information is required in order to fully consider the appeal. FEMA will review the documentation submitted by the policyholder and conduct any necessary additional investigations. FEMA will then advise the policyholder and the appropriate flood insurance carrier of FEMA's decision regarding the appeal. Discussion The Act and the SFIP authorize an insured (or policyholder) who is dissatisfied with an insurer's decision to deny a claim, in whole, or part, to file a lawsuit in Federal district court for the disallowed portion of the claim, or invoke the appraisal provision of the SFIP (a procedure to resolve disputes regarding the actual value of covered losses). This rule provides a formal appeals process for resolving flood insurance disputes prior to commencement of litigation. The appeals process outlined in this rule does not abolish or replace the right to file a lawsuit against the insurer pursuant to the Act (42 U.S.C. 4072), nor does it expand or change the one-year statute of limitation to file suit against the insurer for the disallowed portion of the insured's claim. To avoid potentially conflicting results and duplicative efforts, an insured who files suit against an insurer is prohibited from filing an appeal under this appeals process. Similarly, this appeals process is not meant to provide an insured with multiple contractual or administrative, pre-litigation remedies. Accordingly, an insured who seeks to resolve issues regarding the actual cash value or, if applicable, replacement cost of damaged property, must elect to resolve this dispute through either the appraisal provision in the SFIP or this appeals process. An insured cannot seek remedy under both processes. Finally, this rule does not amend or change the conditions necessary to recover under the SFIP. In the case of a flood loss to insured property, the insured must comply with the requirements set out in the SFIP; including, but not limited to, providing the insurer with prompt notice of the loss, submitting a valid proof of loss within 60 days after the loss, cooperating with the adjuster, separating damaged and undamaged property so that the insurer may examine it, and preparing an inventory of damaged personal property. *See* SFIP, 44 CFR Part 61, App. A(1), Part 61, App. A(2), Part 61, App. A(3). This appeals process is available after the issuance of the insurer's final claim determination, which is the insurer's written denial, in whole or in part, of the insured's claim. Once the final claim determination is issued, an insured may appeal any action taken by the insurer, FEMA employee, FEMA contractor, insurance adjuster, or insurance agent. An insured must file an appeal within 60 days after receiving the insurer's final claim determination. Response to Comments The interim rule requested public comment. FEMA received two written and one oral comment. A summary of the comments received, together with FEMA's responses, is set forth below. One commenter, U.S. Senator James Bunning, asked that FEMA provide additional information to the public during the appeals process, including stating the grounds for the initial denial of a claim and eventual resolution of any appeal; and identifying a point of contact for claimants so that they can speak with someone at FEMA directly. The Senator also recommended that FEMA provide a timeframe for issuance of a decision on an appeal, as well as what information and documentation should be included in any appeal filed. FEMA agrees with these comments and has amended 44 CFR 62.20 accordingly. Specifically, FEMA agrees to provide the policyholder with a written acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal and include in the acknowledgement letter a point of contact at FEMA who can assist the policyholder with information on the status of his or her claim. FEMA provided more detail in this final rule, by listing examples of the type of information and documentation to be included in an appeal. FEMA also will issue a written appeal decision to the policyholder and insurer within 90 days from the date that the policyholder has submitted all required information to FEMA. The appeal decision will include information on the grounds for the initial denial of the claim and the basis for the resolution of the appeal. FEMA believes the addition of this information will facilitate the NFIP appeals process. FEMA will issue a bulletin to insurers and take other appropriate steps as part of the implementation of this rule. That bulletin will require that the Companies provide the denial in writing and include specific information as to the grounds on which the claim was denied initially. A second commenter, a representative of State Farm (a member of WYO), offered two comments on the interim final rule. First, that FEMA should consider adding language permitting appeals only after the policyholder has given “management level personnel” within the WYO Company an opportunity to review the policyholder's concerns in the case of disputes arising under a SFIP issued by a WYO Company. The commenter stated that such a change would encourage handling of serious disputes at the appropriate level within the WYO Company and should serve to reduce the number of appeals that must be processed by FEMA. While the comments are notable, FEMA has not included the language in this rule. FEMA agrees that there should be a management level review within the WYO Company of denials (in whole or in part) of which the policyholder is appealing. However, since each WYO Company handles denials differently, FEMA does not believe that it should mandate the level at which a denial is reviewed within individual WYO Companies. While FEMA believes this suggestion has merit, FEMA reserves to each Company the ability to conduct individual claims review process, including management oversight. State Farm also requested that FEMA require policyholders to commence and complete either the appraisal process provided for in the SFIP or the appeals process prior to seeking judicial review. The commenter stated that such a change should reduce total litigation costs under the NFIP and encourage policyholders to take advantage of these alternative dispute mechanisms. FEMA agrees it would be preferable for a policyholder to commence and complete either the appraisal process or the appeals process prior to litigation. The Act, however, expressly permits policyholders to file suit against the insurer and does not require a policyholder to exhaust available contractual or administrative remedies. *See* , 42 U.S.C. 4072. Although FEMA can make contractual or administrative remedies, such as this appeals process, available to policyholders, FEMA therefore cannot require a policyholder to participate in the appraisal or appeal process before seeking remedy in a Federal district court. FEMA anticipates that having the formal appeals process in place will limit the number of claims brought to suit, even without making it a requirement prior to suit. In response to State Farm's comment, however, FEMA has modified the language in 44 CFR 62.20(e) “Procedures,” to add a new paragraph (2). This paragraph requires policyholders who have filed an appeal to “[p]rovide a copy of the insurer's written denial, in whole or in part, of the claim.” The purpose of this modification is to further clarify that FEMA requires a denial of a claim in order to initiate an appeal. FEMA inserted the new language to ensure that a policyholder receives a denial from the WYO Company before the policyholder pursues an appeal. FEMA also received a comment from a private citizen who takes issue with the NFIP overall. That comment did not relate specifically to the appeals process set forth in the May 2006 interim rule and is not within the scope of this rulemaking. FEMA, therefore, did not consider that comment in the development of this final rule. Administrative Procedure Act FEMA, through this final rule, is implementing changes to the appeals process that were not specified in the May 2006 interim rule. FEMA has determined that these changes are procedural in nature and do not alter the substantive rights of the affected parties. Therefore, the changes made under this final rule are exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).) National Environmental Policy Act This rule falls within the exclusion category 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii), which addresses the preparation, revision, and adoption of regulations, directives, and other guidance documents related to actions that qualify for categorical exclusions. Since this is an administrative action that qualifies for the exclusion category described in 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii) and because no other extraordinary circumstances have been identified, this rule will not require the preparation of either an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review FEMA has prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, a significant regulatory action is subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 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 the Executive Order. This final rule has been determined to not be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule contains information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a person may not be penalized for failing to comply with an information collection that does not display a currently valid OMB control number. FEMA, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a proposed extension of a currently approved collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning a formal appeals process to allow policyholders to request an appeal for an unsatisfactory decision on their flood insurance claims. Section 205 of FIRA of 2004 requires FEMA to establish by regulation a formal process for the appeal of decisions of flood insurance claims issued through the NFIP. The appeals process is available after the issuance of the insurer's final claim determination, which is the insurers' written denial, in whole or in part, of the insured claim. An insured must file an appeal within 60 days after receiving the insurer's final claim determination. *Title:* National Flood Insurance Claims Appeal Process. *Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *OMB Number:* 1660-0095. *Forms:* Forms are not used in the appeals process, but rather the policyholder will provide a letter requesting an appeal and any supporting documentation. *Abstract:* This information collection implements the mandates of section 205 of FIRA of 2004 to establish an appeals process for NFIP policyholders in cases of unsatisfactory decisions on SFIP claims. The policy, proof of loss, loss estimates, photographs, and any other supporting documentation will be reviewed by the Director of Claims, and claims examiners, to determine if the policyholder/claimant is entitled to additional remedies for his or her loss. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households and business or other for profit. Annual Burden Hours Information collection activity Number of respondents Frequency of responses Burden hours per respondent Annual responses Total annual burden hours
(D)= (A × B)
(E)= (C × D) Appeal Letter 2,000 1 2 2,000 4,000 Total 2,000 1 2 2,000 4,000 It is estimated that, in a typical year, the number of claims received will be approximately 68,000. However, considering the impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on the number of claims received, the program has estimated that approximately 2,000 respondents per year will file an appeal, each spending an average of two hours drafting the appeals letter and collecting the required information. *Comments:* Written comments are solicited to
(a)evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and(d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments must be submitted on or before November 6, 2006. Interested persons should submit written comments to Chief, Records Management and Privacy, Information Resources Management Branch, Information Technology Services Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Room 316, Washington, DC 20472. Executive Order 13175, Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distinction of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. It does not have a substantial direct effect because the rule does not make distinctions of where the property insured is located, the rule will apply uniformly to all policyholders regardless if they live on or off Tribal lands. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, Federalism, dated August 4, 1999, sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials before implementing any such action. FEMA has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and has concluded the rule does not have federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order. FEMA has determined the rule does not significantly affect the rights, roles, and responsibilities of States, and involves no preemption of State law nor does it limit State policymaking discretion. Executive Order 12898 and 12948, Environmental Justice Under Executive Orders 12898 and 12948, respectively, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” FEMA incorporates environmental justice into our policies and programs. Executive Order 12898 requires each Federal agency to conduct its programs, policies and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that ensures those programs, policies and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. Executive Order 12898 also requires that each Federal Agency shall identify and address as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. FEMA does not anticipate that actions under the rule would have a disproportionately high and adverse human health effect on any segment of the population. FEMA has determined that the requirements of these Executive Orders do not apply to this rule. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)mandates that an agency conduct an RFA analysis when an agency is “required by section 553 * * *, or any other law, to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule, or publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for interpretative rule involving the internal revenue laws of the United States * * *.” 5 U.S.C. 603(a). RFA analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). As discussed in the interim rule, because a notice of proposed rulemaking was not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), FEMA was not required to conduct an RFA analysis for the interim rule or this final rule under 5 U.S.C. 603. Executive Order 12988 This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 62 Flood insurance. Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 44 CFR part 62 of FEMA's regulations, which was published at 71 FR 30294, May 26, 2006 is adopted as a final rule with certain changes as discussed above and set forth as follows: PART 62—SALE OF INSURANCE AND ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIMS 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 2. Revise paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(4), (f)(1), and (f)(3) to § 62.20 to read as follows: § 62.20 Claims appeals.
(e)* * *
(2)Provide a copy of the insurer's written denial, in whole or in part, of the claim;
(3)Identify relevant policy and claim information and state the basis for the appeal; and
(4)Submit relevant documentation to support the appeal. The policyholder should submit only the documentation that pertains to his or her claim. The following are examples of the kinds of documentation which FEMA will require to adjudicate the appeal: A copy of the proof of loss submitted to the insurer as required in the policy; room by room itemized estimates from the adjuster (includes contractors' estimates), detailing unit cost and quantities for the items needing repair or replacement; replacement cost proofs of loss; Preliminary Report; Final Report; detailed damaged personal property inventories that include the approximate age of the items; completed Mobile Home Worksheet; Mobile Home Title, including Salvage Titles; real estate appraisals that exclude land values; advance payment information; clear photographs (exterior and interior) confirming damage resulted from direct physical loss by or from flood; proof of prior repair; evidence of insurance and policy information , *i.e.* declarations page; Elevation Certificate, if the risk is an elevated building; the community's determination made concerning substantial damage; information regarding substantial improvement; zone determinations; pre-loss and post-loss inventories; financial statements; tax records, lease agreements, sales contracts, settlement papers, deed, *etc.* ; emergency
(911)address change information; salvage information (proceeds and sales); condominium association by-laws; proof of other insurance, including homeowners or wind policies and any claim information submitted to the other companies; Waiver, Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR)or Letter of Map Amendment
(LOMA)information; paid receipts and invoices including cancelled checks that support an insured's out-of-pocket expenses pertaining to the claim; underwriting decisions; architectural plans and drawings; death certificates; a copy of the will; divorce decree, power of attorney; current lienholder information; current loss payee information; paid receipts and invoices documenting damaged stock; detailed engineering reports specifically addressing flood-related damage and pre-existing damage; engineering surveys; market values; documentation of Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM)dates; documentation reflecting date(s) of construction and substantial improvement; loan documents including closings; evidence of insurability as a Residential Condominium Association; Franchise Agreements; letters of representation, *i.e.* attorneys and public adjusters; any assignment of interest in a claim; and, any other pertinent information which FEMA may request in processing a claim.
(f)* * *
(1)FEMA will acknowledge, in writing, receipt of a policyholder's appeal and include in the acknowledgement contact information for a FEMA point of contact who can advise the policyholder as to the status of his or her claim.
