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 · 2006-10-30 · Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Milk marketing orders: Central, 63215-63217 E6-18176 Mideast, 63217-63219 E6-18175 Upper Midwest, 63213-63215 E6-18174 Agricultural Agricultural Resea · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

34,889 words·~159 min read·/register/2006/10/30/06-8971

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2006-10-30.xml --- 71 209 Monday, October 30, 2006 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Milk marketing orders: Central, 63215-63217 E6-18176 Mideast, 63217-63219 E6-18175 Upper Midwest, 63213-63215 E6-18174 Agricultural Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Meetings: National Animal Disease Center Scientific Review Panel, 63279 E6-18191 Scientific Review Panel, 63279-63280 E6-18189 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Agricultural Research Service See Food Safety and Inspection Service Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES National cooperative research notifications:
Dimensional Metrology Standards Consortium, Inc., 63358 06-8948 IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc., 63358 06-8946 Interactive Advertising Bureau, 63358-63359 06-8947 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board NOTICES Meetings: Access Board, 63281 E6-18165 Courthouse Access Advisory Committee, 63281-63282 E6-18166 Census Census Bureau NOTICES Surveys, determinations, etc.: Wholesale trade; annual, 63283 E6-18075 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63324-63325 06-8958 06-8959 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Anchorage regulations:
Louisiana, 63245-63247 E6-18086 Commerce Commerce Department See Census Bureau See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63282-63283 E6-18163 Copyright Copyright Office, Library of Congress RULES Digital Millenium Copyright Act: Circumvention of copyright protection systems for access control technologies; exemption to prohibition, 63247 E6-18239 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:
Louisiana, 63247-63250 E6-18050 Nevada, 63250-63253 E6-18158 Air quality planning purposes; designation of areas: California, 63642-63664 06-8902 Hazardous waste program authorizations: Washington, 63253-63263 E6-18222 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Louisiana, 63275 E6-18051 Nevada, 63275-63276 E6-18157 Hazardous waste program authorizations: Washington, 63276-63277 E6-18214 NOTICES Meetings: Detection and Quantitation Approaches and Uses in Clean Water Act Programs Advisory Committee, 63319-63321 E6-18229 Ozone Transport Commission, 63321 E6-18258 Superfund; response and remedial actions, proposed settlements, etc.:
La Costex Refinery Site, TX, 63321 E6-18202 Water supply: Public water system supervision program— Virginia, 63321-63322 E6-18155 Executive Executive Office of the President See National Drug Control Policy Office Federal Accounting Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Accounting for fiduciary activities and accounting for social insurance, 63322 06-8945 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airmen certification:
Flight stimulation device; initial and continuing qualification and use requirements, 63392-63640 06-8677 Airworthiness directives: Airbus, 63225-63228 E6-17662 Bombardier, 63219-63225 E6-17650 Standard instrument approach procedures: Weather Takeoff Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments, 63228-63230 E6-18084 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Sikorsky, et al., 63272-63275 E6-18147 NOTICES Meetings: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 63378-63379 E6-18146 National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee, 63379 06-8950 FCC Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Television broadcasting:
Digital television— LPTV and TV translator digital companion channel applications; filing requirements, 63322-63323 E6-18220 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63323 06-8991 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 63301-63304 E6-18105 E6-18139 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: J&T Hydro Corp., 63304-63305 E6-18104 South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., 63305 E6-18129 Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.; public scoping meeting, 63305-63307 E6-18099 Trunkline Gas Co., LLC, 63307-63309 E6-18138 Hydroelectric applications, E6-18094 63309-63317 E6-18095 E6-18096 E6-18118 E6-18137 Meetings: California Independent System Operator Corp.; technical conference, 63317-63318 E6-18136 National Register of Historic Places: Programmatic agreement for managing properties; restricted service list— Augusta Canal Project, 63318 E6-18107 Off-the record communications, 63318-63319 E6-18110 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 63289 E6-18119 Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., 63289 E6-18120 Crossroads Pipeline Co., 63289 E6-18121 East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, 63290 E6-18123 Egan Hub Storage, LLC, 63290 E6-18122 El Paso Natural Gas Co., 63290-63291 E6-18114 Florida Power Corp., 63291 E6-18116 Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C., 63291-63292 E6-18113 Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 63292 E6-18106 Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., 63292-63293 E6-18100 Las Vegas Cogeneration Limited Partnership, 63293 E6-18132 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., 63293 E6-18103 MeadWestvaco Virginia Corp., 63294 E6-18111 Mississippi Hub, L.L.C., 63294-63295 E6-18128 Mojave Pipeline Co., E6-18102 63295 E6-18125 Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 63295-63296 E6-18130 Northern Natural Gas Co., 63296 E6-18101 Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, WA, 63297 E6-18115 SP Newsprint CO, 63298 E6-18135 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 63298-63299 E6-18093 E6-18127 Trunkline Gas Co., LLC, 63299 E6-18112 Wisconsin Public Power Inc., 63299-63300 E6-18131 E6-18133 E6-18134 Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd., 63300-63301 E6-18126 Young Gas Storage Co., Ltd, 63301 E6-18124 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Motor carrier safety standards:
Driver qualifications— Aleman, Lucas R., et al.; vision requirement exemption applications, 63379-63387 E6-18087 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Change in bank control, 63324 E6-18154 Permissible nonbanking activities, 63324 E6-18153 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63342-63343 E6-18149 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, FL; comprehensive conservation plan, 63343-63344 06-8954 Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge, GA; comprehensive conservation plan, 63344 06-8953 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63325-63327 E6-18067 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Blood and blood components; screening donors; acceptable full-length history questionnaire and accompanying materials; implementation, 63327-63328 E6-18068 Blue bird medicated feed labels; industry guidance, 63328 E6-18148 Food Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Meetings:
Codex Alimentarius Commission— Foods Derived from Biotechnology Intergovernmental Task Force, 63280-63281 E6-18145 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Alabama Arvin Meritor, Inc.; automotive parts manufacturing, 63283-63284 E6-18179 GAO Government Accountability Office NOTICES Meetings: Government Auditing Standards Advisory Council, 63324 E6-18181 Health Health and Human Services Department See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63329 E6-18195 Privacy Act; systems of records, 63329-63332 E6-17949 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E6-18069 63332-63333 E6-18070 Grant and cooperative agreement awards:
Section 202 Supportive Housing For the Elderly Program, 63333-63337 E6-18071 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Community Development Block Grant Program— Disaster recovery grants provided to States; waivers and alternative requirements, 63337-63340 06-8978 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza Act; implementation Fungibility plans; submission deadline extended, 63340-63342 06-8979 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E6-18057 63345-63347 E6-18162 E6-18171 Land acquisitions into trust:
Snoqualmie Tribe of Washington, 63347 E6-18184 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meeting: Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 63284 06-8956 Inter-American Inter-American Foundation RULES Change of address and other agency contact information; technical amendments, 63235-63236 E6-18074 Implementing open meetings within the Inter-American Foundation; clarifying amendments, 63236-63238 E6-18073 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office International International Trade Administration RULES Antidumping and countervailing duties:
Emergency relief work supplies; importation procedures, 63230-63235 E6-18193 NOTICES Antidumping: Freshwater crawfish tail meat from— China, 63284-63285 E6-18177 Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from— China, 63285 E6-18178 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: U.S.-Iraq Business Dialogue, 63285-63286 E6-18077 Justice Justice Department See Antitrust Division NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 63354-63358 E6-18009 Labor Labor Department See Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63359 E6-18160 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:
California Desert Conservation Area; motorized vehicle route network designations, 63347-63348 E6-18156 Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Arizona, 63348-63349 E6-18152 Nevada, 63349-63350 E6-18078 Library Library of Congress See Copyright Office, Library of Congress National Drug National Drug Control Policy Office NOTICES Meetings: Medical Education in Substance Abuse Leadership Conference, 63359-63360 E6-18089 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management:
Northeastern United States fisheries— Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish; correction, 63268-63271 E6-18188 Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog, 63268 E6-18201 PROPOSED RULES Fishery conservation and management: Northeastern United States fisheries— Tilefish, 63277-63278 E6-18187 NOTICES Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 63286-63288 E6-18092 New England Fishery Management Council, 63288 E6-18091 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
Glacier National Park, Flathead National Forest, MT, 63350 E6-18208 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Kings Mountain National Military Park, S.C.; general management plan, 63350-63351 06-8951 Ross Lake National Recreation Area; general management plan, 63351-63352 06-8949 Environmental statements; record of decision: Minidoka Internment National Monument, ID; general management plan, 63352-63353 06-8952 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES Occupational safety and health standards:
Hexavalent chromium; occupational exposure, 63238-63245 06-8971 National Office of National Drug Control Policy See National Drug Control Policy Office SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63360 E6-18141 Investment Company Act of 1940: AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., et al., 63360-63366 E6-18143 Integrated ARROs Fund I, et al., 63366 E6-18088 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:
Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 63366-63367 E6-18080 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 63367-63372 E6-18081 E6-18082 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 63372-63374 E6-18083 International Securities Exchange, Inc., 63374-63375 E6-18079 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 63375-63376 E6-18142 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster loan areas: Alaska, 63376-63377 E6-18194 Illinois, 63377 E6-18182 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 63376 06-8964 06-8966 Surface Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63353-63354 06-8955 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad services abandonment:
Union Pacific Railroad Co., 63387-63388 E6-18204 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board RULES Americans with Disabilities Act; implementation: Accessibility guidelines; conforming amendments, 63263-63267 E6-16680 NOTICES Reports, guidance documents; availability, etc.: No FEAR Act, 63377-63378 E6-18209 Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 63388 E6-18161 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meeting:
CARES Business Plan Studies Advisory Committee, 63388-63389 06-8962 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Federal Aviation Administration, 63392-63640 06-8677 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 63642-63664 06-8902 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 71 209 Monday, October 30, 2006 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1030 [Docket No.