(3)The *Administrator* will review the appeal documents, including any reinspection report, if appropriate. The Administrator will provide specific information on what grounds the claim was denied initially. The Administrator will provide an *appeal decision* in writing to the policyholder and insurer within 90 days from the date that all information has been submitted by the policyholder and include specific information for the resolution of the appeal. No further administrative review will be provided to the insured. Dated: October 6, 2006. R. David Paulison, Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA. [FR Doc. E6-17028 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-11-P 71 198 Friday, October 13, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 457 RIN 0563-AC01 Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
(FCIC)proposes to replace the provisions currently found at 7 CFR 457.107 with a new Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions. The intended effect of this action is to provide policy changes, and clarify existing policy provisions to better meet the needs of insureds and to restrict the effect of the current Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions to the 2007 and prior crop years. DATES: Written comments and opinions on this proposed rule will be accepted until close of business November 27, 2006 and will be considered when the rule is to be made final. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments, titled “Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions”, by any of the following methods: • *By Mail to:* Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0812, Room 421, Kansas City, MO 64133-4676. • *E-mail: DirectorPDD@rma.usda.gov.* • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. A copy of each response will be available for public inspection from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., c.s.t. Monday through Friday except holidays at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Klein, Risk Management Specialist, Product Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, at the Kansas City, MO, address listed above, telephone
(816)926-7730. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that this rule is not significant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been previously approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053 through November 30, 2007. E-Government Act Compliance FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Regulatory Flexibility Act FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees, and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure small entities are given the same opportunities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities and therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). Federal Assistance Program This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 or 7 CFR part 400, subpart J for the informal administrative review process of good farming practices as applicable, must be exhausted before any action against FCIC may be brought. Environmental Evaluation This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, and safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed. Background FCIC proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.107 (Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions) to clarify existing policy provisions and to improve the program for producers by making the program dates consistent with the Nursery Crop Provisions; adding “other diseases, if specified in the Special Provisions,” as a cause of loss; and making other policy modifications to better meet the needs of insureds. The proposed changes are as follows: 1. *Section 1—Definitions* —FCIC is proposing to revise the definition “ *amount of insurance (per acre)* ” to clarify that the Reference Maximum Dollar Amount of Insurance shown on the actuarial documents is specified by fruit type and age of trees. Different citrus fruit types have different values and the age of the fruit tree has an impact on its ability to produce the fruit. The different amounts of insurance reflect the different values for insurable fruit. FCIC is proposing to revise the definition of “ *box* ” to allow FCIC to make the determination if the situation ever arises where the information is not contained in the State of Florida Citrus Fruit Laws. FCIC is also proposing to revise the definition “ *citrus fruit type* ” to “ *citrus fruit crop* ,” and redesignated the crops from “ *Type* ” to “ *Citrus.* ” A term “ *Citrus Fruit Crop Type (Fruit Type)* ” is also added. These changes are necessary because what was previously designated as a citrus fruit type is further broken down into the individual citrus fruits for the purposes of determining the amount of insurance. Since insurance is now provided by category of citrus, it makes more sense to refer to the categories as citrus crops and the individual citrus fruits as types, under a citrus crop. FCIC is also proposing to add a new category to allow additional citrus fruit crops to be designated in the Special Provisions to be consistent with section 3(a). FCIC is proposing to move Navel Oranges from Citrus IV to a new crop “ *Citrus VIII—Navel Oranges* ,” because producers have requested navel oranges be designated as a separate crop since navel oranges as a citrus fruit type do not fit well within a crop that includes tangelos and tangerines. Also, FCIC is proposing to revise the definition of “ *potential production* ” to move those provisions regarding undamaged potential production previously contained in section 10(b)(2)(i) through
(iii)to the definition of potential production because potential production was intended to include all production from the unit, whether damaged or undamaged. This change will place all the provisions in one place and eliminate a potential conflict between potential production and undamaged potential production, because the production used to determine the percent of damage must include all production, including lost and damaged production, to avoid skewing the percent of damage. FCIC is also revising the definition to ensure the amount of potential production is converted to boxes so that the calculation of the percentage of damage uses the same basis for the damaged and potential production. FCIC is proposing to add definitions for the terms “ *scion* ” and “ *top worked* ” because the term “ *top worked* ” is now used in section 6 and the term “ *scion* ” is used in the definition of “ *top worked* ” to define the criteria for a tree to be considered “ *top worked.* ” FCIC is proposing to remove the terms “ *good farming practices* ” and “ *interplanted* ” because these terms are defined in the Common Crop Insurance Policy, Basic Provisions and no changes to these definitions are required for the purpose of insurance for Florida citrus fruit. 2. *Section 3* —FCIC is proposing to move the sales closing date from April 30 to May 1 in the Special Provisions to be consistent with the Florida Fruit Tree pilot crop insurance policy and the Nursery Crop Provisions. These crops are all grown in the same areas of Florida and are subject to the same perils so it would greatly ease the administration of these policies to have their terms and conditions be the same where practical. FCIC is also proposing to add provisions for carryover policies providing that for the 2008 and succeeding crop years, coverage changes must be requested on or before the May 1 sales closing date and that such charges will take effect on June 1 unless a loss occurs prior to May 31. FCIC has also added provisions to specify that if the request for increased coverage is rejected the previous year's coverage will remain in effect. This change prevents producers from increasing their coverage levels when they have information that a potential cause of loss is likely to occur. Premium rating depends on the fact causes of loss are random and the producer will not have any more information regarding the probability of a cause of loss than the person calculating the rates. This thirty day window before the changes take effect will effectively eliminate the possibility of producer's forecasting disasters and adversely affecting program integrity, while still providing insureds with a specific time frame, that unless notified otherwise, their requested changes will become effective. Again, this makes Florida Citrus Fruit crop insurance policy requirements consistent with Nursery Crop Provisions and the Florida Fruit Tree Pilot crop insurance policies for ease of administration. 3. *Section 4* —FCIC is proposing to move the contract change date to January 31, preceding the cancellation date. Previously the contract change date was March 15, but with an April 30 sales closing date, it was believed that this was too short of a period of time for approved insurance providers to fully disseminate information so producers could make informed buying decisions. RMA believes the proposed 3-month period between January 31 and May 1 is adequate time for approved insurance providers to timely familiarize themselves with program changes, modify automated systems if necessary, and train sales agents and loss adjustment personnel. Additionally, this makes the Florida Citrus Fruit crop insurance policy requirements consistent with the Nursery Crop Provisions and Florida Fruit Tree Pilot crop insurance policies for ease of administration. 4. *Section 5* —FCIC is proposing to move the cancellation and termination dates from April 30 to May 31. This makes the Florida Citrus Fruit crop insurance policy requirements consistent with the Nursery Crop Provisions and Florida Fruit Tree Pilot crop insurance policies for ease of administration. 5. *Section 6* —FCIC is proposing to add provisions to specify when the first year after set out can be considered a growing season. Previously there has been confusion whether the year of set out is considered the first growing season and the provision now clarifies that such year is only considered a growing season if the set out occurred before May 1. FCIC is also proposing to specify that if any citrus fruit is damaged prior to the start of the insurance period, the amount of insurance will be reduced commensurate with the amount of damage. This will ensure that the policy only indemnifies losses that occur during the insurance period. As stated above, FCIC also proposes to add provisions regarding the insurability of citrus fruit produced on trees that have been top worked. Such trees are not insurable until the third crop year after top working. 6. *Section 7* —FCIC is proposing to add provisions to clarify acreage for interplanted crops will be prorated according to the insurable land acres occupied by the crops interplanted, and that insured land acreage cannot exceed the physical land acreage. These provisions were added in response to questions RMA has received regarding acreage determination when trees are interplanted 7. *Section 8* —FCIC is proposing to modify provisions to specify insurance attaches on June 1, including requests to increase coverage, beginning with the 2008 crop year, unless the approved insurance provider inspects the acreage and determines it does not meet the insurability requirements contained in the policy or a damage occurred prior to the start of the insurance period. This thirty day window before coverage attaches will ensure that producers do not obtain insurance just because they have information that an insurable cause of loss is likely to occur. This makes the Florida Citrus Fruit crop insurance policy requirements consistent with the Nursery and Florida Fruit Tree Pilot crop insurance policies for ease in administration. FCIC also proposes to modify the provisions to move the calendar date for the end of the insurance period for tangelos from April 30 to January 31 for Orlando Tangelos and February 28 for all other tangelos; to March 31 for Mid Season and Temple Oranges, and to April 30 for Murcott Honey Oranges. The revised dates more accurately reflect the maturity dates for these fruit types. 8. *Section 9* —FCIC is proposing to add diseases as a cause of loss if specified in the Special Provisions. This allows RMA to respond more rapidly to diseases affecting citrus fruit when it is determined feasible and appropriate to provide insurance coverage for an existing or new disease. 9. *Section 10* —FCIC is proposing to remove provisions addressing citrus fruit considered undamaged potential production and placed it more appropriately under the definition of “ *potential production* ” in section 1. As stated above, there was previously a potential conflict between the definition of potential production and undamaged potential production and placing all the provisions in the definition removes any potential conflict. FCIC has also replaced the designation of “ *Type* ” with “ *Citru* s” to be consistent with previous revisions. FCIC is proposing to clarify damage to fresh fruit is determined on an individual fruit-by-fruit basis and then converted to boxes so that the number of boxes of damaged citrus fruit can be compared to the number of boxes of potential production to obtain the percent of damage. Calculating damage based on the individual citrus fruit prevents the confusion of considering damage on a “ *lot* ” basis, *i.e.* a load or other container of fresh fruit, especially when the lot is rejected, even though there may be a significant amount of undamaged fresh fruit in the lot. FCIC is also proposing to add provisions to specify fresh fruit types damaged by wind caused by a hurricane or tornado that do not meet the standard for packing as fresh fruit will be considered 100 percent damaged. RMA considered adding Asiatic Citrus Canker
(ACC)as a cause of loss, based on requests from growers and grower groups. However, due to the significant spread of ACC resulting from numerous hurricanes over the last several years, the citrus industry is transitioning away from an ACC eradication program to various measures and initiatives aimed at management of the disease. Before RMA can determine whether an insurance program can be developed to address fruit production losses due to ACC, the ACC situation needs to stabilize. This would include agreed upon rules and regulations, consistent inspection and verification processes, and agreed upon measures to be carried out when ACC is discovered. Once an effective ACC management plan is implemented, RMA is willing to consider insurance coverage for loss of fruit production due to ACC. RMA seeks input or comments regarding potential ACC coverage on fruit, key features to cover, and potential pitfalls or other aspects of ACC's affect on fruit that must be considered. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 Crop insurance, Florida citrus fruit. Proposed Rule Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 7 CFR part 457, Common Crop Insurance Regulations effective for the 2008 and succeeding crop years, to read as follows: PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p). 2. Section 457.107 is revised to read as follows: §457.107 Florida citrus fruit crop insurance provisions. The Florida citrus fruit crop insurance provisions for the 2008 and succeeding crop years are as follows: 1. Definitions *Amount of insurance (per acre).* The dollar amount determined by multiplying the Reference Maximum Dollar Amount shown on the actuarial documents for each fruit type and age of trees, within a citrus fruit crop, times the coverage level percent that you elect, times your share. *Box.* A standard field box as prescribed in the State of Florida Citrus Fruit Laws or contained in standards issued by FCIC. *Citrus fruit crop.* Any of the following:
(1)Citrus I—Early and mid-season oranges;
(2)Citrus II—Late oranges juice;
(3)Citrus III—Grapefruit for which freeze damage will be adjusted on a juice basis;
(4)Citrus IV—Tangelos and Tangerines;
(5)Citrus V—Murcott Honey Oranges (also known as Honey Tangerines) and Temple Oranges;
(6)Citrus VI—Lemons and Limes;
(7)Citrus VII—Grapefruit for which freeze damage will be adjusted on a fresh fruit basis, and late oranges fresh;
(8)Citrus VIII—Navel Oranges; and
(9)Any other citrus fruit crop designated in the Special Provisions. *Citrus fruit crop type (fruit type).* Any of the separate citrus fruit listed in the actuarial documents and contained within one of the citrus fruit crops shown as Roman Numerals I through VIII. *Freeze.* The formation of ice in the cells of the fruit caused by low air temperatures. *Harvest.* The severance of mature citrus fruit from the tree by pulling, picking, shaking, or any other means, or collecting the marketable citrus fruit from the ground. *Hurricane.* A windstorm classified by the U.S. Weather Service as a hurricane. *Potential production.* The amount, converted to boxes, of citrus fruit that would have been produced had damage not occurred, including citrus fruit that:
(1)Was harvested before damage occurred;
(2)Remained on the tree after damage occurred;
(3)Was lost or damaged from either an insured or uninsured cause;
(4)Was marketed or could be marketed as fresh citrus fruit;
(5)Was harvested prior to inspection by us; or
(6)Was harvested within 7 days after a freeze; But not including citrus fruit that:
(1)Was lost before insurance attached for any crop year;
(2)Was lost by normal dropping; or
(3)Any tangerines that normally would not meet the 210 pack size (2 and 4/16 inch minimum diameter) under United States Standards by the end of the insurance period for tangerines. *Scion.* A detached living portion of a plant joined to a stock in grafting. *Top worked.* A buckhorned citrus tree with a new scion grafted onto the interstock. 2. Unit Division
(a)A basic unit, as defined in section 1 of the Basic Provisions, will be divided into additional basic units by each citrus fruit crop designated in the Special Provisions.
(b)Provisions in the Basic Provisions that allow optional units by irrigated and non-irrigated practices are not applicable.
(c)In addition to establishing optional units by section, section equivalent, or FSA farm serial number, optional units may be established if each optional unit is located on non-contiguous land. 3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities In addition to the requirements of section 3 of the Basic Provisions:
(a)You may select only one coverage level for each citrus fruit crop shown in section 1 of these Crop Provisions, or designated in the Special Provisions, that you elect to insure. If different amounts of insurance are available for fruit types within a citrus fruit crop, you must select the same coverage level for each fruit type. For example, if you choose the 75 percent coverage level for one fruit type, you must also choose the 75 percent coverage level for all other fruit types within that citrus fruit crop.
(b)In lieu of the production reporting date contained in section 3 of the Basic Provisions, potential production for each unit will be determined during loss adjustment.
(c)For the first year of insurance for acreage interplanted with another citrus fruit crop, and anytime the planting pattern of such acreage is changed, you must report, by the sales closing date, the following:
(1)The age and fruit type of the interplanted citrus trees, as applicable;
(2)The planting pattern; and
(3)Any other information we request in order to establish your amount of insurance.
(d)We will reduce acreage or the amount of insurance or both, as necessary, based on our estimate of the effect of the interplanted citrus fruit trees on the insured citrus fruit crop. If you fail to notify us of any circumstance that may reduce the acreage or amount of insurance, we will reduce the acreage or amount of insurance or both as necessary any time we become aware of the circumstance.
(e)For carryover policies:
(1)For the 2008 and succeeding crop years, any changes to your coverage must be requested on or before the sales closing date;
(2)Requested changes will take effect on June 1, the first day of the crop year unless we reject the requested increase because a loss occurs on or before May 31 (Rejection can occur at any time we discover a loss has occurred on or before May 31); and
(3)If the increase is rejected, coverage will remain at the same level as the previous crop year.
(f)If your citrus fruit was damaged prior to the beginning of the insurance period, your amount of insurance (per acre) will be reduced by the amount of damage that occurred. 4. Contract Changes In accordance with section 4 of the Basic Provisions, the contract change date is January 31 preceding the cancellation date. 5. Cancellation and Termination Dates In accordance with section 2 of the Basic Provisions, the cancellation and termination dates are May 31. 6. Insured Crop
(a)In accordance with section 8 of the Basic Provisions, the crop insured will be all acreage of each citrus fruit crop that you elect to insure, in which you have a share, that is grown in the county shown on the application, and for which a premium rate is quoted in the actuarial documents.
(b)In addition to the citrus fruit not insurable in section 8 of the Basic Provisions, we do not insure any citrus fruit:
(1)That cannot be expected to mature each crop year within the normal maturity period for the fruit type;
(2)Produced by citrus trees that have not reached the fifth growing season after being set out, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions or by a written agreement to insure such citrus fruit (In order for the year of set out to be considered as a growing season, citrus trees must be set out on or before May 1 of the calendar year);
(3)Of “Meyer Lemons” and oranges commonly known as “Sour Oranges” or “Clementines”;
(4)Of the Robinson tangerine variety, for any crop year in which you have elected to exclude such tangerines from insurance (You must elect this exclusion prior to the crop year for which the exclusion is to be effective, except that for the first crop year you must elect this exclusion by the later of the sales closing date or the time you submit the application for insurance); or
(5)That is produced on citrus trees that have been topworked until the third crop year after topworking. The Special Provisions will specify the appropriate rate class for trees insurable following topworking, but that have not reached full production.
(c)Prior to the date insurance attaches, and upon our approval, you may elect to insure or exclude from insurance any insurable citrus acreage that has a potential production of less than 100 boxes per acre. If you elect to:
(1)Insure such acreage, we will consider the potential production to be 100 boxes per acre when determining the amount of loss; or
(2)Exclude such acreage, we will disregard the acreage for all purposes related to this policy.
(d)In addition to the provisions in Section 6 of the Basic Provisions, if you fail to notify us of your election to insure or exclude citrus acreage, and the potential production from such acreage is 100 or more boxes per acre, we will determine the percent of damage on all of the insurable acreage for the unit, but will not allow the percent of damage for the unit to be increased by including such acreage. 7. Insurable Acreage In lieu of the provisions in section 9 of the Basic Provisions, that prohibit insurance attaching to a crop planted with another crop:
(a)Citrus fruit from trees interplanted with another crop is insurable unless we inspect the acreage and determine it does not meet the requirements contained in your policy.
(b)If the citrus fruit is from trees interplanted with another crop, acreage will be prorated according to the percentage of the acres occupied by each of the interplanted crops (For example, if grapefruit have been interplanted with oranges on 100 acres and the grapefruit trees are on 50 percent of the acreage, grapefruit will be considered planted on 50 acres and oranges will be considered planted on 50 acres).
(c)The combination of the citrus fruit acreage and the interplanted crop acreage cannot exceed the physical amount of acreage. 8. Insurance Period
(a)In accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Basic Provisions:
(1)Coverage begins on June 1 of each crop year, beginning with the 2008 crop year, unless:
(i)We inspect the acreage and determine it does not meet the requirements for insurability contained in your policy (You must provide any information we require for the crop, so we may determine the condition of the grove to be insured); or
(ii)You report additional citrus acreage, or a greater share, such that the amount of insurance will increase by more than 10 percent and we notify you all or a part of your citrus acreage is not insurable.
(2)The calendar date for the end of the insurance period for each crop year is:
(i)January 31 for early and navel oranges, Orlando tangelos and tangerines;
(ii)February 28 for all other tangelos;
(iii)March 31 for mid-season and temple oranges;
(iv)April 30 for lemons, limes, and murcott honey oranges; and
(v)June 30 for grapefruit and late season oranges.