AO-361-A39; DA-04-03-B] Milk in the Upper Midwest Marketing Area; Order Amending the Order AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations pertaining to the Upper Midwest Federal milk order. More than the required number of producers for the Upper Midwest marketing area approved the issuance of the final order amendments. DATES: *Effective Date:* December 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino Tosi, Associate Deputy Administrator, Order Formulation and Enforcement Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, STOP 0231—Room 2968, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231,
(202)690-1366, e-mail: *gino.tosi@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends the pooling provisions of the Upper Midwest Federal milk order. Specifically, this final rule adopts provisions that:
(1)Establish a limit on the volume of milk a handler may pool during the months of April through February to 125 percent of the volume of milk pooled in the prior month;
(2)Establish a limit on the volume of milk a handler may pool during the month of March to 135 percent of the volume of milk pooled in the prior month; and
(3)Allow the market administrator to increase the maximum administrative assessment rate up to 8 cents per hundredweight on all pooled milk if necessary to maintain the required fund reserves. This administrative action is governed by the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866. This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request modification or exemption from such order by filing with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with the law. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the Department's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Agricultural Marketing Service has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a dairy farm is considered a “small business” if it has an annual gross revenue of less than $750,000, and a dairy products manufacturer is a “small business” if it has fewer than 500 employees. For the purposes of determining which dairy farms are “small businesses,” the $750,000 per year criterion was used to establish a production guideline of 500,000 pounds per month. Although this guideline does not factor in additional monies that may be received by dairy producers, it should be an inclusive standard for most “small” dairy farmers. For purposes of determining a handler's size, if the plant is part of a larger company operating multiple plants that collectively exceed the 500-employee limit, the plant will be considered a large business even if the local plant has fewer than 500 employees. During August 2004, the month during the hearing occurred, there were 15,802 dairy producers pooled on and 60 handlers regulated by the UMW order. Approximately 15,608 producers, or 97 percent, were considered small businesses based on the above criteria. Of the 60 handlers regulated by the UMW during August 2004, 49 handlers, or 82 percent, were considered small businesses. The adopted amendments regarding the pooling standards serve to revise established criteria that determine those producers, producer milk, and plants that have a reasonable association with and consistently serve the fluid needs of the Upper Midwest milk marketing area. Criteria for pooling milk are established on the basis of performance standards that are considered adequate to meet the Class I fluid needs of the market and, by doing so, to determine those producers who are eligible to share in the revenue that arises from the classified pricing of milk. Criteria for pooling are established without regard to the size of any dairy industry organization or entity. Administrative assessments are similarly charged without regard to the size of any dairy industry organization or entity. Therefore, the amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agricultural Marketing Service 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. This action does not require additional information collection that requires clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)beyond currently approved information collection. The primary sources of data used to complete the approved forms are routinely used in most business transactions. The forms require only a minimal amount of information which can be supplied without data processing equipment or a trained statistical staff. Thus, the information collection and reporting burden is relatively small. Requiring the same reports for all handlers does not significantly disadvantage any handler that is smaller than the industry average. No other burdens are expected to fall on the dairy industry as a result of overlapping Federal rules. This rulemaking proceeding does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any existing Federal rules. Prior Documents in This Proceeding *Notice of Hearing:* Issued June 15, 2004; published June 23, 2004 (69 FR 34963). *Notice of Hearing Delay:* Issued July 14, 2004; published July 21, 2004 (69 FR 43538). *Tentative Partial Decision:* Issued April 8, 2005; published April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19709). *Interim Final Rule:* Issued May 26, 2005; published June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31321). *Final Partial Decision:* Issued September 29, 2005; published October 5, 2005 (70 FR 58086). *Final Partial Rule:* Issued December 5, 2005; published December 9, 2005 (70 FR 73126). *Recommended Decision:* Issued February 15, 2006; published February 22, 2006 (71 FR 9004). *Final Decision:* Issued September 1, 2006; published September 13, 2006 (71 FR 54136). Findings and Determinations The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement those that were made when the Upper Midwest order was first issued and when it was amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set forth herein. The following findings are hereby made with respect to the Upper Midwest order:
(a)*Findings upon the basis of the hearing record:* A public hearing was held upon certain proposed amendment to the tentative marketing agreement and to the order regulating the handling of milk in the Upper Midwest marketing area. The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-604), the applicable rules of practice and procedure (7 CFR part 900). Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the record thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(1)The Upper Midwest order as hereby amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2)The parity prices of milk as determined pursuant to Section 2 of the Act are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market supply and demand for milk in the marketing area, and the minimum prices specified in the tentative marketing agreement and the order, as hereby proposed to be amended, are such prices as will reflect the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome milk, and be in the public interest; and
(3)The Upper Midwest order as hereby amended regulates the handling of milk in the same manner as, and is applicable only to persons in the respective classes of industrial or commercial activity specified in, a marketing agreement upon which a hearing has been held.
(b)*Additional Findings:* It is necessary and in the public interest to make these amendments to the Upper Midwest order effective December 1, 2006. Any delay beyond that date would tend to disrupt the orderly marketing of milk in the aforesaid marketing area. The amendments to the Upper Midwest order are known to handlers. The final decision containing the proposed amendments to the order was issued on September 1, 2006. The changes that result from these amendments will not require extensive preparation or substantial alteration in the method of operation for handlers. In view of the foregoing, it is hereby found and determined that good cause exists for making these order amendments effective December 1, 2006.
(c)*Determinations:* It is hereby determined that:
(1)The refusal or failure of handlers (excluding cooperative associations specified in Sec. 8c(9) of the Act) of more than 50 percent of the milk that is marketed within the specified marketing area to sign a proposed marketing agreement tends to prevent the effectuation of the declared policy of the Act;
(2)The issuance of this order amending the Upper Midwest order is the only practical means pursuant to the declared policy of the Act of advancing the interests of producers as defined by the order as hereby amended;
(3)The issuance of the order amending the Upper Midwest order is favored by at least two-thirds of the producers who were engaged in the production of milk for sale in the marketing area. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1030 Milk marketing orders. Order Relative to Handling *It is therefore ordered,* that on and after the effective date hereof, the handling of milk in the Upper Midwest marketing area shall be in conformity to and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the order, as amended, and as hereby amended, as follows: PART 1030—MILK IN THE UPPER MIDWEST MARKETING AREA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1030 is amended to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, 7253. 2. Section 1030.13 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f), to read as follows: § 1030.13 Producer milk.
(f)The quantity of milk reported by a handler pursuant to either § 1030.30(a)(1) or § 1030.30(c)(1) for April through February may not exceed 125 percent, and March may not exceed 135 percent of the producer milk receipts pooled by the handler during the prior month. Milk diverted to nonpool plants reported in excess of this limit shall be removed from the pool. Milk in excess of this limit received at pool plants, other than pool distributing plants, shall be classified pursuant to § 1000.44(a)(3)(v) and § 1000.44(b). The handler must designate, by producer pick-up, which milk is to be removed from the pool. If the handler fails to provide this information, the market administrator will make the determination. The following provisions apply:
(1)Milk shipped to and physically received at pool distributing plants in excess of the previous month's pooled volume shall not be subject to the 125 or 135 percent limitation;
(2)Producer milk qualified pursuant to § __.13 of any other Federal Order and continuously pooled in any Federal Order for the previous six months shall not be included in the computation of the 125 or 135 percent limitation;
(3)The market administrator may waive the 125 or 135 percent limitation:
(i)For a new handler on the order, subject to the provisions of § 1030.13(f)(4), or
(ii)For an existing handler with significantly changed milk supply conditions due to unusual circumstances;
(4)A bloc of milk may be considered ineligible for pooling if the market administrator determines that handlers altered the reporting of such milk for the purpose of evading the provisions of this paragraph. 3. Section 1030.85 is revised, to read as follows: § 1030.85 Assessment for order administration. On or before the payment receipt date specified under § 1030.71, each handler shall pay to the market administrator its pro rata share of the expense of administration of the order at a rate specified by the market administrator that is no more than 8 cents per hundredweight with respect to:
(a)Receipts of producer milk (including the handler's own production) other than such receipts by a handler described in § 1000.9(c) that were delivered to pool plants of other handlers;
(b)Receipts from a handler described in § 1000.9(c);
(c)Receipts of concentrated fluid milk products from unregulated supply plants and receipts of nonfluid milk products assigned to Class I use pursuant to § 1000.43(d) and other source milk allocated to Class I pursuant to § 1000.44(a)(3) and
(8)and the corresponding steps of § 1000.44(b), except other source milk that is excluded from the computations pursuant to § 1030.60(h) and (i); and
(d)Route disposition in the marketing area from a partially regulated distributing plant that exceeds the skim milk and butterfat subtracted pursuant to § 1000.76(a)(1)(i) and (ii). Dated: October 25, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-18174 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1032 [Docket No. AO-313-A48; DA-04-06] Milk in the Central Marketing Area; Order Amending the Order AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations pertaining to the Central Federal milk order. More than the required number of producers for the Central marketing area approved the issuance of the final order amendments. DATES: *Effective Date:* December 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Rower, Marketing Specialist, Order Formulation and Enforcement Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, STOP 0231-Room 2971, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231,
(202)720-2357, e-mail address: *jack.rower@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends the pooling provisions of the Central Federal milk order. Specifically, this final rule adopts provisions that:
(1)Increase supply plant performance standards to 25 percent for the months of August through February and to 20 percent for the months of March through July;
(2)Require the non-pool side of a split plant to maintain nonpool status for 12 months;
(3)Amend the “touch-base” feature of the order to require that at least one day's production of the milk of a dairy farmer be received at a pool plant in each of the months of January, February, and August through November, to be eligible for diversion to non-pool plants;
(4)Lower the diversion limit standards by five percentage points, from 80 percent to 75 percent, for the months of August through February, and by five percentage points, from 85 percent to 80 percent for the months of March through July; and
(5)Establish provisions that limit the volume of milk a handler may pool in a month to 125 percent of the volume of milk pooled in the prior month. This administrative action is governed by the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866. This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request modification or exemption from such order by filing with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with the law. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the Department's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Agricultural Marketing Service has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a dairy farm is considered a “small business” if it has an annual gross revenue of less than $750,000, and a dairy products manufacturer is a “small business” if it has fewer than 500 employees. For the purposes of determining which dairy farms are “small businesses,” the $750,000 per year criterion was used to establish a production guideline of 500,000 pounds per month. Although this guideline does not factor in additional monies that may be received by dairy producers, it should be an inclusive standard for most “small” dairy farmers. For purposes of determining a handler's size, if the plant is part of a larger company operating multiple plants that collectively exceed the 500-employee limit, the plant will be considered a large business even if the local plant has fewer than 500 employees. During January 2005, the time of the hearing, there were 5,778 dairy producers pooled on, and 23 handlers regulated by, the Central order. Approximately 5,365 producers, or 92.9 percent, were considered “small businesses” based on the above criteria. Of the 23 handlers regulated by the Central order during January 2005, 11 handlers, or 47.8 percent, were considered “small businesses.” The adopted amendments regarding the pooling standards serve to revise established criteria that determine those producers, producer milk, and plants that have a reasonable association with and consistently serve the fluid needs of the Central milk marketing area. Criteria for pooling milk are established on the basis of performance standards that are considered adequate to meet the Class I fluid needs of the market and, by doing so, to determine those producers who are eligible to share in the revenue that arises from the classified pricing of milk. Criteria for pooling are established without regard to the size of any dairy industry organization or entity. Therefore, the amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A review of reporting requirements was completed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). It was determined that these amendments would have no impact on reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements because they would remain identical to the current requirements. No new forms are proposed and no additional reporting requirements would be necessary. This action does not require additional information collection that requires clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)beyond currently approved information collection. The primary sources of data used to complete the approved forms are routinely used in most business transactions. The forms require only a minimal amount of information which can be supplied without data processing equipment or a trained statistical staff. Thus, the information collection and reporting burden is relatively small. Requiring the same reports for all handlers does not significantly disadvantage any handler that is smaller than the industry average. No other burdens are expected to fall on the dairy industry as a result of overlapping Federal rules. This rulemaking proceeding does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any existing Federal rules. Prior Documents in This Proceeding *Notice of Hearing:* Issued September 17, 2004; published September 22, 2004 (69 FR 56725). *Notice of Hearing Delay:* Issued October 18, 2004; published October 13, 2004 (69 FR 61323). *Recommended Decision:* Issued February 15, 2006; published February 22, 2006 (71 FR 9015). *Final Decision:* Issued September 1, 2006; published September 13, 2006 (71 FR 54152). Findings and Determinations The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement those that were made when the Central order was first issued and when it was amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set forth herein. The following findings are hereby made with respect to the Mideast order:
(a)*Findings upon the basis of the hearing record:* A public hearing was held upon certain proposed amendment to the tentative marketing agreement and to the order regulating the handling of milk in the Central marketing area. The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-604), the applicable rules of practice and procedure (7 CFR part 900). Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the record thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(1)The Central order as hereby amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2)The parity prices of milk as determined pursuant to Section 2 of the Act are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market supply and demand for milk in the marketing area, and the minimum prices specified in the tentative marketing agreement and the order, as hereby proposed to be amended, are such prices as will reflect the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome milk, and be in the public interest; and
(3)The Central order as hereby amended regulates the handling of milk in the same manner as, and is applicable only to persons in the respective classes of industrial or commercial activity specified in, a marketing agreement upon which a hearing has been held.
(b)*Additional Findings:* It is necessary and in the public interest to make these amendments to the Central order effective December 1, 2006. Any delay beyond that date would tend to disrupt the orderly marketing of milk in the aforesaid marketing area. The amendments to the Central order are known to handlers. The final decision containing the proposed amendments to the order was issued on September 1, 2006. The changes that result from these amendments will not require extensive preparation or substantial alteration in the method of operation for handlers. In view of the foregoing, it is hereby found and determined that good cause exists for making these order amendments effective December 1, 2006.
(c)*Determinations:* It is hereby determined that:
(1)The refusal or failure of handlers (excluding cooperative associations specified in Sec. 8c(9) of the Act) of more than 50 percent of the milk that is marketed within the specified marketing area to sign a proposed marketing agreement tends to prevent the effectuation of the declared policy of the Act;
(2)The issuance of this order amending the Central order is the only practical means pursuant to the declared policy of the Act of advancing the interests of producers as defined by the order as hereby amended;
(3)The issuance of the order amending the Central order is favored by at least two-thirds of the producers who were engaged in the production of milk for sale in the marketing area. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1032 Milk marketing orders. Order Relative to Handling *It is therefore ordered* , that on and after the effective date hereof, the handling of milk in the Central marketing area shall be in conformity to and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the order, as amended, and as hereby amended, as follows: PART 1032—MILK IN THE CENTRAL MARKETING AREA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1032 is amended to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253. 2. Section 1032.7 is amended by revising paragraph
(c)introductory text and paragraph (h)(7), to read as follows: § 1032.7 Pool plant.
(c)A supply plant from which the quantity of bulk fluid milk products shipped to (and physically unloaded into) plants described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is not less than 25 percent during the months of August through February and 20 percent in all other months of the Grade A milk received from dairy farmers (except dairy farmers described in § 1032.12(b)) and from handlers described in § 1000.9(c), including milk diverted pursuant to § 1032.13, subject to the following conditions:
(h)* * *
(7)That portion of a regulated plant designated as a nonpool plant that is physically separate and operated separately from the pool portion of such plant. The designation of a portion of a plant must be requested in advance and in writing by the handler and must be approved by the market administrator. Such nonpool status shall be effective on the first day of the month following approval of the request by the market administrator and thereafter for the longer of twelve
(12)consecutive months or until notification of the desire to requalify as a pool plant, in writing, is received by the market administrator. Requalification will require deliveries to a pool distributing plant(s) as provided for in § 1032.7(c). For requalification, handlers may not use milk delivered directly from producer's farms pursuant to § 1000.9(c) or § 1032.13(c) for the first month. 3. Section 1032.13 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (d)(1); b. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(6) as paragraphs (d)(4) through (d)(8); c. Adding new paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3); d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d)(4); and e. Adding a new paragraph (f). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 1032.13 Producer milk.
(d)* * *
(1)Milk of a dairy farmer shall not be eligible for diversion until milk of such dairy farmer has been physically received as producer milk at a pool plant and the dairy farmer has continuously retained producer status since that time. If a dairy farmer loses producer status under the order in this part (except as a result of a temporary loss of Grade A approval), the dairy farmer's milk shall not be eligible for diversion until milk of the dairy farmer has been physically received as producer milk at a pool plant;
(2)The equivalent of at least one day's milk production is caused by the handler to be physically received at a pool plant in each of the months of January and February, and August through November;
(3)The equivalent of at least one day's milk production is caused by the handler to be physically received at a pool plant in each of the months of March through July and December if the requirement of paragraph (d)(2) of this section (§ 1032.13) in each of the prior months of August through November and January through February are not met, except in the case of a dairy farmer who marketed no Grade A milk during each of the prior months of August through November or January through February.
(4)Of the quantity of producer milk received during the month (including diversions, but excluding the quantity of producer milk received from a handler described in § 1000.9(c)) the handler diverts to nonpool plants not more than 75 percent during the months of August through February, and not more than 80 percent during the months of March through July, provided that not less than 25 percent of such receipts in the months of August through February and 20 percent of the remaining months' receipts are delivered to plants described in § 1032.7(a), (b), or (i).;
(f)The quantity of milk reported by a handler pursuant to § 1032.30(a)(1) and/or § 1032.30(c)(1) for the current month may not exceed 125 percent of the producer milk receipts pooled by the handler during the prior month. Milk diverted to nonpool plants reported in excess of this limit shall be removed from the pool. Milk received at pool plants in excess of the 125 percent limit, other than pool distributing plants, shall be classified pursuant to § 1000.44(a)(3)(v). The handler must designate, by producer pick-up, which milk is to be removed from the pool. If the handler fails to provide this information the provisions of paragraph (d)(5) of this section shall apply. The following provisions apply:
(1)Milk shipped to and physically received at pool distributing plants shall not be subject to the 125 percent limitation;
(2)Producer milk qualified pursuant to § __.13 of any other Federal Order in the previous month shall not be included in the computation of the 125 percent limitation; provided that the producers comprising the milk supply have been continuously pooled on any Federal Order for the entirety of the most recent three consecutive months.