(b)In addition to the provisions of section 11 of the Basic Provisions:
(1)If you acquire an insurable share in any insurable acreage of citrus fruit after coverage begins, but on or before acreage reporting date of any crop year, and if after inspection we consider the acreage acceptable, then insurance will be considered to have attached to such acreage on the calendar date for the beginning of the insurance period.
(2)If you relinquish your insurable share on any insurable acreage of citrus fruit on or before the acreage reporting date of any crop year, insurance will not be considered to have attached, no premium will be due, and no indemnity payable, for such acreage for that crop year unless:
(i)A transfer of coverage and right to an indemnity, or a similar form approved by us, is completed by all affected parties;
(ii)We are notified by you or the transferee in writing of such transfer on or before the acreage reporting date; and
(iii)The transferee is eligible for crop insurance. 9. Causes of Loss
(a)In accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Basic Provisions, insurance is provided only against the following causes of loss to citrus fruit that occur within the insurance period:
(1)Fire, unless weeds and other forms of undergrowth have not been controlled or pruning debris has not been removed from the grove;
(2)Freeze;
(3)Hail;
(4)Hurricane;
(5)Tornado; or
(6)Diseases, only if specified in the Special Provisions.
(b)In addition to the causes of loss excluded in section 12 of the Basic Provisions, we will not insure against damage or loss of production due to:
(1)Damage to the blossoms or trees; or
(2)Inability to market the citrus fruit for any reason other than actual physical damage from an insurable cause specified in this section. For example, we will not pay you an indemnity if you are unable to market due to quarantine, boycott, or refusal of any person to accept production. 10. Settlement of Claim
(a)We will determine your loss on a unit basis. In the event you are unable to provide separate acceptable production records:
(1)For any optional units, we will combine all optional units for which such production records were not provided; or
(2)For any basic units, we will allocate any commingled production to such units in proportion to our liability on the harvested acreage for the units.
(b)If any citrus fruit within a unit is damaged by an insurable cause of loss, we will settle your claim by:
(1)Calculating the amount of insurance for the unit by multiplying the number of acres by the respective dollar amount of insurance per acre for the fruit type and multiplying that result by your share;
(2)Calculating the average percent of damage to the citrus fruit within each respective fruit type, rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent (0.1%) (The percent of damage will be the amount of damaged citrus fruit, converted to boxes, damaged from an insured cause, divided by the undamaged potential production);
(3)Subtracting the deductible from the result of section (10)(b)(2); and
(4)If the result of section (10)(b)(3) is positive, dividing this result by the coverage level percentage;
(5)Multiplying the result of section (10)(b)(4) by the amount of insurance for the unit for the respective fruit type, to determine the value of all damage.
(6)Totaling all such results of section (10)(b)(5) for all fruit types and subtracting any indemnities paid for the current crop year to determine the amount payable for the unit. (For example, assume a unit sustains late season damage on the 55 acres. No previous damage has occurred on the 55 acres during the crop year and no fruit has been harvested. The producer elects the 75 percent coverage level and has a 100 percent share. The amount of insurance is $1,180 per acre, based on the 75 percent coverage level for the citrus type and age of trees. The amount of potential production is 24,530 boxes and the amount of damaged production is 17,171 boxes. The loss would be calculated as follows: 1. 55 acres × $1,180 = $64,900 amount of insurance for the unit; 2. 17,171 ÷ 24,530 = 70 percent average percent of damage; 3. 70 percent damage−25 percent deductible (100 percent−75 percent) = 45 percent; 4. 45 percent ÷ 75 percent = 60 percent adjusted damage; and 5. 60 percent × $64,900 = $38,940 indemnity.
(c)Citrus fruit crops IV, V, VII, and VIII, that are seriously damaged by freeze, as determined by a fresh-fruit cut of a representative sample of fruit in the unit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the State of Florida Citrus Fruit Laws, or contained in standards issued by FCIC, and that are not or could not be marketed as fresh fruit, will be considered damaged to the following extent:
(1)If less than 16 percent of the fruit in a sample shows serious freeze damage, the fruit will be considered undamaged; or
(2)If 16 percent or more of the fruit in a sample shows serious freeze damage, the fruit will be considered 50 percent damaged, except that:
(i)For tangerines of Citrus IV, damage in excess of 50 percent will be the actual percent of damaged fruit; and
(ii)Citrus IV (except tangerines), V, VII, and VIII, if it is determined that the juice loss in the fruit exceeds 50 percent, such percent will be considered the percent of damage.
(d)Notwithstanding the provisions of section 10(c) of these crop provisions as to citrus fruit of Citrus IV, V, VII, and VIII, in any unit that is mechanically separated using the specific-gravity (floatation) method into undamaged and freeze-damaged fruit, the amount of damage will be the actual percent of freeze-damaged fruit not to exceed 50 percent and will not be affected by subsequent fresh-fruit marketing. However, the 50 percent limitation on mechanically separated, freeze-damaged fruit will not apply to tangerines of Citrus IV.
(e)Any citrus fruit of Citrus I, II, III, and VI damaged by freeze, but that can be processed into products for human consumption, will be considered as marketable for juice. The percent of damage will be determined by relating the juice content of the damaged fruit to:
(1)The average juice content of the fruit produced on the unit for the three previous crop years based on your records, if they are acceptable to us; or
(2)The following juice content, if acceptable records are not furnished:
(i)Citrus I—52 pounds of juice per box;
(ii)Citrus II—54 pounds of juice per box;
(iii)Citrus III—45 pounds of juice per box; and
(iv)Citrus VI—43 pounds of juice per box;
(f)Any individual citrus fruit on the ground that is not collected and marketed will be considered as 100 percent damaged if the damage was due to an insured cause.
(g)Any individual citrus fruit that is unmarketable either as fresh fruit or as juice because it is immature, unwholesome, decomposed, adulterated, or otherwise unfit for human consumption due to an insured cause will be considered as 100 percent damaged.
(h)Individual citrus fruit of Citrus IV, V, VII, and VIII, that are unmarketable as fresh fruit due to serious damage from hail as defined in the applicable United States Standards for Grades of Florida fruit, or wind damage from a hurricane or tornado that results in the fruit not meeting the standards for packing as fresh fruit, will be considered 100 percent damaged. 11. Late and Prevented Planting The late and prevented planting provisions of the Basic Provisions are not applicable. Signed in Washington, DC, on September 29, 2006. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-16635 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26051; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-154-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26051; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-154-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the airworthiness authority for the European Union, has issued Airworthiness Directive 2006-0153, dated May 30, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that an operator reported black smoke at the rear of the fuselage during taxi after landing. The smoke was caused by a fire in the auxiliary power unit
(APU)air intake. Analysis has demonstrated that following numerous unsuccessful APU start attempts in flight, there is a risk of reverse flow, leading to flame propagation to the APU air inlet and air intake duct. If this zone is contaminated, a fire may be initiated. The flightcrew operating manual limits the number of APU start attempts as follows: After three starter motor duty cycles, wait 60 minutes before attempting three more cycles. The MCAI mandates repetitive inspections of the APU starter motor, APU inlet plenum, and APU air intake, as well as repetitive cleaning of the APU air intake; and applicable corrective actions. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, Revision 01, dated February 2, 2006. The applicable corrective actions include replacement of the APU starter motor, if necessary. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 675 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $210,240, or $320 per product. 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 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 this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26051; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-154-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by November 13, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320 and A321 aircraft, all certified models, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Reason
(d)An operator reported black smoke at the rear of the fuselage during taxi after landing. The smoke was caused by a fire in the auxiliary power unit
(APU)air intake. Analysis has demonstrated that following numerous unsuccessful APU start attempts in flight, there is a risk of reverse flow, leading to flame propagation to the APU air inlet and air intake duct. If this zone is contaminated, a fire may be initiated. The flightcrew operating manual limits the number of APU start attempts as follows: After three starter motor duty cycles, wait 60 minutes before attempting three more cycles. The MCAI mandates repetitive inspections of the APU starter motor, APU inlet plenum, and APU air intake, as well as repetitive cleaning of the APU air intake; and applicable corrective actions. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions except as stated in paragraph
(f)below.
(1)Within the next 600 flight hours following the effective date of this AD: Inspect the APU starter motor, APU air inlet plenum, and APU air intake, and do the applicable corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, Revision 01, dated February 2, 2006.
(2)Repeat the inspection per above paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, at intervals not exceeding 600 flight hours.
(3)Prior to the accumulation of 2,400 flight hours since the aircraft's first flight, or within the next 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, dated June 2, 2005: Clean the APU air intake in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, Revision 01, dated February 2, 2006.
(4)Repeat the cleaning task per above paragraph (e)(3) of this AD, at intervals not exceeding 2,400 flight hours. FAA AD Differences
(f)None. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149, if requested, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Notification of Principal Inspector:* Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(3)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(4)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0153, dated May 30, 2006, which references Airbus Service Bulletin A320-49-1068, Revision 01, dated February 2, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 4, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-17006 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26048; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-191-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 certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing certain attaching hardware of the bulkhead nipple assemblies of the left and right wing vent boxes with new electrical bonding attaching hardware, doing resistance testing of the new electrical bonds, and doing fuel leakage testing of the reworked nipple assemblies. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to provide a conductive path, from the bulkhead nipple assemblies of the left and right wing vent boxes to the airframe structure inside the wing fuel tanks, to dissipate high amperage lightning-induced currents which might otherwise create an ignition source for fuel vapors inside the wing vent boxes and lead to an explosion of the fuel tanks. 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. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5262; 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 in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26048; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-191-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. We have received a report indicating that a fuel system review of McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes revealed that no electrical bonding exists between the nipple assemblies of the left and right wing vent boxes and the bulkhead. This condition, if not corrected, could result in high amperage lightning-induced currents at the bulkhead nipple assemblies of the left and right wing vent boxes, which might create an ignition source for fuel vapors inside the wing vent boxes and lead to an explosion of the fuel tanks. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0011, Revision 2, dated July 19, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing certain attaching hardware of the nipple assemblies of the left and right wing vent boxes with new electrical bonding attaching hardware; doing resistance testing of the new electrical bonds; and doing fuel leakage testing of the reworked nipple assemblies. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0011, Revision 2, recommends a compliance time “not to exceed 10 years from the release date of Revision 1 of this service bulletin.” However, we have determined that, due to the nature of the unsafe condition, 78 months after the effective date of this proposed AD is the appropriate compliance time. We have coordinated this difference with Boeing. Costs of Compliance There are about 138 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 108 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 6 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The manufacturer states that it will supply required parts to the operators at no cost. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $51,840, or $480 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): **McDonnell Douglas** : Docket No. FAA-2006-26048; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-191-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 27, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0011, Revision 2, dated July 19, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to provide a conductive path, from the bulkhead nipple assemblies of the left and right wing vent boxes to the airframe structure inside the wing fuel tanks, to dissipate high amperage lightning-induced currents, which might otherwise create an ignition source for fuel vapors inside the wing vent boxes and lead to an explosion of the fuel tanks. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Installing Electrical Bonding, and Resistance and Fuel Leakage Testing
(f)Within 78 months after the effective date of this AD, replace certain attaching hardware of the bulkhead nipple assemblies of the left and right wing vent boxes with new electrical bonding attaching hardware, do resistance testing of the new electrical bonds, and do fuel leakage testing of the reworked nipple assemblies; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0011, Revision 2, dated July 19, 2006. Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(g)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0011, Revision 1, dated January 24, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has, 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. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 3, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-17004 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26049; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-177-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) Airplanes; Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F Airplanes Equipped With Pratt & Whitney JT9-20 or JT9-20J Engines; and Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F 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 the McDonnell Douglas airplanes previously described. This proposed AD would require replacing the control modules of the fire detection systems of the propulsion engines with new, improved control modules. This proposed AD results from a report of broken or severed wiring between engine fire detectors and the fire detection system control module, which caused the fire detection system to become non-functional without flightcrew awareness. We are proposing this AD to prevent unannunciated fire in a propulsion engine, which could cause injury to flightcrew and passengers or loss of the airplane. 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. • *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 Meggitt Safety Systems Inc., 1915 Voyager Avenue, Simi Valley, California 93063, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5262; 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 in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26049; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-177-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that an unsafe condition may exist on all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes; Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney JT9-20 or JT9-20J engines; and all Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes. The report stated that a Model DC-10-10F airplane experienced an undetected, uncontained engine failure upon takeoff, which severed the wiring between the engine fire detectors and the fire detection system control module. As the fire detection system control module was not designed to register wiring or component failures when not in test mode, the fire detection system became non-functional without flightcrew awareness. Upon landing, the flightcrew employed the thrust reversers for all engines, which caused an unannunciated fire in the failed engine that required ground support to extinguish. A fire detection system not known to be malfunctioning could, if not repaired, result in unannunciated fire in a propulsion engine, which could cause injury to flightcrew and passengers or loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 2, dated August 15, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the fire detection system control modules of the main propulsion engines and auxiliary power unit
(APU)with new, improved control modules. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.” Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Bulletin The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the control modules of the fire detection systems of the propulsion engines and of the APU. However, we have determined that mandating replacement of the control module of the fire detection system of the APU is not critical to fleet safety. Therefore, this proposed AD would not require this action. The service bulletin does not specify a compliance time for accomplishing the described actions. However, we have determined that a compliance time of 60 months after the effective date of this proposed AD would provide an appropriate amount of time to accomplish the actions while maintaining an adequate level of fleet safety. We have coordinated these differences with Boeing. Costs of Compliance There are about 305 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 233 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 6 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $9,900 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $2,418,540, or $10,380 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): **McDonnell Douglas** : Docket No. FAA-2006-26049; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-177-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 27, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas airplanes, certificated in any category; as specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1)All Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes;
(2)Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney JT9-20 or JT9-20J engines; and
(3)All Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of broken or severed wiring between engine fire detectors and the fire detection system control module, which caused the fire detection system to become non-functional without flightcrew awareness. We are issuing this AD to prevent unannunciated fire in a propulsion engine, which could cause injury to flightcrew and passengers or loss 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. Control Module Replacement
(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the control modules of the fire detection systems of the propulsion engines with new, improved control modules, in accordance with paragraph 2., “Main Engine Control Module Replacement Instructions,” of Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 2, dated August 15, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 3, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-17003 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26050; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-078-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series 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 Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM)to advise the flightcrew of appropriate procedures to follow in the event that a main landing gear
(MLG)fails to extend following a gear-down selection. The existing AD also currently requires repetitive replacement of the left and right MLG uplock assemblies with new assemblies; and an inspection of the left and right MLG uplock rollers for the presence of an inner low friction liner, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would revise the requirement for replacing the left and right MLG uplock assemblies by allowing replacement with alternative parts. For a certain MLG uplock assembly, this proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the uplock hatch lower jaw for the presence of a wear groove and replacement with an improved part if necessary. For a certain MLG uplock assembly, this proposed AD also would require repetitive inspections of the uplock roller to ensure that it rotates freely and replacement with a new part if necessary. This proposed AD would allow optional replacement of the left and right MLG uplock assemblies with improved parts, which ends the requirements of the AFM revision and repetitive replacement and inspections. This proposed AD would remove airplanes from the applicability. This proposed AD results from development of a terminating action. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the procedures necessary to address failure of an MLG to extend following a gear-down selection; and to detect and correct such failure, which could result in a gear-up landing and possible injury to passengers and crew. 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., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ezra Sasson, 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)228-7320; 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 “Docket No. FAA-2006-26050; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-078-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, *etc* .). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On April 11, 2002, we issued AD 2002-08-05, amendment 39-12713 (67 FR 19101, April 18, 2002), for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. That AD requires revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM)to advise the flightcrew of appropriate procedures to follow in the event that a main landing gear
(MLG)fails to extend following a gear-down selection. That AD also requires repetitive replacement of the left and right MLG uplock assemblies (part number (P/N) 46500-3) with new assemblies; and an inspection of the left and right MLG uplock rollers for the presence of an inner low friction liner, and corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from an in-flight incident where the flightcrew had difficulties in extending the right MLG following a gear-down selection. We issued that AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the procedures necessary to address failure of an MLG to extend following a gear-down selection; and to detect and correct such failure, which could result in a gear-up landing and possible injury to passengers and crew. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued In the preamble to AD 2002-08-05, we specified that the actions required by that AD were considered “interim action” and that the manufacturer was developing a modification to address the unsafe condition. We indicated that we may consider further rulemaking action once the modification was developed, approved, and available. The manufacturer now has developed such a modification, and we have determined that further rulemaking action is indeed necessary; this proposed AD follows from that determination. Since we issued AD 2002-08-05, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has issued Canadian airworthiness directives CF-2002-13R1, dated November 20, 2002, and CF-2002-13R2, dated May 19, 2005. (Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13, dated February 4, 2002, parallels AD 2002-08-05.) Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R1 introduced a new, modified uplock assembly, P/N 46500-5, as a replacement alternative to P/N 46500-3, which is no longer in production. Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R1 also mandated repetitive replacement of P/N 46500-5, since it is similar in design to P/N 46500-3 and, therefore, subject to the same failure. Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2 supersedes Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R1. Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2 revises the requirement for P/N 46500-5 by mandating repetitive inspections of P/N 46500-5 and its corresponding uplock roller, instead of repetitive replacement. Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2 also introduces a new, improved uplock assembly, P/N 46500-7. The repetitive replacement of P/N 46500-3 and the repetitive inspections of P/N 46500-5 and corresponding uplock roller are terminated by replacement with P/N 46500-7. Also, Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2 removes airplanes that have been modified in production from the applicability. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Bombardier Temporary Revision
(TR)32-191 and TR 32-192, both dated May 29, 2006, to the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), PSM 1-84-2. TR 32-191 describes procedures for removing an uplock roller from the MLG uplock assembly. TR 32-192 describes procedures for installing an uplock roller in the MLG uplock assembly. TCCA issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2, dated May 19, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2002-08-05 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD; except that this proposed AD would revise the requirement for replacing the left and right MLG uplock assemblies by allowing replacement with modified or improved uplock assemblies, P/N 46500-5 or -7, respectively. This proposed AD would also require the following actions: • *For MLG uplock assembly, P/N 46500-5:* Repetitive detailed dimensional inspections of the surface of the uplock hatch lower jaw of the MLG uplock assembly for the presence of a wear groove and replacement of the uplock assembly with an improved uplock assembly, P/N 46500-7, if necessary. • *For MLG uplock assembly, P/N 46500-5:* Repetitive general visual inspections of the uplock roller of the MLG uplock assembly to ensure that it rotates freely and replacement of the uplock roller with a new uplock roller if necessary. Also, this proposed AD would allow optional replacement of the left and right MLG uplock assemblies with improved uplock assemblies, P/N 46500-7, which ends the requirements of the AFM revision and repetitive replacement and inspections. This proposed AD also would remove airplanes from the applicability. Difference Between the Proposed AD and Canadian Airworthiness Directive Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2 specifies replacing the uplock roller of a certain MLG uplock assembly in accordance with Chapter 32-31-21 of the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 AMM, PSM 1-84-2, if the uplock roller does not rotate freely. However, Chapter 32-31-21, Revision 20, dated May 5, 2005, of the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 AMM does not include a procedure for accomplishing the replacement. Therefore, this proposed AD would require accomplishing the replacement in accordance with Bombardier TR 32-191 and TR 32-192. We have coordinated this difference with TCCA and Bombardier. Clarification of Compliance Time Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2 specifies replacing the MLG uplock assembly if the wear groove depth of the uplock latch lower jaw exceeds 0.007 inch (in paragraph C.1.). Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2 also specifies replacing the uplock roller if it does not rotate freely (in paragraph C.2.). However, in both cases, Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2 does not explicitly specify the compliance time for accomplishing these actions. This proposed AD would require accomplishing these actions before further flight. Clarification of Inspection Terminology The “inspection” of the uplock roller specified in Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2 is referred to as a “general visual inspection” in this proposed AD. We have included the definition for a general visual inspection as a note in the proposed AD. Change to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2002-08-05. Since AD 2002-08-05 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2002-08-05 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD paragraph
(a)paragraph (f). paragraph
(b)paragraph (g). paragraph
(c)paragraph (h). Note 2 of AD 2002-08-05 was inadvertently misplaced in paragraph (b)(2) instead of paragraph (c)(2) of the existing AD. Accordingly, we have moved Note 2 to paragraph (h)(2) in this proposed AD. Paragraph (c)(2) of AD 2002-08-05 (corresponding to paragraph (h)(2) of this proposed AD) requires replacing an uplock roller if a low friction liner is not present, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier DHC-8 Alert Service Bulletin A84-32-15, dated February 4, 2002. After the effective date of this AD, if the low friction liner is not present, operators must accomplish the replacement in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this proposed AD. We have revised paragraph (h)(2) of this proposed AD accordingly. Explanation of Change to Applicability We have revised the applicability of the proposed AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost AFM revision (required by AD 2002-08-05) 1 None $80 21 $1,680. Replacement of uplock assemblies (required by AD 2002-08-05) 4 No charge $320, per replacement cycle 21 $6,720 per replacement cycle. Inspection of uplock rollers (required by AD 2002-08-05) 1 None $80 21 $1,680. Inspections of uplock assemblies and uplock rollers (new proposed action) 5 None $400 21 $8,400. Terminating action (new proposed action) 4 No charge $320 21 $6,720. 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 39-12713 (67 FR 19101, April 18, 2002) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26050; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-078-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 2002-08-05. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4087 inclusive; equipped with main landing gear
(MLG)uplock assembly part numbers (P/Ns) 46500-3 and -5. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from development of a terminating action. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the procedures necessary to address failure of an MLG to extend following a gear-down selection; and to detect and correct such failure, which could result in a gear-up landing and possible injury to passengers and crew. 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. Requirements of AD 2002-08-05 Revision of FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual
(f)Within 3 days after April 23, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-08-05), amend all copies of the FAA-approved Bombardier Series 400 AFM, PSM 1-84-1A (for Models 400, 401, and 402), by adding the following procedure to the Limitations section of the AFM and opposite page 4-21-1 of the AFM; and advise all flightcrew members of these changes. (The revision may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the Limitations section of the AFM and affected paragraphs of the AFM.): “If ONE main landing gear fails to extend after performing landing gear extension per normal procedures given in paragraph 4.3.7 and alternate extension procedures per paragraph 4.21.1 of the AFM: 1. Visually confirm that the affected gear has not extended and that the associated doors have opened. 2. Ensure No. 2 hydraulic system pressure and quantity are normal and the following landing gear advisory lights are illuminated: selector lever amber, gear green locked down (nose and non-affected main gear), red gear unlocked (affected main gear) and all amber doors open. 3. NOSE L/G RELEASE handle—Return to the stowed position. 4. LANDING GEAR ALTERNATE EXTENSION door—Close fully. 5. MAIN L/G RELEASE handle—Return to the stowed position. 6. LANDING GEAR ALTERNATE RELEASE door—Close fully. 7. LANDING GEAR lever—DN. 8. L/G DOWN SELECT INHIBIT SW—Normal and guarded. Check amber doors open advisory lights out (nose and non-affected main gear) and LDG GEAR INOP caution light out. 9. LANDING GEAR lever—UP Check all gear, door and LANDING GEAR lever advisory lights out. 10. With minimum delay, LANDING GEAR lever—DN. Check 3 green gear locked down advisory lights illuminate, all amber doors open, red gear unlocked and selector lever amber advisory lights out. 11. Items 9 and 10 may be repeated in an effort to achieve 3 gear down and locked. CAUTION Should the LDG GEAR INOP caution light illuminate, or loss of no. 2 hydraulic system pressure or quantity, or any abnormality in landing gear system indication other than those associated with the affected main landing gear be experienced, see paragraph 4.21.1 ALTERNATE LANDING GEAR EXTENSION.” Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph, and after the replacement has been done, the AFM limitation may be removed from the AFM. Replacement of Uplock Assembly with New Replacement Parts and Requirements
(g)At the later of the times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Replace the left and right MLG uplock assemblies, P/N 46500-3, with new or overhauled uplock assemblies having P/N 46500-3, -5, or -7, according to a method approved by either the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA)(or its delegated agent). Using Tasks 32-31-21-000-801 and 32-31-21-400-801 of Chapter 32-31-21 of Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), PSM 1-84-2, is one approved method. For any uplock assembly having P/N 46500-3, repeat the replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours or 3,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier. For any uplock assembly having P/N 46500-5, do the actions required by paragraph
(i)of this AD. Replacing an uplock assembly with a new or overhauled uplock assembly having P/N 46500-7 terminates the requirements of this paragraph, for that uplock assembly only.
(1)Before the accumulation of 2,500 total flight hours or 3,000 total flight cycles on an uplock assembly, whichever occurs earlier; or
(2)Within 14 days after April 23, 2002. One-Time Inspection of MLG Uplock Rollers With Added Inspection Definition
(h)Within 30 days after April 23, 2002, do a general visual inspection of the left and right MLG uplock rollers for the presence of an inner low friction (black-colored) liner, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier DHC-8 Alert Service Bulletin A84-32-15, dated February 4, 2002; and, before further flight, do the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Corrective Actions
(1)If a low friction liner is present, reinstall the existing uplock roller; or install a new uplock roller, P/N 46575-1, having a low friction liner; on the shock strut of the MLG in accordance with the service bulletin.
(2)If a low friction liner is not present, replace the existing uplock roller with a new uplock roller, P/N 46575-1, having a low friction liner, on the shock strut of the MLG in accordance with the service bulletin. After the effective date of this AD, if the low friction liner is not present, replace the uplock roller in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Note 2: Bombardier DHC-8 Alert Service Bulletin A84-32-15, dated February 4, 2002, references Chapter 32-11-01 of Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 AMM, PSM 1-84-2, as an additional source of service information for procedures to replace an MLG uplock roller. New Requirements of This AD Repetitive Inspections and Replacement if Necessary of a Certain Uplock Assembly
(i)For any MLG uplock assembly having P/N 46500-5, do the inspections specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD at the later of the following compliance times: Before the accumulation of 2,500 total flight hours or 3,000 total flight cycles on the uplock assembly, whichever occurs first; or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 total flight hours or 480 total flight cycles, whichever occurs first. Replacement of an uplock assembly in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections of paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, for that uplock assembly only.
(1)Do a detailed dimensional inspection of the surface of the uplock hatch lower jaw for the presence of a wear groove and measure the wear groove depth to an accuracy of 0.001 inch, according to a method approved by either the Manager, New York ACO; or TCCA (or its delegated agent). Using Task 32-31-21-220-801 of the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 AMM, PSM 1-84-2, is one approved method. If the groove depth exceeds 0.007 inch, before further flight, replace the uplock assembly with a new or serviceable uplock assembly, P/N 46500-7, according to a method approved by either the Manager, New York ACO; or TCCA (or its delegated agent). Using Tasks 32-31-21-000-801 and 32-31-21-400-801 of Chapter 32-31-21 of the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 AMM, PSM 1-84-2, is one approved method.
(2)Do a general visual inspection of the uplock roller, P/N 46575-1, of the MLG uplock assembly to ensure that it rotates freely. If the uplock roller does not rotate freely, before further flight, replace the uplock roller with a new uplock roller, P/N 46575-1, in accordance with Bombardier Temporary Revision
(TR)32-191 and Bombardier TR 32-192, both dated May 29, 2006.