(3)The market administrator may waive the 125 percent limitation:
(i)For a new handler on the order, subject to the provisions of paragraph (f)(3) of this section, or
(ii)For an existing handler with significantly changed milk supply conditions due to unusual circumstances;
(4)A bloc of milk may be considered ineligible for pooling if the market administrator determines that handlers altered the reporting of such milk for the purpose of evading the provisions of this paragraph. Dated: October 25, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-18176 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1033 [Docket No. AO-166-A72; DA-05-01-B] Milk in the Mideast Marketing Area; Order Amending the Order AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations pertaining to the Mideast Federal milk order. More than the required number of producers for the Mideast marketing area approved the issuance of the final order amendments. DATES: *Effective Date:* December 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino Tosi, Associate Deputy Administrator, Order Formulation and Enforcement Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, STOP 0231—Room 2968, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231,
(202)690-1366, e-mail: *gino.tosi@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends the pooling provisions of the Mideast Federal milk order. Specifically, this final rule permanently adopts provisions that:
(1)Establish a limit on the volume of milk a handler may pool during the months of April through February to 115 percent of the volume of milk pooled in the prior month; and
(2)Establish a limit on the volume of milk a handler may pool during the month of March to 120 percent of the volume of milk pooled in the prior month. This administrative action is governed by the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866. This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request modification or exemption from such order by filing with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with the law. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the Department's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Agricultural Marketing Service has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a dairy farm is considered a “small business” if it has an annual gross revenue of less than $750,000, and a dairy products manufacturer is a “small business” if it has fewer than 500 employees. For the purposes of determining which dairy farms are “small businesses,” the $750,000 per year criterion was used to establish a production guideline of 500,000 pounds per month. Although this guideline does not factor in additional monies that may be received by dairy producers, it should be an inclusive standard for most “small” dairy farmers. For purposes of determining a handler's size, if the plant is part of a larger company operating multiple plants that collectively exceed the 500-employee limit, the plant will be considered a large business even if the local plant has fewer than 500 employees. During March 2005, the month the hearing occurred, there were 9,767 dairy producers pooled on, and 36 handlers regulated by, the Mideast order. Approximately 9,212 producers, or 94.3 percent, were considered small businesses based on the above criteria. Of the 36 handlers regulated by the Mideast during March 2005, 26 handlers, or 72.2 percent, were considered small businesses. The adopted amendments regarding the pooling standards serve to revise established criteria that determine those producers, producer milk, and plants that have a reasonable association with and consistently serve the fluid needs of the Mideast milk marketing area. Criteria for pooling milk are established on the basis of performance standards that are considered adequate to meet the Class I fluid needs of the market and, by doing so, to determine those producers who are eligible to share in the revenue that arises from the classified pricing of milk. Criteria for pooling are established without regard to the size of any dairy industry organization or entity. Therefore, the amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agricultural Marketing Service 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. This action does not require additional information collection that requires clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)beyond currently approved information collection. The primary sources of data used to complete the approved forms are routinely used in most business transactions. The forms require only a minimal amount of information which can be supplied without data processing equipment or a trained statistical staff. Thus, the information collection and reporting burden is relatively small. Requiring the same reports for all handlers does not significantly disadvantage any handler that is smaller than the industry average. No other burdens are expected to fall on the dairy industry as a result of overlapping Federal rules. This rulemaking proceeding does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any existing Federal rules. Prior Documents in This Proceeding *Notice of Hearing:* Issued February 14, 2005; published February 17, 2005 (70 FR 8043). *Amended Notice of Hearing:* Issued March 1, 2005; published March 3, 2005 (70 FR 10337). *Tentative Partial Decision:* Issued July 21, 2005; published July 27, 2005 (70 FR 43335). *Interim Final Rule:* Issued September 20, 2005; published September 26, 2005 (70 FR 56111). *Final Partial Decision:* Issued January 17, 2006; published January 23, 2006 (71 FR 3435). *Recommended Decision:* Issued February 15, 2006; published February 22, 2006 (71 FR 9033). *Final Partial Rule:* Issued April 17, 2006; published April 20, 2006 (71 FR 20335). *Final Decision:* Issued September 1, 2006; published September 13, 2006 (71 FR 54172). Findings and Determinations The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement those that were made when the Mideast order was first issued and when it was amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set forth herein. The following findings are hereby made with respect to the Mideast order:
(a)*Findings upon the basis of the hearing record:* A public hearing was held upon certain proposed amendment to the tentative marketing agreement and to the order regulating the handling of milk in the Mideast marketing area. The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-604), the applicable rules of practice and procedure (7 CFR part 900). Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the record thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(1)The Mideast order as hereby amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2)The parity prices of milk as determined pursuant to Section 2 of the Act are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market supply and demand for milk in the marketing area, and the minimum prices specified in the tentative marketing agreement and the order, as hereby proposed to be amended, are such prices as will reflect the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome milk, and be in the public interest; and
(3)The Mideast order as hereby amended regulates the handling of milk in the same manner as, and is applicable only to persons in the respective classes of industrial or commercial activity specified in, a marketing agreement upon which a hearing has been held.
(b)*Additional Findings:* It is necessary and in the public interest to make these amendments to the Mideast order effective December 1, 2006. Any delay beyond that date would tend to disrupt the orderly marketing of milk in the aforesaid marketing area. The amendments to the Mideast order are known to handlers. The final decision containing the proposed amendments to the order was issued on September 1, 2006. The changes that result from these amendments will not require extensive preparation or substantial alteration in the method of operation for handlers. In view of the foregoing, it is hereby found and determined that good cause exists for making these order amendments effective December 1, 2006.
(c)*Determinations:* It is hereby determined that:
(1)The refusal or failure of handlers (excluding cooperative associations specified in Sec. 8c(9) of the Act) of more than 50 percent of the milk that is marketed within the specified marketing area to sign a proposed marketing agreement tends to prevent the effectuation of the declared policy of the Act;
(2)The issuance of this order amending the Mideast order is the only practical means pursuant to the declared policy of the Act of advancing the interests of producers as defined by the order as hereby amended;
(3)The issuance of the order amending the Mideast order is favored by at least two-thirds of the producers who were engaged in the production of milk for sale in the marketing area. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1033 Milk marketing orders. Order Relative to Handling *It is therefore ordered* , that on and after the effective date hereof, the handling of milk in the Mideast marketing area shall be in conformity to and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the order, as amended, and as hereby amended, as follows: PART 1033—MILK IN THE MIDEAST MARKETING AREA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1033 is amended to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253. 2. Section 1033.13 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f), to read as follows: § 1033.13 Producer milk.
(f)Producer milk of a handler shall not exceed the limits as established in § 1033.13(f)(1) through § 1033.13(f)(3).
(1)Producer milk for the months of April through February may not exceed 115 percent of the producer milk receipts of the prior month. Producer milk for March may not exceed 120 percent of producer receipts of the prior month; plus
(2)Milk shipped to and physically received at pool distributing plants and allocated to Class I use in excess of the volume allocated to Class I in the prior month; plus
(3)If a producer did not have any milk delivered to any plant as other than producer milk as defined under the order in this part or any other Federal milk order for the preceding three months; and the producer had milk qualified as producer milk on any other Federal order in the previous month, add the lesser of the following:
(i)Any positive difference of the volume of milk qualified as producer milk on any other Federal order in the previous month, less the volume of milk qualified as producer milk on any other Federal order in the current month, or
(ii)Any positive difference of the volume of milk qualified as producer milk under the order in this part in the current month, less the volume of milk qualified as producer milk under the order in this part in the previous month.
(4)Milk received at pool plants in excess of these limits shall be classified pursuant to § 1000.44(a)(3)(v) and § 1000.44(b). Milk diverted to nonpool plants reported in excess of this limit shall not be producer milk. The handler must designate, by producer pick-up, which milk shall not be producer milk. If the handler fails to provide this information the provisions of § 1033.13(d)(6) shall apply.
(5)The market administrator may waive these limitations:
(i)For a new handler on the order, subject to the provisions of § 1033.13(f)(6), or
(ii)For an existing handler with significantly changed milk supply conditions due to unusual circumstances;
(6)Milk may not be considered producer milk if the market administrator determines that handlers altered the reporting of such milk for the purpose of evading the provisions of this paragraph. Dated: October 25, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-18175 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26118; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-226-AD; Amendment 39-14803; AD 2006-22-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) Airplanes and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. These models may be referred to by their marketing designations as RJ100, RJ200, RJ440, CRJ100, CRJ200, CRJ440, and CL-65. The existing AD currently requires revising the Emergency Procedures section of the airplane flight manual
(AFM)to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway. For certain airplanes, the existing AD also requires revising the Abnormal Procedures section of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. This AD requires revising the same Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of revised/additional procedures. This AD also requires revising the Normal section of the AFM to require a review of the location of certain circuit breakers and a functional check of the stabilizer trim system. This AD also requires installing circuit breaker identification collars and provides an optional terminating action for the requirements of the AD. This AD also removes airplanes from the applicability of the existing AD. This AD results from reports of uncommanded horizontal stabilizer trim motion. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew is advised of appropriate procedures to follow in the event of uncommanded movement or stabilizer trim runaway. Failure to follow these procedures could result in excessive uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator
(HSTA)and loss of ability to use trim switches to override uncommanded movement or yoke disconnect switches to disconnect the HSTA, which could result in reduction of or loss of pitch control and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective November 14, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of November 14, 2006. On September 1, 2006 (71 FR 51990, September 1, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in the AD. We must receive any comments on this AD by December 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Valentine, 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)228-7328; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On August 29, 2006, the FAA issued AD 2006-18-04, amendment 39-14742 (71 FR 51990, September 1, 2006). That AD applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. That AD requires revising the Emergency Procedures section of the airplane flight manual
(AFM)to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway. For certain airplanes, that AD also requires revising the Abnormal Procedures section of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. That AD resulted from reports of uncommanded horizontal stabilizer trim motion. The actions specified in that AD are intended to ensure that the flightcrew is advised of appropriate procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway. Failure to follow these procedures could result in excessive uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator
(HSTA)and loss of ability to use trim switches to override uncommanded movement or yoke disconnect switches to disconnect the HSTA, which could result in reduction of or loss of pitch control and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. That AD paralleled Canadian airworthiness directives CF-2006-20, dated August 22, 2006, and CF-2006-21, dated August 23, 2006. Actions Since AD Was Issued Since we issued that AD 2006-18-04, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, issued Canadian airworthiness directives CF-2006-21R1, dated October 3, 2006, and CF-2006-20R1, dated October 4, 2006, which supersede Canadian airworthiness directives CF-2006-21 and CF-2006-20, respectively. The new Canadian airworthiness directives specify revising the AFM procedures for stabilizer trim runaway, installing circuit breaker collars, and introducing trim system preflight tests. The Canadian airworthiness directives also specify installing a new, improved horizontal stabilizer trim control unit (HSTCU). The new Canadian airworthiness directives also revise the affected airplanes by removing serial numbers (S/Ns) 5666 and subsequent for the Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes and removing S/Ns 8067 and subsequent for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes, S/Ns 5666 and subsequent, and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, S/Ns 8067 and subsequent, have the new, improved HSTCU installed during production. In AD 2006-18-04, we stated that we considered that AD interim action and that the manufacturer was developing service bulletins that specify replacing HSTCU circuit boards with HSTCU circuit boards having conformal coating and was exploring other interim measures. The manufacturer now has developed a replacement and other interim measures, and we have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary; this AD follows from that determination. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued the temporary revisions
(TRs)specified in the table below. Table—TRs For Bombardier Model— Use— Dated— To the— CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes Canadair Challenger TR 604/21-1 October 3, 2006 Canadair Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1. CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes Canadair Regional Jet TR RJ/152-5 October 3, 2006 Canadair Regional Jet AFM, CSP A-012. TR 604/21-1 describes revising the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the Canadair Challenger CL-604 AFM to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway and to advise the flightcrew of revised procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. TR RJ/152-5 describes revising the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the Canadair Regional Jet AFM to advise the flightcrew of revised procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway and in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. Bombardier has also issued Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision C, dated September 29, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes). The modification summary package describes procedures for installing circuit breaker identification collars on certain circuit breakers. Bombardier has also issued Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes). The service bulletin describes procedures for installing circuit breaker identification collars on certain circuit breakers and for installing a new, improved HSTCU. Bombardier has also issued Service Bulletin 601R-27-147, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes). The service bulletin describes procedures for installing a new, improved HSTCU. The service bulletin refers to Sagem Service Bulletin HSTCU-27-011, dated September 22, 2006, as an additional source of service information for doing the installation. TCCA mandated the service information and issued Canadian airworthiness directives CF-2006-20R1, dated October 4, 2006, and CF-2006-21R1, dated October 3, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. The Canadian airworthiness directives also specify to brief the flightcrew to do the following actions prior to the first flight of the day: Do a review of the location of certain circuit breakers, and do a functional check of the stabilizer trim system. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are issuing this AD to supersede AD 2006-18-04. This new AD retains the requirements of the existing AD and requires revising the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of additional/revised procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway, which replace AFM revisions required by the existing AD. This new AD also requires the installation of circuit breaker identification collars. This AD also requires revising the Normal section of the AFM to require the flightcrew to review the location of certain circuit breakers and do a functional check of the stabilizer trim system prior to the first flight of the day. This new AD also provides an optional terminating action for the requirements of this AD. This new AD also removes airplanes from the applicability of the existing AD. Interim Action We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring the installation of a new, improved HSTCU, which will constitute terminating action for the requirements of this AD action. However, the planned compliance time for the installation of the modification would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the modification. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD; therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment before the AD is issued is impracticable, and good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26118; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-226-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14742 (71 FR 51990, September 1, 2006) and adding the following new AD: **2006-22-06 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26118; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-226-AD; Amendment 39-14803. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective November 14, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-18-04. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive; and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive and 8000 through 8066 inclusive; certificated in any category. Note 1: The Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes may be referred to by their marketing designations as RJ100, RJ200, RJ440, CRJ100, CRJ200, CRJ440, and CL-65. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of uncommanded horizontal stabilizer trim motion. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew is advised of appropriate procedures to follow in the event of uncommanded movement or stabilizer trim runaway. Failure to follow these procedures could result in excessive uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator
(HSTA)and loss of ability to use trim switches to override uncommanded movement or yoke disconnect switches to disconnect the HSTA, which could result in reduction of or loss of pitch control and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-18-04 Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Revision
(f)Within 7 days after September 1, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-18-04), make the applicable AFM revisions specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD by incorporating the applicable Canadair (Bombardier) temporary revisions
(TRs)identified in Table 1 of this AD into the applicable AFM. Doing the actions specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
(1)For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes: Revise the Emergency Procedures section of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway.
(2)For Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes: Revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway and in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. Table 1.—TRs For Bombardier model— Use— Dated— To the— CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes Canadair Challenger TR 604/21 August 1, 2006 Canadair Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1. CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes Canadair Regional Jet TR RJ/152-4 August 9, 2006 Canadair Regional Jet AFM, CSP A-012.
(g)When the applicable TR specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM and the applicable TR may be removed, provided the relevant information in the general revisions is identical to that in the TR. New Requirements of This AD New AFM Revisions
(h)Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, make the applicable AFM revisions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD by incorporating the applicable Canadair (Bombardier) TRs identified in Table 2 of this AD into the applicable AFM. Doing this revision terminates the requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD, and after this revision has been done, remove the AFM revisions required by paragraph
(f)of this AD from the applicable AFM.
(1)For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes: Revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway and to advise the flightcrew of revised procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions.
(2)For Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes: Revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of revised procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway and in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. Table 2.—New TRs For Bombardier model— Use— Dated— To the— CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes Canadair Challenger TR 604/21-1 October 3, 2006 Canadair Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1. CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes Canadair Regional Jet TR RJ/152-5 October 3, 2006 Canadair Regional Jet AFM, CSP A-012.
(i)When the applicable TR specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM and the applicable TR may be removed, provided the relevant information in the general revisions is identical to that in the TR. Installation of Circuit Breaker Identification Collars
(j)Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, install circuit breaker identification collars in accordance with Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision C, dated September 29, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes); or the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes); as applicable. Additional AFM Revision
(k)For Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes: Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Normal section of the Canadair Regional Jet AFM, CSP A-012, to include the statement specified in Figure 1 of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of Figure 1 of this AD into the AFM. BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ER30OC06.056 Note 2: When a statement identical to that in paragraph
(k)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
(l)For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes: Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Normal section of the Canadair Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1, to include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. “Prior to the flightcrew's first flight of the day, do the following actions: 1. Review the location of the STAB CH1 HSTCU and STAB CH2 HSTCU circuit breakers. 2. Check the stabilizer trim system as detailed in CL-604 AFM ‘Normal Procedures’ section titled ‘Flight Controls Trim Systems, Before Flight—First Flight of the Day.’ ” Note 3: When a statement identical to that in paragraph
(l)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. Optional Terminating Action
(m)Installation of horizontal stabilizer trim control unit (HSTCU), part number (P/N) 601R92301-15 (vendor P/N 7060-10), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes); as applicable, constitutes terminating action for this AD. After doing the installation, the AFM revisions required by paragraphs (f), (h), (k), and
(l)of this AD may be removed from the applicable AFM, and the circuit breaker identification collars required by paragraph
(j)of this AD may be removed. Note 4: Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147, dated September 28, 2006, refers to Sagem Service Bulletin HSTCU-27-011, dated September 22, 2006, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the installation. Service Bulletin Exception
(n)Although Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006, specifies to return certain parts to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Previous Actions Accomplished According to Modification Summary Package
(o)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision A, dated September 18, 2006; or Revision B, dated September 27, 2006, are considered acceptable for compliance with the action specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD, provided that the circuit breaker collars meet the color requirements of Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision C, dated September 29, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(q)Canadian airworthiness directives CF-2006-20R1, dated October 4, 2006, and CF-2006-21R1, dated October 3, 2006, also address the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(r)You must use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006; Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision C, dated September 29, 2006; and the temporary revisions listed in Table 3 of this AD; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. If the optional terminating action is accomplished, you must use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147, dated September 28, 2006; as applicable, to perform the optional terminating actions specified in this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 3.—All Temporary Revisions Incorporated by Reference Temporary revision— Dated— To the— Canadair Challenger Temporary Revision 604/21 August 1, 2006 Canadair Challenger CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-1. Canadair Challenger Temporary Revision 604/21-1 October 3, 2006 Canadair Challenger CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-1. Canadair Regional Jet Temporary Revision RJ/152-4 August 9, 2006 Canadair Regional Jet Airplane Flight Manual, CSP A-012. Canadair Regional Jet Temporary Revision RJ/152-5 October 3, 2006 Canadair Regional Jet Airplane Flight Manual, CSP A-012.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006; Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147, dated September 28, 2006; Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision C, dated September 29, 2006; and the temporary revisions listed in Table 4 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Table 4.—New Temporary Revisions Incorporated by Reference Temporary revision— Dated— To the— Canadair Challenger Temporary Revision 604/21-1 October 3, 2006 Canadair Challenger CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-1. Canadair Regional Jet Temporary Revision RJ/152-5 October 3, 2006 Canadair Regional Jet Airplane Flight Manual, CSP A-012.