(j)When the information in Bombardier TR 32-191 and Bombardier TR 32-192, both dated May 29, 2006, is included in the AMM, the AMM is approved as an acceptable method of compliance for the replacement specified paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Optional Terminating Action for AFM Revision, Repetitive Replacements, and Repetitive Inspections
(k)Replacing the left and right MLG uplock assemblies having P/N 46500-3 or -5 with new or overhauled uplock assemblies having P/N 46500-7 terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and
(i)of this AD, as applicable. After the replacements have been done, the AFM limitation required by paragraph
(f)of this AD may be removed from the AFM. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, New York ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2002-08-05, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Related Information
(m)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-13R2, dated May 19, 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. E6-17005 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 4 RIN 3038-AC33 Electronic Filing of Notices of Exemption and Exclusion Under Part 4 of the Commission's Regulations AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is proposing to amend Commission regulations to require that notices of exemption or exclusion under Part 4 of the Commission's regulations submitted to National Futures Association (“NFA”) be filed electronically. The Commission previously has authorized NFA to receive and to process notices of exemption or exclusion from certain of the Commission's Part 4 regulations. Currently, these notices are filed in paper form with NFA. The Commission is proposing to amend the regulations that require filing of a notice to require that such notice be filed electronically with NFA. The Commission is further proposing that the submission of a notice through NFA's electronic exemption filing system by a person duly authorized to bind the submitter be permitted in lieu of the manual signature currently required by each of these regulations. In addition, the Commission also is proposing technical amendments that would remove the procedure for making filings with the Commission required by Part 4, and revise other sections of Part 4 to refer to filings made with NFA rather than the Commission. Amendments to Commission regulations adopted in 2002 no longer require that any filings under Part 4 be submitted to the Commission; therefore, the regulation specifying the procedure for filing with the Commission is no longer necessary. Further, two sections of Part 4 that refer to filings made with the Commission inadvertently were not amended in 2002 to include corresponding changes indicating that such filings would henceforth be made with NFA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AC33, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *secretary@cftc.gov.* Include “Electronic Filing of Part 4 Exemptions” in the subject line of the message. • Fax:
(202)418-5521. • Mail: Send to Eileen Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington DC 20581. • Courier: Same as Mail above. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.cftc.gov* , including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen R. Chotiner, Futures Trading Specialist, at
(202)418-5467, or Kevin P. Walek, Assistant Director, at
(202)418-5463, Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Electronic mail: *echotiner@cftc.gov* or *kwalek@cftc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Part 4 of the Commission's regulations applies to the operation of commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”). Generally, a person who operates a commodity pool must register as a CPO, 1 and a person who manages clients' trading must register as a CTA. 2 Under Commission Regulation 4.5, certain “otherwise regulated persons” are excluded from the CPO definition. These persons include registered investment companies, banks and trust companies, insurance companies, and fiduciaries of ERISA pension plans. A person who qualifies for the exclusion must file a notice of eligibility with NFA. 3 1 Regulation 4.10(d)(1) defines a pool as “any investment trust, syndicate or similar form of enterprise operated for the purpose of trading commodity interests.” Commission regulations cited to herein are found at 17 CFR Ch. I (2006). 2 The Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) defines a CTA as any person who “for compensation or profit, engages in the business of advising others * * * as to the value of or the advisability of trading in” commodity interests. 7 U.S.C. 1a(6) (2000). 3 NFA is a registered futures association under the Act. 7 U.S.C. 21 (2000). Commission regulations also make certain exemptions from CPO and CTA registration available to persons who meet specified criteria. Regulation 4.13 permits exemption from registration for CPOs that limit their activities to small or family pools; or whose participants are highly sophisticated; or whose pools limit participants to SEC “accredited investors” 4 as that term is defined in the regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and limit trading of commodity interests to a minimum amount specified in the regulation. A notice claiming exemption from registration as a CPO must be filed with NFA. 4 17 CFR 230.501(a) (2006). A CTA is exempt from registration if it meets criteria specified in Regulation 4.14, including: it furnishes trading advice solely to commodity pools for which it is the registered CPO or for which it is exempt from CPO registration; it provides advice solely incidental to the conduct of one of certain businesses or professions listed in the Act or the Commission's regulations; it is registered with the Commission in another capacity and its advice is solely in connection with acting in that other capacity; it does not manage client accounts or provide commodity trading advice based on, or tailored to, the financial positions of particular clients; or it is an SEC-registered investment adviser whose futures advice is incidental to providing securities trading advice to the “otherwise regulated” trading vehicles specified in Regulation 4.5, or to CPOs of pools operated pursuant to the exemptions in Regulations 4.13(a)(3) and (4). A notice must be filed to claim the exemption available to registered investment advisers who meet the criteria set forth in Regulation 4.14(a)(8); the other exemptions from CTA registration are self-executing. 5 5 A statutory exemption from CTA registration exists in Section 4m(1) of the Act for a person who has not had more than 15 clients during a 12-month period and is not otherwise holding itself out as a CTA. 7 U.S.C. 6m (2000). A person who qualifies for this exemption is not required to file a notice claiming the exemption. Registered CPOs are required to provide a disclosure document to prospective participants that includes disclosure of risks and information such as the business backgrounds of persons involved with the pool, investment objectives, fees, conflicts, material litigation, and past performance. The CPO must provide unaudited periodic reports and certified annual reports on the pool's financial operations to the pool's participants. Disclosure documents and annual reports also must be filed with NFA. Further, the CPO is required to make and keep specified books and records for a period of five years, and make them available for inspection by the CFTC, NFA, and the United States Department of Justice. Registered CTAs must provide to prospective participants, and file with NFA, disclosure documents containing information about their trading programs, and must also comply with specified recordkeeping requirements. The Commission has established a simplified regulatory framework for registered CPOs and CTAs who operate or advise pools and accounts whose participants meet the criteria specified in Regulation 4.7. Relief from full compliance with the disclosure, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements is available where, for example, pool participants are CFTC or SEC registrants, “inside employees” of the CPO or CTA, or persons who earn $200,000 annually and who have assets worth at least $2 million. A CPO offering a pool whose futures trading is incidental to its securities trading and is limited to 10 percent of the pool's net assets may claim exemption from some disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping requirements pursuant to Regulation 4.12(b). A person claiming exemption under Regulations 4.7 or 4.12(b) must file a notice with NFA. In a Notice and Order issued in 1997 6 (the “1997 Order”), the Commission authorized NFA to process:
(1)Notices of eligibility for exclusion from the definition of CPO for certain otherwise regulated persons, pursuant to Commission Regulation 4.5;
(2)notices of claim for exemption from certain Part 4 requirements with respect to commodity pools and CTAs whose participants or clients are qualified eligible persons, pursuant to Commission Regulation 4.7;
(3)claims of exemption from certain Part 4 requirements for CPOs with respect to pools that principally trade securities, pursuant to Commission Regulation 4.12(b);
(4)statements of exemption from registration as a CPO, pursuant to Commission Regulation 4.13; and
(5)notices of exemption from registration as a CTA for certain persons registered as an investment adviser, pursuant to Regulation 4.14(a)(8). The Commission also made NFA the custodian of those records. 7 6 62 FR 52088 (October 6, 1997). 7 At the time NFA was authorized to process these notices, Commission regulations required that copies of the notices also be filed with the Commission. In December 2002, the Commission revised its regulations to require that such notices be filed solely with NFA. 67 FR 77409 (December 18, 2002). Currently, these notices are filed with NFA in paper form. NFA's processing includes manual entry of data concerning the notice into NFA's database system, optical scanning of the hard copy filing, review of the notice to ensure that it contains all required information, and follow-up on any notices that are not prepared in accordance with the Part 4 requirements. Between November 1, 1997, when NFA was authorized to process these notices, and July 31, 2006, NFA has received approximately 30,000 notices: 8 These figures represent the number of notices filed with NFA and recorded in its database system. Some of these notices are duplicate filings or were made for entities that may be no longer operating; therefore, these totals are not representative of the number of entities actually operating according to the various exemptions. Notice type Number of filings 8 4.5 5,302 4.7 7,494 4.12(b) 401 4.13 15,629 4.14(a)(8) 952 II. Proposed Amendments By letter dated November 28, 2005, NFA has petitioned the Commission to amend its regulations to require that the notices required under Regulations 4.5, 4.7, 4.12(b), 4.13, and 4.14(a)(8) be filed electronically with NFA, and that submission of a notice by a representative duly authorized to bind the person be permitted in lieu of the manual signature currently specified under each regulation that requires a notice filing. NFA indicated in its petition that although the existing procedures have worked fairly well, mandatory electronic filing will result in a more efficient process for persons claiming an exemption and ensure that NFA's database of such exemption information, which is available to Commission staff, remains accurate and updated and requires less manual resources of NFA staff. Firms that are registered with the Commission in any capacity and non-registrants will both access the electronic filing system through the use of a designated user ID and password. Registered firms will establish access for appropriate staff using the security manager process in place for their existing Online Registration System (“ORS”) accounts, the process that is currently used for registration and other electronic filings with NFA. In order to enable non-registrants, who are not required to have ORS accounts, to file exemption notices, NFA has established a new process that contains similar safeguards regarding the identity of the filers and provides the non-registrant with the ability to establish one or more system users. For both registrants and non-registrants, the person who submits a notice must be a representative duly authorized to bind the submitter. The electronic filing system will allow filers to select the applicable exemption type and complete a form that will provide the information required for the exemption filing. Each form contains a statement by the representative submitting the form that the information contained therein is accurate and complete, to the best of his or her knowledge, and that the submitter is duly authorized to bind the person making the claim. Submission of the electronic form will record the data regarding the filing in NFA's database system. The system also will allow the filer to create a printer-friendly version of exemption notices for the filer's records. Although internet access is necessary for using NFA's electronic filing system, the Commission anticipates that any exemption filer without private internet access could reasonably be expected to use a public internet site, such as those available in public libraries. 9 9 The Commission previously has adopted amendments to its regulations to enable NFA to utilize an online system for registration functions (67 FR 38,869 (June 6, 2002)), and to require electronic filing of financial statements of commodity pools (71 FR 8939 (February 22, 2006)). The Commission is also proposing amendments to its regulations to require electronic filing of financial statements of introducing brokers (71 FR __). The proposed amendments, if adopted, would no longer require persons filing the notices with NFA to do so in paper form. Therefore, the Commission also has considered the form in which persons claiming exclusion or exemption may satisfy various requirements in these regulations to notify participants “in writing” regarding the claim. The Commission has concluded that electronic transmission of a written notification to participants, such as by electronic mail or facsimile, is consistent with the requirement to provide the information in writing and is proposing to amend each of the regulations with a participant notification requirement, with the exception of Regulation 4.5, to make explicit that notice may be delivered through electronic transmission. In proposing such amendment, the Commission has reasoned that the provision of written notice necessarily requires that the exemption filer establish with the participant a method to deliver the written communication. Should a participant have provided an e-mail address or facsimile number to the exemption filer for the purpose of receiving communications from that person, the participant can reasonably be expected to receive such written communications from the party, including the written notification required under Commission regulations, through such method of electronic transmission. The Commission is not proposing to revise Regulation 4.5 with respect to disclosure to participants. Regulation 4.5 requires that the qualifying entity disclose in writing to participants that it is operating pursuant to the terms of Regulation 4.5. When it adopted Regulation 4.5, the Commission noted that the qualifying entity may satisfy this requirement by including the information in any document that its other federal or state regulator requires to be furnished routinely to participants. If no such document is furnished routinely, the information may be disclosed in any instrument establishing the entity's investment policies and objectives that the other regulator requires to be made available to the entity's participants. 10 The other regulators to which a 4.5-qualfiying entity is subject may or may not permit electronic provision of the information; therefore, the Commission is not proposing to revise Regulation 4.5 in the same manner as the other Part 4 provisions with respect to electronic delivery of notice to participants. Rather, the Commission is proposing to amend Regulation 4.5 to contain the clarification regarding the provision of disclosure according to the requirements of other regulators. 10 50 FR 15879 (April 23, 1985). In addition to the electronic filing of exemption notices, NFA also has petitioned the Commission to amend Advisory 18-96, which was issued by the Commission's former Division of Trading and Markets, now the Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight. 11 Advisory 18-96 makes available exemptions from disclosure and reporting requirements under Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, and specified recordkeeping requirements under Regulation 4.23, to registered CPOs of commodity pools organized and operated outside the United States and offered solely to non-United States persons. 12 In considering NFA's petition, the Commission has reexamined Advisory 18-96 and concluded that additional exemptions from CPO registration adopted in 2003 have essentially superseded the provisions of Advisory 18-96. 11 In 1997, the Commission also authorized NFA to process notices of exemption pursuant to Advisory 18-96. See note 1. Since 1997, NFA has received approximately 500 notices of exemption pursuant to Advisory 18-96. 12 “Non-United States person” is defined in Regulation 4.7(a)(1)(iv). Specifically, Regulation 4.13(a)(4) permits a CPO to claim exemption from CPO registration where the pool is offered pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 and its participants are limited to natural persons who are qualified eligible persons (“QEPs”) under Regulation 4.7(a)(2), and non-natural persons that are either QEPs under Regulation 4.7 or accredited investors under 17 CFR 230.501(a)(1)-(3), (a)(7) and (a)(8). Since non-United States persons are included in the definition of QEP in Regulation 4.7(a)(2), CPOs meeting the criteria of Advisory 18-96 may instead claim the exemption available under Regulation 4.13(a)(4), which offers more extensive relief than that available under Advisory 18-96. Therefore, the Commission is considering whether Advisory 18-96 should be superseded prospectively. The Commission is interested in obtaining comments on this approach, particularly whether there are any conflicts between the criteria and relief in Advisory 18-96 and Regulation 4.13(a)(4), and whether the unavailability of Advisory 18-96 on a prospective basis would result in any adverse consequences for CPOs. CPOs that have previously claimed relief under Advisory 18-96 would be permitted to continue to rely on the terms of Advisory 18-96, or could choose to claim exemption pursuant to Regulation 4.13(a)(4). In addition, the Commission is proposing to remove and reserve Regulation 4.2, which specifies technical requirements, such as address, for material filed with the Commission under Part 4 of its regulations. Amendments to Commission regulations adopted in 2002 13 no longer require that any filings required under Part 4 be submitted to the Commission and thus the continued existence of Regulation 4.2 is no longer necessary. The sole remaining provision in Part 4 that could possibly result in a filing with the Commission is Regulation 4.12(a), which permits the Commission to exempt any person or class of persons from any provision of Part 4 if the Commission finds that granting the exemption is not contrary to the public interest or to the purposes of the provisions from which exemption is sought. However, technical requirements as to the filing of such requests for exemption are contained in Regulation 140.99, not Regulation 4.2. Therefore, the Commission proposes that the removal of Regulation 4.2 is advisable. 13 See note 2. The 2002 amendments to Part 4 specify that all filings be made with NFA. However, two provisions within Part 4 inadvertently were not amended at that time and continue to include references to filing with the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to Regulations 4.8 and 4.12(b) to conform these sections to the current filing requirements in the other regulations to which they refer. III. Related Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , requires that agencies, in proposing rules, consider the impact of those rules on small businesses. The Commission previously has established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its rules on such entities in accordance with the RFA. 14 With respect to CPOs, the Commission has previously determined that a CPO is a small entity if it meets the criteria for exemption from registration under current Rule 4.13(a)(2); however, other registered and exempt CPOs are not small entities for the purpose of the RFA. 15 With respect to CTAs, the Commission has previously stated that it would evaluate within the context of a particular rule proposal whether all or some affected CTAs would be considered to be small entities and, if so, the economic impact on them of the proposal. 16 The Commission believes that the instant proposed rules will not place any burdens, whether new or additional, on CPOs and CTAs who would be affected hereunder, as the proposed amendments simply alter the mechanism for filing notices of exemption and do not affect the substance of those filings or the nature of the qualifying criteria. 14 47 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982). 15 *Id* . at 18619. 16 *Id* . at 18620. The Commission's definitions of small entities do not address the persons and qualifying entities set forth in Rule 4.5 because, by the very nature of the rule, the operations and activities of such persons and entities generally are regulated by federal and state authorities other than the Commission. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) 17 imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. The amendment being proposed would, if approved, alter the method of collection of information required under Commission regulations, but would not alter the substance of the filings. Pursuant to the PRA, the Commission has submitted a copy of this section to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for its review. 17 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). *Collection of Information* . (Rules Relating to the Operations and Activities of Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors and to Monthly Reporting by Futures Commission Merchants, OMB Control Number 3038-0005.) The proposed amendments to Commission regulations would change only the manner in which notices are filed with NFA, but would not affect the substance of the filings. Accordingly, for purposes of the PRA, the Commission certifies that the proposed rule amendments, if promulgated in final form, would not impact the total annual reporting or recordkeeping burden associated with the above-referenced collection of information, which has been approved previously by OMB. Pursuant to the PRA, the Commission has submitted a copy of this section to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for its review. Copies of the information collection submission to OMB are available from the CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581
(202)418-5160. The Commission considers comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in— Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use; Evaluating the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the information collection should contact the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer of the Commodity Futures Commission. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment to the Commission on the proposed regulations. C. Cost-Benefit Analysis Section 15(a) of the Act, as amended by Section 119 of the CFMA, requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing a new regulation under the Act. By its terms, Section 15(a) as amended does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of a new regulation or to determine whether the benefits of the regulation outweigh its costs. Rather, Section 15(a) simply requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its action. Section 15(a) of the Act further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: protection of market participants and the public; efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations. Accordingly, the Commission could in its discretion give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could in its discretion determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular rule was necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments to Regulations 4.5, 4.7, 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14 would require CPOs to file electronically notices of exemption, which would no longer be required to include a manual signature. The Commission is considering the costs and benefits of this proposed rule in light of the specific provisions of Section 15(a) of the Act, as follows: 1. *Protection of market participants and the public* . The proposed amendment should not affect the protection of market participants and the public as it provides an alternate method of filing notices of exemption or exclusion from Part 4 of the Commission's regulations, but does not substantively alter the character of such information or the requirement that such information be submitted by a person duly authorized to bind the submitter. 2. *Efficiency and competition* . The Commission anticipates that the proposed amendment will benefit efficiency by permitting NFA to streamline its process for receiving exemption filings. The proposed amendment is considered by the Commission as benefiting efficiency and not impacting competition. 3. *Financial integrity of futures markets and price discovery* . The proposed amendment should have no effect, from the standpoint of imposing costs or creating benefits, on the financial integrity of futures markets or the price discovery function of such markets. 4. *Sound risk management practices* . The proposed amendment should have no effect, from the standpoint of imposing costs or creating benefits, on sound risk management practices. 5. *Other public interest considerations* . The Commission believes that the proposed rule requiring electronic filing for the submission of notices of exemption or exclusion from Part 4 of the Commission's regulations is beneficial in that it should streamline the timeliness of delivery and electronic accessibility of such notices, and permit NFA to retain such notices in a more streamlined and accessible manner. After considering these factors, the Commission has determined to propose the amendments discussed above. The Commission invites public comment on its application of the cost-benefit provision. Commenters also are invited to submit any data that they may have quantifying the costs and benefits of the proposal with their comment letters. List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 4 Advertising, Brokers, Commodity futures, Commodity pool operators, Commodity trading advisors, Consumer Protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 17 CFR Chapter I is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 4—COMMODITY POOL OPERATORS AND COMMODITY TRADING ADVISORS 1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 4, 6(c), 6b, 6c, 6 *l* , 6m, 6n, 6o, 12a, and 23. 2. Remove and reserve § 4.2. 3. Revise paragraphs
(c)introductory text, (c)(2)(i), (d)(1) and (2), and
(f)of § 4.5 to read as follows: § 4.5 Exclusion for certain otherwise regulated persons from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator.”
(c)Any person who desires to claim the exclusion provided by this section shall file electronically a notice of eligibility with the National Futures Association through its electronic exemption filing system; *Provided, however,* That a plan fiduciary who is not a named fiduciary as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section may claim the exclusion through the notice filed by the named fiduciary.