(2)On September 1, 2006 (71 FR 51990, September 1, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the temporary revisions listed in Table 5 of this AD. Table 5.—Previous Temporary Revisions Incorporated by Reference Temporary revision— Dated— To the— Canadair Challenger Temporary Revision 604/21 August 1, 2006 Canadair Challenger CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-1. Canadair Regional Jet Temporary Revision RJ/152-4 August 9, 2006 Canadair Regional Jet Airplane Flight Manual, CSP A-012.
(3)Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 13, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-17650 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23633; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-242-AD; Amendment 39-14801; AD 2006-22-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318-100 and A319-100 Series Airplanes; Model A320-111 Airplanes; Model A320-200, A321-200, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 Series Airplanes; Model A340-541 Airplanes; and Model A340-642 Airplanes; Equipped With Certain Sogerma-Services Powered Seats AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Airbus airplane models identified above. This AD requires inspecting to determine if a certain actuator is installed in the pilot's or co-pilot's seat, and doing applicable corrective actions. For certain actuators, the AD also requires replacing rotors on both vertical and horizontal movements with new rotors, and replacing the clutch cap with a new cap. This AD results from a report of heavy wear at the driving gear of the rotor shaft end of the electrical driven motor on certain actuators of the pilot's and co-pilot's seats. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded movement of the pilot's or co-pilot's seat during takeoff or landing, which could result in interference with the operation of the airplane and consequent temporary loss of airplane control. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 4, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of December 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Sogerma-Services, Z.I. de l'Arsenal—BP 109, 17303 Rochefort Cedex, France; and Messier-Bugatti, 45 Avenue Victor Hugo—Bat. 227, 93538 Aubervilliers, France; for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive
(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318-100 and A319-100 series airplanes; Model A320-111 airplanes; Model A320-200, A321-200, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; Model A340-541 airplanes; and Model A340-642 airplanes; equipped with certain Sogerma-Services powered seats. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 19, 2006 (71 FR 3021). That NPRM proposed to require inspecting to determine if a certain actuator is installed in the pilot's or co-pilot's seat, and doing applicable corrective actions. For certain actuators, that NPRM also proposed to require replacing rotors on both vertical and horizontal movements with new rotors, and replacing the clutch cap with a new cap. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Support for the NPRM Airbus supports the contents of the NPRM. Northwest Airlines supports the intent of the NPRM. Request To Extend Compliance Time Based on Parts Availability United Airlines states that the actuator supplier has a limited quantity of spare actuators. United estimates that it would require a six-month window between the AD release date and the AD effective date to permit sufficient time to rotate its spares through the shop for AD rework. United requests that we select an AD effective date that is at least six to eight months after the AD release date to provide sufficient lead time for the industry to rotate the spare actuators and seats. The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of USAirways, also states that its members have spoken to the seat manufacturer and raised concerns that there might be part shortages. ATA states that the issue of parts availability needs to be addressed before the AD is released. We infer that the commenters request that we extend the compliance time in paragraph
(h)of the NPRM or that we remove that paragraph from the final rule. Regarding parts shortages, we have confirmed with Airbus and EADS Sogerma that the necessary parts are available well within the time necessary to replace the actuators. We have not changed the final rule in this regard. Request To Extend Compliance Time To Match Heavy Maintenance Schedule ATA, on behalf of USAirways, requests that the compliance time be extended from 56 months to 72 months. This extension would allow USAirways to accomplish the AD requirements during heavy maintenance. We do not agree with the request to extend the compliance time based on an operator's heavy maintenance schedule. We have determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents the maximum interval of time allowable for the affected airplanes to continue to safely operate before the inspection is done. Since maintenance schedules vary among operators, there would be no assurance that the airplane would be inspected during that maximum interval. We have not changed the final rule in this regard. However, operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Request To Reduce Compliance Time The Airline Pilot's Association
(ALPA)recommends that the compliance time for the actuator/component replacement should be no greater than 50 percent of the component time-in-service that would result in the noted unsafe wear condition. ALPA states that if the compliance time meets this criterion, then the NPRM, as written, is satisfactory; if not, the proposed compliance time should be reduced accordingly. We disagree with the need to reduce the compliance time based on the stated criterion. In developing the compliance time for this AD, we considered not only the safety implications of the identified unsafe condition, but the average utilization rate of the affected fleet, the practical aspects of doing the required actions during regular maintenance periods, the availability of required parts, and the time necessary for the rulemaking process. We find that the compliance time, as proposed in the NPRM, provides an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final rule in this regard. Request To Remove Requirement To Replace Rotors and Clutch Cap JetBlue Airways states that the NPRM refers to a work scope that includes replacing vertical and horizontal rotors and replacing the clutch cap. JetBlue points out that Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617, dated February 1, 2005, refers to replacing only the affected motor/actuator as a unit for the vertical direction and marks the seat data plate. (Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617 was referenced in the NPRM as an appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain actions). JetBlue states that a flow chart on page 4 of the service bulletin provides a more accurate and easier-to-understand work scope for operators to implement. We agree. Paragraph
(f)of the NPRM refers to Part 3., “OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS,” of Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617 for instructions regarding replacing the vertical and horizontal rotors and replacing the clutch cap. As JetBlue points out, the flow chart on page 4 of Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617 provides an accurate and easy-to-understand work scope for operators to implement. Therefore, we have changed paragraph
(f)of the AD to refer to the flow chart in Part 1, paragraph D., “DESCRIPTION,” of the service bulletin. Request To Reference Service Information Letter
(SIL)Sogerma/Barfield states that the correct service information for inspecting the seats is not Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617, dated February 1, 2005, as specified in the NPRM, but Sogerma-Services SIL, SIL-TAAI1-25-059, dated February 8, 2005. We clarify that, for airplanes on which the part number and serial number are not visible on the seat base, Sogerma-Services SIL SIL-TAAI1-25-059 provides service information for inspecting the seats to determine their identity. In addition, Airbus Operator Information Telex
(OIT)SE 999.0040/05/FB, dated May 27, 2005, also provides service information for inspecting the seats. Therefore, we have added Note 1 to the AD to identify these two documents as additional sources of service information for doing the inspection required by paragraph
(f)of the AD. Requests To Reference Serial Numbers (S/Ns) for Replacement, and To Clarify Table 2 and Paragraph
(h)of the AD Sogerma/Barfield points out that paragraph
(f)of the NPRM specifies replacing all actuators listed in Table 2 of the NPRM. Sogerma/Barfield requests we change that paragraph to specify that only Labinal actuators with the part number (P/N) identified in Table 2 of the NPRM must be replaced, that all actuators having P/N 4136290005 must be replaced, and that P/N 4136290004 must be replaced only if the serial number of the part is lower than 5079. Sogerma/Barfield states that Aviac and Artus actuators are not affected. JetBlue confirms Sogerma/Barfield's statements about Table 2 and points out that the statement regarding the installation of spare parts in paragraph
(h)of the NPRM is also incorrect because it references Table 2. JetBlue states that the incorrect information in Table 2 could mislead inspectors and operators into replacing actuators that are not affected and are not potentially defective. United also requests that we clarify paragraph
(h)of the NPRM to specify that only Labinal actuators are affected, and that the Aviac or Artus actuators can still be installed provided the seat amendment label is installed. We agree with revising the P/N and S/N references for the Labinal actuators, as well as with the fact that Aviac and Artus actuators are not affected by the required actions. Airbus has confirmed that these requested changes are correct. In addition, French airworthiness directive F-2005-164, issued September 28, 2005, which is the parallel airworthiness directive for this AD, states that actuators having P/Ns 4136290004 and 4136290005 with S/Ns below 5080 must be removed from service. All P/N 4136290005 S/Ns are currently in the below-5080 range. We have revised table 2 and paragraph
(f)of the AD to change the part number references. In addition, we have removed paragraph
(h)of the NPRM from this final rule because we agree that it could be misleading. Request To Add Procedure for Identifying Actuator Installed on the Seats United points out that the NPRM requires identifying the actuator installed on the seats in accordance with part 1, paragraph A., “EFFECTIVITY,” pages 2 and 3, of Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617. United believes that the Labinal actuator cannot be identified only by checking for the label on the seat at the location specified in the service bulletin. United points out that the actuator may have been replaced with other affected part numbers many times since the seat was originally delivered, and the actuator identification label might not be on the seat. United quotes a note in the service bulletin, paragraph A., which states, “Seats equipped with ARTUS actuators, have not actuator identification label.” United suggests adding the following procedure to the service bulletin: “In order to accurately identify the actuator installed in the seat, open the seat back shroud to view the identification nameplate on the actuator.” We disagree with the need to add the specified words to the final rule. As noted under “Requests to Reference Serial Numbers for Replacement, and to Clarify Table 2 and Paragraph