(2)* * *
(i)Will disclose in writing to each participant, whether existing or prospective, that the qualifying entity is operated by a person who has claimed an exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” under the Act and, therefore, who is not subject to registration or regulation as a pool operator under the Act; *Provided,* that such disclosure is made in accordance with the requirements of any other federal or state regulatory authority to which the qualifying entity is subject. The qualifying entity may make such disclosure by including the information in any document that its other federal or state regulator requires to be furnished routinely to participants or, if no such document is furnished routinely, the information may be disclosed in any instrument establishing the entity's investment policies and objectives that the other regulator requires to be made available to the entity's participants; and (d)(1) Each person who has claimed an exclusion hereunder must, in the event that any of the information contained or representations made in the notice of eligibility becomes inaccurate or incomplete, amend the notice electronically through National Futures Association's electronic exemption filing system as may be necessary to render the notice of eligibility accurate and complete.
(2)This amendment required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall be filed within fifteen business days after the occurrence of such event.
(f)Any notice required to be filed hereunder must be filed by a representative duly authorized to bind the person specified in paragraph
(a)of this section. 4. In § 4.7, revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows: § 4.7 Exemption from certain part 4 requirements for commodity pool operators with respect to offerings to qualified eligible persons and for commodity trading advisors with respect to advising qualified eligible persons.
(d)*Notice of claim for exemption.*
(1)A notice of a claim for exemption under this section must:
(i)Provide the name, main business address, main business telephone number and the National Futures Association commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor identification number of the person claiming the exemption; (ii)(A) Where the claimant is a commodity pool operator, provide the name(s) of the pool(s) for which the request is made; *Provided,* That a single notice representing that the pool operator anticipates operating single-investor pools may be filed to claim exemption for single-investor pools and such notice need not name each such pool;
(B)Where the claimant is a commodity trading advisor, contain a representation that the trading advisor anticipates providing commodity interest trading advice to qualified eligible persons;
(iii)Contain representations that:
(A)Neither the commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor nor any of its principals is subject to any statutory disqualification under section 8a(2) or 8a(3) of the Act unless such disqualification arises from a matter which was previously disclosed in connection with a previous application for registration if such registration was granted or which was disclosed more than thirty days prior to the filing of the notice under this paragraph (d);
(B)The commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor will comply with the applicable requirements of § 4.7; and
(C)Where the claimant is a commodity pool operator, that the exempt pool will be offered and operated in compliance with the applicable requirements of § 4.7;
(iv)Specify the relief claimed under § 4.7;
(v)Where the claimant is a commodity pool operator, state the closing date of the offering or that the offering will be continuous;
(vi)Be filed by a representative duly authorized to bind the commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor;
(vii)Be filed electronically with the National Futures Association through its electronic exemption filing system; and
(viii)(A)( *1* ) Where the claimant is a commodity pool operator, except as provided in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section with respect to single-investor pools and in paragraph (d)(1)(viii)(A)( *2* ) of this section, be received by the National Futures Association: ( *i* ) Before the date the pool first enters into a commodity interest transaction, if the relief claimed is limited to that provided under paragraphs (b)(2),
(3)and
(4)of this section; or ( *ii* ) Prior to any offer or sale of any participation in the exempt pool if the claimed relief includes that provided under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. *(2)* Where participations in a pool have been offered or sold in full compliance with Part 4, the notice of a claim for exemption may be filed with the National Futures Association at any time; *Provided,* That the claim for exemption is otherwise consistent with the duties of the commodity pool operator and the rights of pool participants and that the commodity pool operator notifies the pool participants of his intention, absent objection by the holders of a majority of the units of participation in the pool who are unaffiliated with the commodity pool operator within twenty-one days after the date of the notification, to file a notice of claim for exemption under § 4.7 and such holders have not objected within such period. A commodity pool operator filing a notice under this paragraph (d)(1)(viii)(A) *(2)* shall either provide disclosure and reporting in accordance with the requirements of Part 4 to those participants objecting to the filing of such notice or allow such participants to redeem their units of participation in the pool within three months of the filing of such notice.
(B)Where the claimant is a commodity trading advisor, be received by the Commission before the date the trading advisor first enters into an agreement to direct or guide the commodity interest account of a qualified eligible person pursuant to § 4.7. 5. In § 4.8, revise
(a)and
(b)to read as follows:
(a)Notwithstanding paragraph
(d)of § 4.26 and subject to the conditions specified herein, the registered commodity pool operator of a pool offered or sold solely to “accredited investors” as defined in 17 CFR 230.501 in an offering exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 pursuant to Rule 505 or 506 of Regulation D, 17 CFR 230.505 or 230.506, may solicit, accept and receive funds, securities and other property from prospective participants in that pool upon filing with the National Futures Association and providing to such participants the Disclosure Document for the pool.
(b)Notwithstanding paragraph
(d)of § 4.26 and subject to the conditions specified herein, the registered commodity pool operator of a pool offered or sold in an offering exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 pursuant to Rule 505 or 506 of Regulation D, 17 CFR 230.505 or 230.506, that is operated in compliance with, and has filed the notice required by, § 4.12(b) may solicit, accept and receive funds, securities and other property from prospective participants in that pool upon filing with the National Futures Association and providing to such participants the Disclosure Document for the pool. 6. In § 4.12, revise (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3)) and add (b)(5)(i) to read as follows: § 4.12 Exemption from provisions of part 4.
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)Each existing participant and prospective participant in the pool for which it makes such request is informed in writing of the restrictions set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(i)
(C)and
(D)of this section prior to the date the pool commences trading commodity interests. The pool operator may furnish this information by way of the pool's Disclosure Document, Account Statement, a separate notice or other similar means, including written communication delivered through electronic transmission.
(3)Any registered commodity pool operator who desires to claim the relief available under this § 4.12(b) must file electronically a claim of exemption with National Futures Association through its electronic exemption filing system. Such claim must:
(i)Provide the name, main business address and main business telephone number of the registered commodity pool operator, or applicant for such registration, making the request;
(ii)Provide the name of the commodity pool for which the request is being made;
(iii)Contain representations that the pool will be operated in compliance with § 4.12(b)(1)(i) and the pool operator will comply with the requirements of § 4.12(b)(1)(ii);
(iv)Specify the relief sought under § 4.12(b)(2); and
(v)Be filed by a representative duly authorized to bind the pool operator.
(5)* * *
(i)If a claim of exemption has been made under § 4.12(b)(2)(i), the commodity pool operator must make a statement to that effect on the cover page of each offering memorandum, or amendment thereto, that it is required to file with the National Futures Association pursuant to § 4.26. 7. In § 4.13, revise paragraphs (a)(5), (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(1)(iii), (b)(2) and (b)(4), and revise paragraph (e)(2), to read as follows: § 4.13 Exemption from registration as a commodity pool operator. (a)(5)(i) Eligibility for exemption under this section is subject to the person furnishing in written communication physically delivered or delivered through electronic transmission to each prospective participant in the pool:
(A)A statement that the person is exempt from registration with the Commission as a commodity pool operator and that therefore, unlike a registered commodity pool operator, it is not required to deliver a Disclosure Document and a certified annual report to participants in the pool; and
(B)A description of the criteria pursuant to which it qualifies for such exemption from registration.
(ii)The person must make these disclosures by no later than the time it delivers a subscription agreement for the pool to a prospective participant in the pool. (b)(1) Any person who desires to claim the relief from registration provided by this section, must file electronically a notice of exemption from commodity pool operator registration with the National Futures Association through its electronic exemption filing system. The notice must:
(iii)Be filed by a representative duly authorized to bind the person.
(2)The person must file the notice by no later than the time it delivers a subscription agreement for the pool to a prospective participant in the pool; *Provided,* That where a person registered with the Commission as a commodity pool operator intends to withdraw from registration in order to claim exemption hereunder, the person must notify its pool's participants in written communication physically delivered or delivered through electronic transmission that it intends to withdraw from registration and claim the exemption, and it must provide each such participant with a right to redeem its interest in the pool prior to the person filing a notice of exemption from registration.
(4)Each person who has filed a notice of exemption from registration under this section must, in the event that any of the information contained or representations made in the notice becomes inaccurate or incomplete, amend the notice through National Futures Association's electronic exemption filing system as may be necessary to render the notice accurate and complete. This amendment must be filed electronically within 15 business days after the pool operator becomes aware of the occurrence of such event. (e)(2) If a person operates one or more commodity pools described in paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section, and one or more commodity pools for which it must be, and is, registered as a commodity pool operator, the person is exempt from the requirements applicable to a registered commodity pool operator with respect to the pool or pools described in paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section; *Provided,* That the person:
(i)Furnishes in written communication physically delivered or delivered through electronic transmission to each prospective participant in a pool described in paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section that it operates:
(A)A statement that it will operate the pool as if the person was exempt from registration as a commodity pool operator;
(B)A description of the criteria pursuant to which it will so operate the pool;
(ii)Complies with paragraph
(c)of this section; and
(iii)Provides to each existing participant in a pool that the person elects to operate as described in paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section a right to redeem the participant's interest in the pool, and informs each such participant of that right no later than the time the person commences to operate the pool as described in paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section. 8. In § 4.14, introductory text of paragraph
(a)and introductory text of paragraph (a)(8) is republished and paragraph (a)(8)(iii)(A) introductory text and paragraphs (a)(8)(iii)(A) *(3)* ,
(B)and
(D)are revised to read as follows: § 4.14 Exemption from registration as a commodity trading advisor.
(a)A person is not required to register under the Act as a commodity trading advisor if:
(8)It is a registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or with the applicable securities regulatory agency of any State, or it is exempt from such registration, or it is excluded from the definition of the term “investment adviser” pursuant to the provisions of section 202(a)(2) and 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, *Provided* , That: (iii)(A) A person who desires to claim the relief from registration provided by this § 4.14(a)(8) must file electronically a notice of exemption from commodity trading advisor registration with the National Futures Association through its electronic exemption filing system. The notice must: *(3)* Be filed by a representative duly authorized to bind the person.
(B)The person must file the notice by no later than the time it delivers an advisory agreement for the trading program pursuant to which it will offer commodity interest advice to a client; *Provided* , That where the advisor is registered with the Commission as a commodity trading advisor, it must notify its clients in written communication physically delivered or delivered through electronic transmission that it intends to withdraw from registration and claim the exemption and must provide each such client with a right to terminate its advisory agreement prior to the person filing a notice of exemption from registration.
(D)Each person who has filed a notice of exemption from registration under this section must, in the event that any of the information contained or representations made in the notice becomes inaccurate or incomplete, amend the notice electronically through National Futures Association's electronic exemption filing system as may be necessary to render the notice accurate and complete. This amendment must be filed within 15 business days after the trading advisor becomes aware of the occurrence of such event. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2006 by the Commission. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-16947 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Part 604 [Docket No. FTA-2005-22657] RIN 2132-AA85 Charter Service Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of meeting location and time of the meeting. SUMMARY: This notice lists the location and time of the next Charter Bus Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (CBNRAC) meeting. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Martineau, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, 202-366-1936 ( *elizabeth.martineau@dot.gov* ). Her mailing address at the Federal Transit Administration is 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9316, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting Location Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6244, Washington, DC 20590. Meeting Time October 25th, 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. October 26th, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m. Issued this 6th day of October, 2006, in Washington, DC. James S. Simpson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-16939 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P 71 198 Friday, October 13, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 6, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* Generic Clearance to Conduct Formative Research/CNPP. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-0523. *Summary of Collection:* The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
(CNPP)of the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducts consumer research to identify key issues of concern related to understanding and use of the *Dietary Guidelines for Americans* and *MyPyramid.* The *Dietary Guidelines,* a primary source of dietary health information, are issued jointly by the USDA and Health and Human Services and serve as the cornerstone of Federal nutrition policy to form the basis for nutrition education efforts of these agencies. *MyPyramid* is a tool, which helps consumers understand and use the *Dietary Guidelines.* CNPP works to improve the health and well-being of Americans by developing and promoting dietary guidelines that links scientific research to the nutrition needs of consumers. *Need and Use of the Information:* CNPP will collect information to develop practical and meaningful nutrition and physical activity guidance for Americans to help improve their health. The collected information will also be used to expand the knowledge base concerning how the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and MyPyramid recommendations and messages are understood as well as how they can be used by consumers to improve balance of their food intake with physical energy expenditure for good health. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; Federal Government; State, local, or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 9,450. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (as desired). *Total Burden Hours:* 3,613. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer [FR Doc. E6-16942 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0109] International Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standard-Setting Activities AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with legislation implementing the results of the Uruguay Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we are informing the public of international standard-setting activities of the World Organization for Animal Health, the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, and the North American Plant Protection Organization, and we are soliciting public comment on the standards to be considered. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0109 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0109, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0109. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the topics covered in this notice, contact Mr. John Greifer, Director, SPS Management Team, International Services, APHIS, room 1132, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250;
(202)720-7677. For specific information regarding standard-setting activities of the World Organization for Animal Health, contact Dr. Michael David, Director, Sanitary International Standards Team, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 33, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-5324. For specific information regarding the standard-setting activities of the International Plant Protection Convention or the North American Plant Protection Organization, contact Ms. Julie E. Aliaga, Program Director, International Phytosanitary Standards, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301)734-0763. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The World Trade Organization
(WTO)was established as the common international institutional framework for governing trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. U.S. membership in the WTO was approved by Congress when it enacted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), which was signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994. The WTO Agreements, which established the WTO, entered into force with respect to the United States on January 1, 1995. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act amended title IV of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2531 *et seq.* ). Section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2578), requires the President to designate an agency to be responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary
(SPS)standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The designated agency must inform the public by publishing an annual notice in the **Federal Register** that provides the following information:
(1)The SPS standards under consideration or planned for consideration by the international standard-setting organization; and
(2)for each SPS standard specified, a description of the consideration or planned consideration of that standard, a statement of whether the United States is participating or plans to participate in the consideration of that standard, the agenda for U.S. participation, if any, and the agency responsible for representing the United States with respect to that standard. “International Standard” is defined in 19 U.S.C. 2578b as any standard, guideline, or recommendation:
(1)Adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) regarding food safety;
(2)developed under the auspices of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE, formerly known as the Office International des Epizooties) regarding animal health and zoonoses;
(3)developed under the auspices of the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC)in cooperation with the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) regarding plant health; or