(h)of the AD,” above, we have revised the AD to remove reference to the Artus actuators. In addition, the airplane manufacturer states that each time a new actuator is shipped to a repair center or maintenance center, a placard with relevant information about the actuator is delivered that is ready to be incorporated into the seat. It is the maintenance organization's or airline operator's responsibility to ensure that the correct placard is located on the seat. For actuators on which the relevant P/N or S/N is not visible, Airbus OIT SE 999.0040/05/FB provides service information for inspecting the seats. As stated above, reference to this OIT is now included in Note 1 of the AD. Request To Include Additional Work Hours JetBlue requests that we take into account the work that would be required to comply with the AD once the actual affected motor actuator has been identified by boroscope probe visual inspection. JetBlue points out that the visual inspection portion by itself will take only one hour per seat assembly, as shown in the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM. However, JetBlue states that once the defective motor actuator has been identified, it will take more hours to complete the required tasks. JetBlue states that the AD should have realistic information about the time required per airplane. This information is approximately four hours with two mechanics, or 16 work hours per airplane, as specified in Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617. JetBlue also states that the NPRM does not mention that the manufacturer is offering the replacement compliant motor/actuators free of charge. JetBlue states that this information might provide incentive to operators to perform the initial inspections and any necessary replacement sooner rather than later. ATA, on behalf of Northwest Airlines, also states that the costs quoted in the NPRM need to match those of the referenced service bulletin. Northwest Airlines points out that Airbus Service Bulletins A320-25-1430, dated May 31, 2005, and A320-25-3270, dated May 4, 2005, specify 1.5 hours for doing the same inspection that is detailed in the costs of compliance of the NPRM. We partially agree. We disagree that is necessary to increase the work hours required to do the inspections. The costs of compliance that are discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. In this case, the only action required by the AD for all airplanes is the inspection to determine if an affected actuator is installed. The costs of compliance also typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. We agree with including the costs to do the replacement once a defective actuator is identified. We also note that the manufacturer states that it will supply required parts to the operators at no cost. We have revised the Costs of Compliance section accordingly. Request To Correct Addresses Sogerma/Barfield requests that we correct the addresses for Sogerma-Services and for Messier-Bugatti, which were given incorrectly in the NPRM. We agree, and have corrected the addresses as requested. Clarification of Reporting Requirement Although Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617, dated February 1, 2005, specifies sending certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action. We have added a new paragraph
(h)to the AD to clarify that the report is not required. Explanation of Changes to Applicability of This AD We have revised the applicability statement to include the word “not” in the following phrase, “on which the actuator has not been replaced .* * * ” This change matches the effectivity of French airworthiness directive F-2005-164. Adding the word “not” does not expand the applicability of the AD. We have also revised paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(7) of the applicability statement of this AD to include Airbus Model A321-111, -112, and 131 airplanes, and Model A330-302 and -303 airplanes. These airplane models are covered in the applicability of French airworthiness directive F-2005-164. None of these models are on the U.S. register. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 743 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspection for U.S. operators is $48,295, or $65 per airplane. The replacement takes about 8 work hours per seat per airplane, for a potential total of 16 work hours per airplane, depending on the number of actuators identified, at an average labor rate of $65 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 replacement for U.S. operators is between $386,360 and $772,720, or between $520 and $1,040 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): ** 2006-22-04 Airbus:** Amendment 39-14801. Docket No. FAA-2006-23633; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-242-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective December 4, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category; equipped with any Sogerma-Services pilot or co-pilot seat identified in Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617, dated February 1, 2005, excluding any seat having part number (P/N) TAAI3-03PE00-01, TAAI3-03PE01-01, TAAI3-03CE00-01, and TAAI3-03CE01-01, with a serial number (S/N) higher than 791, on which the actuator has not been replaced after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Table 1.—Applicability Airbus model
(1)A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
(2)A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3)A320-111 airplanes.
(4)A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(5)A321-111, -112, -131, -211 and -231 airplanes.
(6)A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(7)A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(8)A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
(9)A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
(10)A340-541 airplanes.
(11)A340-642 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of heavy wear at the driving gear of the rotor shaft end of the electrical driven motor on certain actuators of the pilot's and co-pilot's seats. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded movement of the pilot's or co-pilot's seat during takeoff or landing, which could result in interference with the operation of the airplane and consequent temporary loss of airplane control. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection for the P/N of the Actuator
(f)Within 56 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine if an actuator identified in Table 2 of this AD is installed in the pilot's or co-pilot's seat, in accordance with Part 1, Paragraph D., “DESCRIPTION,” of Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617, dated February 1, 2005. If any actuator identified in Table 2 of this AD is found installed, within 56 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable corrective actions in accordance with Paragraph D., “DESCRIPTION,” of the service bulletin. Table 2.—Affected Actuators Manufacturer Actuator P/N
(1)Messier-Bugatti 4136290004, S/Ns 5079 and below.
(2)Messier-Bugatti 4136290005, S/Ns 5079 and below. Note 1: Sogerma-Services Service Information Letter SIL-TAAI1-25-059, dated February 8, 2005, and Airbus Operator Information Telex SE 999.0040/05/FB, dated May 27, 2005, are additional sources of service information for inspecting the seats. Concurrent Replacements
(g)For Messier-Bugatti actuators identified in Table 2 of this AD: Concurrently with the applicable corrective action required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, replace the rotors on both vertical and horizontal movements with new rotors, and replace the clutch cap with a new cap, in accordance with Messier-Bugatti Service Bulletin 4136290004-25-05 or 4136290005-25-02, both dated April 2005, as applicable. No Report Required
(h)Although Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617, dated February 1, 2005, specifies sending certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(j)French airworthiness directive F-2005-164, issued September 28, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use Messier-Bugatti Service Bulletin 4136290004-25-05, dated April 2005, or Messier-Bugatti Service Bulletin 4136290005-25-02, dated April 2005; and Sogerma-Services Service Bulletin TAAI1-25-617, dated February 1, 2005; as applicable; to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Sogerma-Services, Z.I. de l'Arsenal—BP 109—17303 Rochefort Cedex, France; and Messier-Bugatti, 45 Avenue Victor Hugo—Bat. 227—93538 Aubervilliers, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 11, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-17662 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30519 Amdt. No. 3190] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Weather Takeoff Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective October 30, 2006. The compliance date for each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* *For Purchase* —Individual SIAP and Weather Takeoff Minimums copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. *By Subscription* —Copies of all SIAPs and Weather Takeoff Minimums mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:
(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5 and 8260-15A. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above. The large number of SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums but refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC)Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP, and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided. Further, the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (air). Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2006. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Weather Takeoff Minimums effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: * * * Effective 23 November 2006 Camarillo, CA, Camarillo, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 8, Orig Camarillo, CA, Camarillo, GPS RWY 8, Orig, CANCELLED Camarillo, CA, Camarillo, RNAV
(GPS)Y RWY 26, Orig Camarillo, CA, Camarillo, RNAV
(GPS)Z RWY 26, Orig Camarillo, CA, Camarillo, GPS RWY 26, Orig, CANCELLED Willmar, MN, Willmar Muni VOR RWY 13, Orig Willmar, MN, Willmar Muni, VOR RWY 31, Orig Willmar, MN, Willmar Muni, Takeoff Minimums & Textual DPs, Orig Willmar, MN, Willmar Muni-John L Rice Field, GPS RWY 10, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Willmar, MN, Willmar Muni-John L Rice Field, LOC RWY 28, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Willmar, MN, Willmar Muni-John L Rice Field, VOR RWY 10, Amdt 2, CANCELLED Willmar, MN, Willmar Muni-John L Rice Field, VOR OR GPS RWY 28, Amdt 2, CANCELLED Willmar, MN, Willmar Muni-John L Rice Field, Takeoff Minimums & Textual DPs, Amdt 5, CANCELLED Portsmouth, NH, Pease Intl Tradeport, ILS OR LOC RWY 16, Amdt 1 Portsmouth, NH, Pease Intl Tradeport, ILS OR LOC RWY 34, Amdt 2 Portsmouth, NH, Pease Intl Tradeport, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 16, Amdt 1 Portsmouth, NH, Pease Intl Tradeport, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 34, Orig Socorro, NM, Socorro Muni, NDB-B, Orig-A, CANCELLED Idabel, OK, McCurtain County Regional, NDB-A, Orig, CANCELLED Nashville, TN, John C. Tune, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 2, Orig Nashville, TN, John C. Tune, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 20, Orig Nashville, TN, John C. Tune, GPS RWY 20, Orig, CANCELLED Effective 21 December 2006 Kalispell, MT, Glacier Park Intl, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 2, Amdt 1A Effective 18 January 2007 Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 6, Orig Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, RNAV