(4)established by or developed under any other international organization agreed to by the member countries of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the member countries of the WTO. The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the Secretary of Agriculture as the official responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO. The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS)informs the public of Codex standard-setting activities, and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) informs the public of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO standard-setting activities. FSIS publishes an annual notice in the **Federal Register** to inform the public of SPS standard-setting activities for Codex. Codex was created in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO)and the World Health Organization. It is the major international organization for encouraging international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. APHIS is responsible for publishing an annual notice of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO activities related to international standards for plant and animal health and representing the United States with respect to these standards. Following are descriptions of the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO organizations and the standard-setting agenda for each of these organizations. We have described the agenda that each of these organizations will address at their annual general sessions, including standards that may be presented for adoption or consideration, as well as other initiatives that may be underway at the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO. The agendas for these meetings are subject to change, and the draft standards identified in this notice may not be sufficiently developed and ready for adoption as indicated. Also, while it is the intent of the United States to support adoption of international standards and to participate actively and fully in their development, it should be recognized that the U.S. position on a specific draft standard will depend on the acceptability of the final draft. Given the dynamic and interactive nature of the standard-setting process, we encourage any persons who are interested in the most current details about a specific draft standard or the U.S. position on a particular standard-setting issue, or in providing comments on a specific standard that may be under development, to contact APHIS. Contact information is provided at the beginning of this notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . OIE Standard-Setting Activities The OIE was established in Paris, France, in 1924 with the signing of an international agreement by 28 countries. It is currently composed of 167 member nations, each of which is represented by a delegate who, in most cases, is the chief veterinary officer of that country. The WTO has recognized the OIE as the international forum for setting animal health standards, reporting global animal disease events, and presenting guidelines and recommendations on sanitary measures relating to animal health. The OIE facilitates intergovernmental cooperation to prevent the spread of contagious diseases in animals by sharing scientific research among its members. The major functions of the OIE are to collect and disseminate information on the distribution and occurrence of animal diseases and to ensure that science-based standards govern international trade in animals and animal products. The OIE aims to achieve these through the development and revision of international standards for diagnostic tests, vaccines, and the safe international trade of animals and animal products. The OIE provides annual reports on the global distribution of animal diseases, recognizes the free status of member countries for certain diseases, categorizes animal diseases with respect to their international significance, publishes bulletins on global disease status, and provides animal disease control guidelines to member countries. Various OIE commissions and working groups undertake the development and preparation of draft standards, which are then circulated to member countries for consultation (review and comment). Draft standards are revised accordingly and are then presented to the OIE International Committee (all the Member countries) during the General Session, which meets annually every May, for review and adoption. Adoption, as a general rule, is based on consensus of the OIE membership. The next OIE General Session is scheduled for May 20-27, 2007, in Paris, France. Currently, the Administrator of APHIS is the official U.S. Delegate to the OIE. The Administrator of APHIS intends to participate in the proceedings and will discuss or comment on APHIS' position on any standard up for adoption. Information about OIE draft Terrestrial Animal Health Code and Aquatic Animal Health Code chapters may be found on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/oie/* or by contacting Dr. Michael David (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code Chapters and Appendices Adopted 1. Chapter 2.7.12, Avian Influenza, and Appendix 3.9.8, Avian Influenza Surveillance Although few changes were made to the Terrestrial Animal Code Chapter on avian influenza in May 2006, those changes were nevertheless important. The significant changes include a clarification of the definition of “poultry” to ensure that it includes all “domesticated” birds and making it very clear that any detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza needs to be immediately reported to OIE. 2. Appendix 3.6.5, Avian Influenza Virus Inactivation Guidelines These are new guidelines that provide time and temperature parameters for the inactivation of highly pathogenic avian influenza. 3. Chapter 2.2.10, Foot and Mouth Disease
(FMD)Language on compartmentalization was removed from this chapter because the Code Commission indicated that in the case of the FMD virus—a highly contagious agent that affects many species—applying the concept of compartmentalization would be difficult. 4. Chapter 2.5.4, Equine Infections Anemia; Chapter 2.5.6, Equine Piroplasmosis; Chapter 2.5.7, Equine Rhinopneumonitis These chapters were updated slightly to clarify existing language. 5. Chapter 1.3.5, Zoning and Compartmentalization This chapter was adopted in 2005 and no significant changes were made in 2006. However, to help explain the concept of compartmentalization, for 2007 the OIE will develop a practical guide on compartmentalization, using avian influenza as an example. 6. Chapter 2.3.13, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
(BSE)This chapter and the associated surveillance appendix continue to be modified as new information becomes available. For 2006, updates include the following: Removal of references to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies other than BSE; using the date of birth of an infected animal, rather than the date of report, as one of the criteria for determining risk classification; removing the requirement to follow up with the progeny of female cases; and allowing for acid demineralization for the manufacture of gelatin. 7. Chapter 1.3.4, Guidelines for the Evaluation of Veterinary Services These guidelines now refer to the “Performance, Visions and Strategy (PVS)” instrument. The PVS instrument is a tool that can help a country's veterinary services assess its weaknesses and strengths in various key areas, and brings in the participation of the private sector to help with these assessments. OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code Chapters Up for Adoption Existing Terrestrial Animal Health Code chapters that may be revised and new chapters that may be drafted in preparation for the next General Session in 2007 include the following: 1. Chapter 2.5.10, Equine Viral Arteritis This activity represents an ongoing complete redrafting of a current OIE Code chapter that has been determined to be outdated. 2. Chapter 2.5.14, African Horse Sickness This activity represents an ongoing complete redrafting of a current OIE Code chapter that has been determined to be outdated. 3. Chapter 2.5.8, Glanders This activity represents an ongoing complete redrafting of a current OIE Code chapter that has been determined to be outdated. 4. Chapter 2.3.1, Bovine Brucellosis This activity would represent a complete redrafting of a current OIE Code chapter that has been determined to be outdated. 5. Appendix 3.8.5, Factors to Consider in Conducting a BSE Risk Assessment These guidelines for consideration are proposed to ensure that Member countries consider all the known factors associated with the risk of BSE, and are consistent with existing language contained in the BSE Code Chapter. 6. Chapter 2.5.5, Equine Influenza This activity would represent a complete redrafting of a current OIE Code chapter that has been determined to be outdated. 7. Guidelines for Animal Identification and Traceability This activity would represent a new appendix that provides some general principles on animal identification and traceability. 8. Chapter 1.4.5, International Transfer of Animal Pathogens This activity would represent a complete redrafting of a current OIE Code chapter that has been determined to be outdated. Code Commission Future Work Program During the next few years, the OIE Code Commission is expected to address the following issues or establish ad hoc groups of experts to update and/or develop standards for the following issues: 1. Companion Animal Welfare This would be a new chapter intended to provide guidelines for the control of stray dogs in urban settings. 2. Wildlife and Zoo Animal Welfare This would be a new chapter intended to provide guidelines on the harvesting or culling of zoological and wildlife animals. 3. Laboratory Animal Welfare This would be a new chapter intended to provide guidelines for the housing of laboratory animals, the use of animals in regulatory testing, and alternatives to animal use. 4. Terrestrial Animal Welfare This would be a new chapter that would provide general guidelines for the housing and production of livestock and poultry. The intent is to develop first a generic chapter on housing and husbandry principles for livestock and poultry. OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code Chapters and Appendices up for Adoption Existing Aquatic Animal Health Code chapters that may be revised and new chapters that have been drafted in preparation for the 2007 General Session include the following: 1. Chapter 4.1.1, Taura Syndrome A revision of this chapter has been drafted and will be voted on at the 2007 General Session. The revisions were made to be consistent with the new fish and mollusk disease chapters that were adopted in 2005, which in turn were modeled after the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Significant changes include a section on safe commodities and updated standards on declaration of freedom. 2. Chapter 4.1.2, White Spot Disease A revision of this chapter has been drafted and will be voted on at the 2007 General Session. The draft revisions were made to be consistent with the new fish and mollusk disease chapters that were adopted in 2005, which in turn were modeled after the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Significant changes include a section on safe commodities and updated standards on declaration of freedom. 3. Chapter 4.1.3, Yellowhead Disease A revision of this chapter has been drafted and will be voted on at the 2007 General Session. The draft revisions were made to be consistent with the new fish and mollusk disease chapters that were adopted in 2005, which in turn were modeled after the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Significant changes include a section on safe commodities and updated standards on declaration of freedom. 4. Chapter 4.1.4, Tetrahedral Baculovirosis This chapter has been completely rewritten and is essentially new, and will be voted on at the 2007 General Session. It would provide guidelines related to this disease for the importation and surveillance of live susceptible animals and products. 5. Chapter 4.1.7, Crayfish Plaque This chapter has been completely rewritten and is essentially new, and will be voted on at the 2007 General Session. It would provide guidelines related to this disease for the importation and surveillance of live susceptible animals and products. 6. Chapter 4.1.10, Necrotizing Hepatopancreatitis This chapter has been completely rewritten and is essentially new, and will be voted on at the 2007 General Session. It would provide guidelines related to this disease for the importation and surveillance of live susceptible animals and products. 7. Guidelines for the Transport of Fish by Boat and Land These chapters will be voted on at the 2007 General Session. They would establish new standards for moving farmed fish to slaughter by either water or land transport systems. The chapters propose guidelines that would be implemented for the personnel and equipment involved in moving fish under these conditions, based on considerations for fish welfare as developed under other chapters. 8. Guidelines for the Humane Killing of Fish for Disease Control and Slaughter of Farmed Fish for Human Consumption These chapters will be voted on at the 2007 General Session. They would establish new standards for farmed fish that are slaughtered for various purposes, such as disease control or consumption. The chapters propose guidelines that would be implemented for the personnel, equipment and processing plants involved in moving fish under different circumstances, based on considerations for fish welfare as developed under other chapters. 9. Introduction to the OIE guidelines for the Welfare of Aquatic Animals This section will be voted on at the 2007 General Session. It would establish definitions for terms associated with farmed fish welfare based on a number of criteria, including sentience, pain perception, consciousness, and other parameters. The chapter also attempts to set standards for the personnel who deal with farmed fish. Aquatic Animal Commission Future Work Program During the next few years, the OIE Aquatic Animal Commission is expected to address the following issues or establish ad hoc groups of experts to update and/or develop standards for the following issues: 1. Diseases of Amphibians This would be a new chapter intended to provide guidelines with regard to diseases of amphibians. 2. Aquatic Animal Feed An ad hoc group will be established to determine the risk of transmission of aquatic animal diseases through animal feed. The Process The OIE Code chapters are drafted (or revised) by either the Code Commission or by ad hoc groups composed of technical experts nominated by the Director General of the OIE by virtue of their subject-area expertise. Once a new chapter is drafted or an existing one is revised, the chapter is distributed to member countries for review and comment. The OIE attempts to provide proposed chapters by late October to allow member countries sufficient time for comment. Comments are due by early February of the following year. The draft standard is revised by the OIE Code Commission on the basis of relevant scientific comments received from member countries. The United States ( *i.e.* , USDA/APHIS) intends to review and, where appropriate, comment on all draft chapters and revisions once it receives them from the OIE. USDA/APHIS intends to distribute these drafts to the U.S. livestock and aquaculture industries, veterinary experts in various U.S. academic institutions, and other interested persons for review and comment. Additional information regarding these draft standards may be obtained by contacting Dr. Michael David (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). Generally, if a country has concerns with a particular draft standard, and supports those concerns with sound technical information, the pertinent OIE Code Commission will revise that standard accordingly and present the revised draft for adoption at the General Session in May. In the event that a country's concerns regarding a draft standard are not taken into account, that country may refuse to support the standard when it comes up for adoption at the General Session. However, each member country is obligated to review and comment on proposed standards, and make decisions regarding the adoption of those standards, strictly on their scientific merits. Other OIE Topics Every year at the General Session, two technical items are presented. For the May 2007 General Session, the following technical items will be presented: 1. The use of epidemiological models for the management of animal diseases. 2. The role of reference laboratories and collaborating centers in providing permanent support for the objectives and mandates of the OIE. The information in this notice includes all the information available to us on OIE standards currently under development or consideration. Information on OIE standards is available on the Internet at *http://www.oie.int.* Further, a formal agenda for the next General Session should be available to member countries by March 2007, and copies will be available to the public once the agenda is published. For the most current information on meeting times, working groups, and/or meeting agendas, including information on official U.S. participation in OIE activities and U.S. positions on standards being considered, contact Dr. Michael David (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). Those wishing to provide comments on any areas of work under the OIE may do so at any time by responding to this notice (see ADDRESSES above) or by providing comments through Dr. Michael David. IPPC Standard-Setting Activities The IPPC is a multilateral convention adopted in 1952 for the purpose of securing common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products and to promote appropriate measures for their control. Under the IPPC, the understanding of plant protection has been, and continues to be, broad, encompassing the protection of both cultivated and noncultivated plants from direct or indirect injury by plant pests. Activities addressed by the IPPC include the development and establishment of international plant health standards, the harmonization of phytosanitary activities through emerging standards, the facilitation of the exchange of official and scientific information among countries, and the furnishing of technical assistance to developing countries that are signatories to the IPPC. The IPPC is under the authority of the FAO, and the members of the Secretariat of the IPPC are appointed by the FAO. The IPPC is implemented by national plant protection organizations in cooperation with regional plant protection organizations, the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures ((CPM); formerly referred to as the International Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM)), and the Secretariat of the IPPC. The United States plays a major role in all standard-setting activities under the IPPC and has representation on FAO's highest governing body, the FAO Conference. The United States became a contracting party to the IPPC in 1972 and has been actively involved in furthering the work of the IPPC ever since. The IPPC was amended in 1979, and the amended version entered into force in 1991 after two-thirds of the contracting countries accepted the amendment. More recently, in 1997, contracting parties completed negotiations on further amendments that were approved by the FAO Conference and submitted to the parties for acceptance. This 1997 amendment updated phytosanitary concepts and formalized the standard-setting structure within the IPPC. The 1997 amended version of the IPPC entered into force after two-thirds of the contracting parties notified the Director General of FAO of their acceptance of the amendment. The U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to acceptance of the newly revised IPPC on October 18, 2000. The President submitted the official letter of acceptance to the FAO Director General on October 4, 2001. The IPPC has been, and continues to be, administered at the national level by plant quarantine officials whose primary objective is to safeguard plant resources from injurious pests. In the United States, the national plant protection organization is APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine
(PPQ)program. The steps for developing a standard under the revised IPPC are described below. *Step 1:* Proposals for a new international standard for phytosanitary measures
(ISPM)or for the review or revision of an existing ISPM are submitted to the Secretariat of the IPPC in a standardized format on a 2-year cycle. Alternatively, the Secretariat can propose a new standard or amendments to existing standards. *Step 2:* After review by the Standards Committee and the Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance Working Group, a summary of proposals is submitted by the Secretariat to the CPM. The CPM identifies the topics and priorities for standard setting from among the proposals submitted to the Secretariat and others that may be raised by the CPM. *Step 3:* Specifications for the standards identified as priorities by the CPM are drafted by the Secretariat. The draft specifications are submitted to the Standards Committee for approval/amendment and are subsequently made available to members and regional plant protection organizations (RPPOs) for comment (60 days). Comments are submitted in writing to the Secretariat. Taking into account the comments, the Standards Committee finalizes the specifications. *Step 4:* The standard is drafted or revised in accordance with the specifications by a working group designated by the Standards Committee. The resulting draft standard is submitted to the Standards Committee for review. *Step 5:* Draft standards approved by the Standards Committee are distributed to members by the Secretariat and RPPOs for consultation (100 days). Comments are submitted in writing to the Secretariat. Where appropriate, the Standards Committee may establish open-ended discussion groups as forums for further comment. The Secretariat summarizes the comments and submits them to the Standards Committee. *Step 6:* Taking into account the comments, the Secretariat, in cooperation with the Standards Committee, revises the draft standard. The Standards Committee submits the final version to the CPM for adoption. *Step 7:* The ISPM is established through formal adoption by the CPM according to Rule X of the Rules of Procedure of the CPM. *Step 8:* Review of the ISPM is completed by the specified date or such other date as may be agreed upon by the CPM. Each member country is represented on the CPM by a single delegate. Although experts and advisers may accompany the delegate to meetings of the CPM, only the delegate (or an authorized alternate) may represent each member country in considering a standard up for approval. Parties involved in a vote by the CPM are to make every effort to reach agreement on all matters by consensus. Only after all efforts to reach a consensus have been exhausted may a decision on a standard be passed by a vote of two-thirds of delegates present and voting. Technical experts from the United States have participated directly in working groups and indirectly as reviewers of all IPPC draft standards. The United States also has a representative on the Standards Committee. In addition, documents and positions developed by APHIS and NAPPO have been sources of significant input for many of the standards adopted to date. This notice describes each of the IPPC standards currently under consideration or up for adoption. The full text of each standard will be available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.gov/ppq/pim/standards/* . Interested individuals may review the standards posted on this Web site and submit comments via the Web site. The next CPM meeting is scheduled for March 26-30, 2007, at FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy. The Deputy Administrator for APHIS' PPQ program is the U.S. delegate to the CPM. The Deputy Administrator intends to participate in the proceedings and will discuss or comment on APHIS' position on any standards up for adoption. The provisional agenda for the Second Session of the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures is as follows: 1. Opening of the session. 2. Adoption of the agenda. 3. Report by the chairperson. 4. Report by the Secretariat. 5. Standards up for adoption in 2007. 6. Items arising from the First Session of the CPM (see section below entitled “New Standard-Setting Initiatives, Including Those in Development” for details). 7. Work program for harmonization. 8. Other business. 9. Date and venue of the next meeting. 10. Adoption of the report. IPPC Standards Up for Adoption in 2007 It is expected that the following standards will be sufficiently developed to be considered by the CPM for adoption at its 2007 meeting. The United States, represented by APHIS' Deputy Administrator for PPQ, will participate in the consideration of these standards. The U.S. position on each of these issues will be developed prior to the CPM session and will be based on APHIS' analysis, information from other U.S. Government agencies, and relevant scientific information from interested stakeholders. The standards that are most likely to be considered for adoption include: 1. Revision of ISPM No. 2, Pest Risk Analysis
(PRA)This standard describes the basic concept of pest risk analysis within the framework of the IPPC. It introduces the three stages of pest risk analysis—initiation, pest risk assessment and pest risk management. The initiation stage is described in detail and a summary for the other stages is provided. Referral to other ISPMs is made regarding the pest risk assessment and pest risk management stages. Generic issues of information gathering, documentation, risk communication, uncertainty and consistency are introduced. The PRA process is initiated in Stage 1 with the identification of an organism, pest or pathway that may require phytosanitary measures, or as part of the review of existing phytosanitary measures. The first step is to determine or confirm whether the organism considered is a pest. The PRA area is defined. If no pests are identified, the analysis need not continue. The analysis of pests identified in Stage 1 continues to Stages 2 and 3 using guidance provided in other standards. 2. Recognition of Pest-Free Areas and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence This standard provides guidance for the recognition process for pest-free areas
(PFA)and areas of low pest prevalence (ALPP). It describes a procedure for the bilateral recognition of such areas. This standard does not include specified time lines for the recognition procedure. The importing contracting party remains responsible for determining what type of and how much information will be required in order to recognize a PFA or ALPP, depending on the type of area and its geography, the way the pest-free or low pest status of the area has been established, the contracting party's appropriate level of protection, and other factors for which technical justification exists. 3. Phytosanitary Treatments for Regulated Pests This standard would provide a list of treatments that are internationally recognized and intended for use by National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) to meet their phytosanitary requirements. The treatments provide the minimum requirements to achieve treatment of a regulated pest at a stated efficacy. The scope of this standard does not include issues related to pesticide registration or other internal requirements for approval of treatment measures (e.g., irradiation). NPPOs and Regional Plant Protection Organizations (RPPOs) submit a treatment for inclusion in the ISPM on Phytosanitary Treatments by providing information on the treatment, pest(s) and commodity(ies) or regulated articles concerned. The submission should include efficacy data on the treatment under laboratory or controlled experimental conditions, and also under operations conditions. 4. Debarked and Bark-Free Wood This standard provides practical guidance to NPPOs on differentiating wood with bark, debarked wood, and bark-free wood, and how the removal of bark may reduce the risk of introduction and/or spread of quarantine pests associated with wood. It applies to wood and all products made from wood other than the following: Plywood, particle board, oriented strand board, veneer and other products made from wood that have been created using glue, heat, and pressure, or a combination thereof; sawdust; wood wool; wood shavings; and thin wood 6 mm in thickness or less. 5. Establishment of Area of Low Pest Prevalence for Fruit Flies (Tephritidae) This standard provides guidelines for the establishment and maintenance of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies of economic importance (including places and sites of production of low pest prevalence) for use as a risk mitigation measure to facilitate trade of fruits and vegetables. The decision to create a fruit fly area of low pest prevalence (FF-ALPP) for export of a particular host of fruit fly is closely linked to trade opportunities and to economic and operational feasibility. Before establishing an FF-ALPP, the target fruit fly species shall be identified. FF-ALPPs are generally delimited by readily recognizable boundaries. Parameters used to determine the level of fruit fly prevalence in the FF-ALPP should be defined. The most widely used parameter is the number of flies per trap per day (FTD). If export from the FF-ALPP is intended, the specified level should be established in conjunction with the importing country. Before establishment of an FF-ALPP, surveillance aimed at assessing the presence and abundance of the target fruit fly species should be undertaken for a period determined by climatic characteristics of the area and as technically appropriate, but at least for 12 consecutive months. In order to be able to verify the fruit fly low pest prevalence, FF-ALPP status should be continuously checked after the FF-ALPP status has been achieved, or, in the case of faulty procedures, only when those have been rectified. 6. Amendments to ISPM No.5 (Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms) The following amendments will be proposed to the glossary of phytosanitary terms in ISPM No. 5: 1. The following terms and definitions will be proposed to be added: • *Phytosanitary security:* Maintenance of the integrity of a consignment without loss or substitution, and prevention of its infestation, by the appropriate phytosanitary measures. • *Integrity (of a consignment):* Composition of a consignment as described by its Phytosanitary Certificate or other document. 2. The following terms and definitions will be proposed to be changed to read as follows: • *Buffer zone:* An area surrounding or adjacent to an area officially delimited for phytosanitary purposes, subjected to control measures to minimize the risk of spread of a target pest in or out of the delimited area. • *Compliance procedure (for a consignment):* Official procedure used to verify that a consignment complies with phytosanitary import requirements. • *Biological control:* Pest control strategy making use of living natural enemies, antagonists, competitors, sterile insects or other biological control agents. • *Reference specimen(s) (of a biological control agent):* Individual specimen(s) from a specific population conserved in a reference culture collection and, where possible, in a publicly available collection(s). New Standard-Setting Initiatives, Including Those in Development A number of expert working group meetings or other technical consultations will take place during 2006 and 2007 on the topics listed below. These standard-setting initiatives were not completed before April 2006 and, therefore, will not be ready for adoption at the 2007 CPM session. Nonetheless, APHIS intends to participate actively and fully in each of these working groups. The U.S. position on each of the topics to be addressed by these various working groups will be developed prior to these working group meetings and will be based on APHIS' technical analysis, information from other U.S. Government agencies, and relevant scientific information from interested stakeholders. 1. Development of Annex 1 (Specific Approved Treatments) of ISPM No. 18 ISPM No. 18 (Guidelines for the Use of Irradiation as a Phytosanitary Measure) provides technical guidance on the specific procedures for the application of ionizing radiation as a phytosanitary treatment for regulated pests and articles. The standard was adopted in 2003 during the Fifth Session of the ICPM. The scope and purpose of ISPM No. 18 will remain unchanged. However, work done under this specification will initiate the development of irradiation phytosanitary treatments for specific applications that will be used in conjunction with this ISPM. 2. Revisions of ISPMs No. 7 and 12 Currently there are two ISPMs dealing with export: ISPM No. 7 (Export Certification System) and ISPM No. 12 (Guidelines for Phytosanitary Certificates). These also briefly describe the procedure to follow in case of re-export and transit. As international trade has expanded and means of conveyance have diversified, the need has arisen to provide clearer guidance on re-export and transit. In addition, concepts in these standards will be made consistent with other existing standards, such as ISPM No. 25 (Consignments in Transit). Existing ISPMs No. 7 and No. 12 will be reviewed for amendment to provide specific guidance on the procedures, which cover technical, legal, administrative and operational aspects, including export issues related to re-export and consignment in transit. For more detailed information on the above topics, which will be addressed by various working groups established by the CPM, contact Ms. Julie E. Aliaga (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). APHIS posts draft standards on the Internet ( *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pim/standards/* ) as they become available and provides information on the due dates for comments. Additional information on IPPC standards is available on the FAO's Web site at *http://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.htm* . For the most current information on official U.S. participation in IPPC activities, including U.S. positions on standards being considered, contact Ms. Julie E. Aliaga (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). Those wishing to provide comments on any of the areas of work being undertaken by the IPPC may do so at any time by responding to this notice (see ADDRESSES above) or by providing comments through Ms. Aliaga. NAPPO Standard-Setting Activities NAPPO, a regional plant protection organization created in 1976 under the IPPC, coordinates the efforts among Canada, the United States, and Mexico to protect their plant resources from the entry, establishment, and spread of harmful plant pests, while facilitating intra- and inter-regional trade. NAPPO conducts its business through panels and annual meetings held among the three member countries. The NAPPO Executive Committee charges individual panels with the responsibility for drawing up proposals for NAPPO positions, policies, and standards. These panels are made up of representatives from each member country who have scientific expertise related to the policy or standard being considered. Proposals drawn up by the individual panels are circulated for review to Government and industry officials in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, who may suggest revisions. In the United States, draft standards are circulated to industry, States, and various Government agencies for consideration and comment. The draft standards are posted on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pim/standards/* ; interested persons may submit comments via that Web site. Once revisions are made, the proposal is sent to the NAPPO working group and the NAPPO standards panel for technical reviews, and then to the Executive Committee for final approval, which is granted by consensus. The annual NAPPO meeting is scheduled for October 16-20, 2006, in Fort McDowell, Arizona. The NAPPO Executive Committee meeting will take place on October 15, 2006, and a special session will be held on October 16, 2006, to solicit comment from industry groups so that suggestions can be incorporated into the NAPPO work plan for the 2006 NAPPO year. The Deputy Administrator for PPQ is a member of the NAPPO Executive Committee. The Deputy Administrator intends to participate in the proceedings and will discuss or comment on APHIS' position on any standard up for adoption or any proposals to develop new standards. The work plan for 2006 was established after the October 2005 Annual Meeting in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. The Deputy Administrator for PPQ participated in establishing this NAPPO work plan (see panel assignments below). Below is a summary of current panel assignments as they relate to the ongoing development of NAPPO standards. The United States ( *i.e.* , USDA/APHIS) intends to participate actively and fully in the work of each of these panels. The U.S. position on each topic will be guided and informed by the best scientific information available on each of these topics. For each of the following panels, the United States will consider its position on any draft standard after it reviews a prepared draft. Information regarding the following NAPPO panel topics, assignments, activities, and updates on meeting times and locations may be obtained from the NAPPO homepage at *http://www.nappo.org* or by contacting Ms. Julie E. Aliaga (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). 1. Accreditation Panel The panel will develop an audit protocol for reviewing compliance with the NAPPO laboratory accreditation standard (RSPM No. 9). It will then use this protocol to audit the programs in the three NAPPO countries starting with the United States. It will review and update the current NAPPO laboratory accreditation standard (RSPM No. 9). 2. Biological Control Panel This panel will complete the Taxonomic Resources Position Paper, develop guidelines for the movement of commercial shipments of arthropod biological control agents among NAPPO member countries, and exchange information on biological control programs in the NAPPO countries. 3. Biotechnology Panel This panel will continue to develop a NAPPO standard for the importation of transgenic plants into NAPPO member countries. The standard review of products of biotechnology focuses on the assessment of the potential for the new trait to increase the risk the plant could pose to other plants in agriculture or the broader environment. The final fourth module, importation for uses other than propagation, will be developed. 4. Citrus Panel The panel will update the pest lists in the Citrus Standard, based on new pest information. 5. Electronic Phytosanitary Certification Panel This panel will develop guidelines for the electronic transmission of phytosanitary certificates. 6. Forestry Panel This panel will coordinate the implementation of ISPM 15 (Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade) by NAPPO member countries. 7. Fruit Panel The panel will coordinate with other appropriate panels to start the development of a standard for the use of genetically modified fruit flies in North America. 8. Grapevine Panel The panel will provide direction and support to the Technical Advisory Group to include insects and nematodes in the NAPPO standard for grapevines (RSPM No. 15). It will participate in the development of the NAPPO standard on plants for planting. 9. Potato Panel The panel will develop an appendix to RSPM No. 3 on nematode identification and update appendix 5 based on the latest molecular information for potato virus YN (PVYn). 10. Propagative Material Panel The panel will complete the standard on plants for planting. 11. Standards Panel The panel will continue to provide updates on standards for the NAPPO newsletter, coordinate the review of new and amended NAPPO standards and ensure that comments received during the country consultation phase are incorporated as appropriate, organize conference calls and prepare NAPPO discussion documents for possible use at the IPPC, and promote implementation of recently adopted standards. The PPQ Deputy Administrator, as the official U.S. delegate to NAPPO, intends to participate in the adoption of these regional plant health standards, including the work described above, once they are completed and ready for such consideration. The information in this notice includes all the information available to us on NAPPO standards currently under development or consideration. For updates on meeting times and for information on the working panels that may become available following publication of this notice, check the NAPPO Web site on the Internet at *http://www.nappo.org* or contact Ms. Julie E. Aliaga (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). Information on official U.S. participation in NAPPO activities, including U.S. positions on standards being considered, may also be obtained from Ms. Aliaga. Those wishing to provide comments on any of the topics being addressed by any of the NAPPO panels may do so at any time by responding to this notice (see ADDRESSES above) or by transmitting comments through Ms. Aliaga. Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of October 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-17025 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0031] National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods; Renewal AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Re-chartering of Committee. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice is announcing the re-chartering of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF). The Committee is being renewed in cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The establishment of the Committee was recommended by a 1985 report of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Food Protection, Subcommittee on Microbiological Criteria, “An Evaluation of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Foods.” The current charter for the NACMCF is available for viewing on the NACMCF homepage at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPHS/NACMCF/index.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Thomas, Advisory Committee Specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Room 333 Aerospace Center, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. Telephone number:
(202)690-6620. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background USDA is charged with administration and the enforcement of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA). The Secretary of HHS is charged with the administration and enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). These Acts help protect consumers by assuring that food products are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged. In order to assist the Secretaries in carrying out their responsibilities under the FMIA, PPIA, EPIA, and FFDCA, the NACMCF is being re-chartered. The Committee will be charged with advising and providing recommendations to the Secretaries on the development of microbiological criteria by which the safety and wholesomeness of food can be assessed, including criteria for microorganisms that indicate whether foods have been adequately and appropriately processed. Re-chartering of this Committee is necessary and in the public interest because of the need for external expert advice on the range of scientific and technical issues that must be addressed by the Federal sponsors in meeting their statutory responsibilities. The complexity of the issues to be addressed requires that the Committee meet at least twice per year. Members will be appointed by the Secretary of USDA after consultation with the Secretary of HHS. Because of their interest in the matters to be addressed by this Committee, advice on membership appointments will be requested from the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service, the Department of Defense's Veterinary Service Activity, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Background materials are available on the web at the address noted above or by contacting the person listed above. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web Page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2006_Notices_Index/.* FSIS will also make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the Listserv and web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/.* Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account. Done at Washington, DC, on October 10, 2006. Barbara J. Masters, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-17036 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Southwest Washington Province Advisory Committee Meeting Notice AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: The Southwest Washington Province Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, November 9, 2006, at the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Headquarters, 10600 NE. 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 4 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to share information and receive feedback on: Gifford Pinchot National Forest's Recreation Site Facilities Master Plan effort; Invasive Plant environmental impact statement; Special Forest Products; and to share information among Committee members. All Southwest Washington Province Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The “open forum” provides an opportunity for the public to bring issues, concerns, and discussion topics to the Advisory Committee. The “open forum” is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Interested speakers will need to register prior to the open forum period. The committee welcomes the public's written comments on Committee business at any time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Strebig, Public Affairs Officer, at
(360)891-5005, or write Forest Headquarters Office: Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 10600 NE. 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682. Dated: October 5, 2006. Claire Lavendel, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 06-8659 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 34
Traces to 34 documents
U.S. Code
29 references not yet in our index
  • 21 CFR 1300
  • Pub. L. 108-358
  • Pub. L. 109-162
  • 29 CFR 4022
  • 29 CFR 4044
  • 40 CFR 81
  • 40 CFR 81.311
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 13 CFR 121
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 44 CFR 62
  • Pub. L. 90-448
  • Pub. L. 108-264
  • 44 CFR 61
  • 44 CFR 62.20
  • 44 CFR 62.20(e)
  • 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii)
  • 7 CFR 457
  • 7 CFR 457.107
  • 7 CFR 3015
  • 7 CFR 11
  • 7 CFR 400
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 17 CFR 4
  • 17 CFR 230.505
  • 49 CFR 604
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 103-465
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
U.S.C.§ 802
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 605
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 601
U.S.C.§ 1302
U.S.C.§ 1301
Cite21 CFR 1300
Pub. L.Pub. L. 108-358
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-162
Cites 63 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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