(GPS)RWY 24, Orig Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, Takeoff Minimums & Textual DPs, Orig The FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30513, Amdt No. 3184 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Vol 71, FR. No. 179, Page 54404; dated September 15, 2006) under section 97. 27, effective 23 November 2006, published in TL 06-21 are hereby RESCINDED as follows: Saratoga, WY, Shively Field, NDB-A, Amdt 1 Saratoga, WY, Shively Field, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig [FR Doc. E6-18084 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration 19 CFR Part 358 Docket No. 060602144-6270-02 RIN 0625-AA71 Procedures for Importation of Supplies for Use in Emergency Relief Work AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) hereby establishes procedures for importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties, as authorized under section 318(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) (19 U.S.C. 1318(a)). Such supplies would be for use in emergency relief work related to an emergency declared by the President. DATES: This rule is effective November 29, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy J. Ettinger, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, room 3622, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202-482-4618. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 318(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1318(a)) gives the Secretary of the Treasury authority, on a temporary basis, to respond immediately where the President declares the existence of an emergency. Specifically, the Secretary may “permit ... the importation free of duty of ... supplies for use in emergency relief work.” This authority, insofar as it encompasses antidumping and countervailing duties, was delegated to the Secretary of Commerce in 1979, pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1979. 1 Consistent with the Reorg. Plan, we have promulgated this rule in consultation with the Department of Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security. The rule establishes procedures for importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties, as authorized under section 318(a) of the Act. 1 All functions of the Secretary of Treasury under this provision, with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty functions, were transferred to Commerce pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1979, to be exercised in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. Reorg. Plan No. 3 is set out as notes under 19 U.S.C.A. 2171. Authority under section 318 of the Act was transferred to Commerce under section 5(a)(1)(E) of the Reorg. Plan. Discussion of Comments On June 22, 2006, the Department published a proposed rule and request for public comment concerning procedures for importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties, as authorized under section 318(a) of the Act (71 FR 35846, June 22, 2006). In finalizing these procedures, the Department carefully considered each of the comments it received. The following is an explanation of the provisions of the rule, as well as a summary of the comments received and the Department's responses to those comments. Section 358.101 Section 358.101 sets forth the scope of Part 358, procedures for importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties, as authorized under section 318(a) of the Act. Several commenters expressed support for the establishment of procedures for importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties. The commenters argued that the temporary suspension of antidumping and countervailing duties during an emergency could provide needed relief after natural disasters and would have a positive impact on emergency relief and reconstruction efforts by reducing costs and ensuring availability of building and other emergency relief supplies. Other commenters argued that there is no need for such a rule or that there have been no circumstances where antidumping or countervailing duties have been shown to affect or delay the importation of emergency supplies. One commenter argued that the rule would exacerbate the previously demonstrated injury to the domestic industry by permitting an additional influx of unfairly traded goods. The Department is committed to strong enforcement of U.S. trade laws and will do everything within the parameters prescribed by Congress to ensure that domestic industries obtain effective relief from dumped and subsidized imports. Congress also, however, has authorized the Secretary to permit the importation of supplies for use in relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties during a declared emergency. This rule establishes the procedures for importation of such supplies as authorized by Congress and is intended to facilitate access to needed resources in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency. Any waiver of antidumping and countervailing duties would be both temporary and limited to supplies for use in emergency relief work related to the emergency declared by the President. The Department does not believe that such temporary limited waivers will exacerbate injury to the domestic industry. Nevertheless, we recognize that we have no experience with the new waiver mechanism and that it is possible that the application of the waiver mechanism could have unintended consequences with regard to the protection afforded to U.S. industries found to be injured by dumped and/or subsidized imports. Therefore, we have added section 358.104, which provides that the Secretary will review and issue a report on the first five years of the operation of the waiver mechanism. The report will consider the impact of the application of the waiver mechanism on U.S. parties injured by dumped and/or subsidized imports. Several commenters argued that the Department has no legal authority to promulgate a rule allowing for temporary waiver of antidumping and countervailing duties because Title VII of the Act does not provide such authority and/or the waiver authority under section 318(a) of the Act does not explicitly reference or encompass antidumping or countervailing duties. We do not agree with the commenters' assertions. The Department's authority to promulgate this rule arises under section 318(a) of the Act. Specifically, section 318(a) gives the Secretary of the Treasury authority, on a temporary basis, to respond immediately where the President declares the existence of an emergency. Under these circumstances, the Secretary may permit the importation free of duty of supplies for use in emergency relief work. Insofar as it encompasses antidumping and countervailing duties, this authority was explicitly delegated to the Secretary of Commerce in 1979, pursuant to section 5(a)(1)(E) of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1979. Regardless of whether Title VII of the Act permits temporary waiver of antidumping and countervailing duties, such waiver authority is specifically and explicitly contemplated under section 318(a) of the Act. One commenter argued that, based on certain language in Reorg. Plan No. 3, any rule regarding the application of section 318 of the Act must be “jointly promulgated” between the Department and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). The Department disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of Reorg. Plan No. 3. Nothing in section 318(a) or in Reorg. Plan No. 3 requires that this rule be “jointly promulgated” with DHS or any other agency. Rather, section 5(a)(1)(E) of the Reorg. Plan provides that all functions of the Secretary of Treasury under section 318(a) of the Act 2 with respect to antidumping and countervailing duties, were transferred to the Secretary of Commerce “to be exercised in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.” In the course of promulgating this rule, the Department has, in fact, consulted with Treasury, as well as with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and DHS. These interagency consultations satisfy the requirements of Reorg. Plan No. 3. 2 In 2002, Pub.L. 107-210, section 342(1), designated the former text of section 318 of the Act as subsection
(a)of section 318 of the Act. Section 342(2) of Pub.L. 107-210 added new subsection
(b)to section 318 of the Act. One commenter suggested that there was no need for the rule because there are other emergency powers already available to the President and the federal government. The commenter is correct that there are other emergency powers available to the President and other federal agencies. For example, in addition to the authorities delegated to the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 3, section 318 of the Act contains provisions that provide relief from duties other than countervailing and antidumping duties and also from other measures affecting importations. Section 322 of the Act also provides for other emergency relief authority with regard to importations. We note that this rule (Part 358) is in no way intended to limit the emergency relief available through other provisions of the Act, or limit the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, or those to whom that authority has been delegated, to grant emergency relief of duties or take any other measure necessary to respond to a emergency or other threat pursuant to sections 318, 322, or any other provisions of the Act. However, the fact that there are other available emergency powers does not vitiate the need for this rule. The Department has determined to promulgate this rule in order to prescribe the process by which the Department will exercise its authority under section 318(a) of the Act. One commenter argued that the rule does not go far enough and that U.S. law should be amended to establish a “no or short supply” exception to the application of antidumping and countervailing duties in the form of either a public-interest test or a lesser-duty rule. Another commenter expressed concern that the rule could lead to an unnecessary short-supply provision and create a loophole benefitting its Brazilian orange juice competitors. One commenter proposed that the Department clarify that the rule does not apply to Mexican cement. This rule serves the limited function of establishing procedures for importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties, in the context of and related to an emergency declared by the President. The rule does not limit the definition of supplies for use in emergency relief work to products for which there is insufficient U.S. production. In other words, the rule is not a so-called “short-supply” provision. The rule also does not exempt specific products (such as orange juice or cement) from consideration as supplies for use in emergency relief work for the reason that what supplies might be needed for use in emergency relief work will depend on the circumstances of a specific declared emergency and the particular needs of persons affected by that emergency. Section 358.102 Section 358.102 sets forth the definition of terms that are used in Part 358. With respect to the definition of “supplies for use in emergency relief work,” some commenters proposed that emergency relief work be broadly defined and that the rule clarify that eligible supplies include, for example, supplies for repairs or reconstruction work made necessary by the emergency. Other commenters argued that the definition of “supplies for use in emergency relief work” is broader than the definition authorized by Congress. These commenters argued that section 318(a) of the Act limits supplies for use in emergency relief work to humanitarian goods provided on a short-term basis, specifically food, clothing, and medical and surgical supplies. The commenters proposed that the rule be redrafted to reflect this limited definition. The Department's proposed definition of “supplies for use in emergency relief work” was intended to reflect the statutory authority to permit the duty-free importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work. However, some commenters found the proposed definition too limited, while others found the proposed definition too broad. Given the mixed reaction to the proposed definition, the Department has modified the definition of “supplies for use in emergency relief work.” The definition will now track the language of section 318(a) of the Act. The Department does not agree with commenters' assertions that the statute “limits” supplies for use in emergency relief work to humanitarian goods provided on a short-term basis such as food, clothing, medical and surgical supplies. The statute also permits duty waiver for “other supplies for use in emergency relief work.” As a general proposition, identification of needed supplies will be dependent on the circumstances of an actual declared emergency. While clothing and medical supplies might be needed for emergency relief work in certain circumstances, there may be other circumstances where supplies related to repair or reconstruction work are equally or more needed. Section 358.103 Section 358.103 sets forth the procedures for importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties. Where the President, acting under section 318 of the Act, authorizes the Secretary to permit the importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work, the Secretary will consider a request for importation free of antidumping and countervailing duties under the conditions set forth in paragraph (a). Paragraph (a)(1) requires that a request be in writing, identifies persons that may submit a request, indicates the number of copies required for filing, and states that a request must be filed with the Department's Central Records Unit. Paragraph (a)(2) identifies the information required to be provided in a request. Two commenters proposed that the rule set time limits for submission of waiver requests, *e.g.* , within 60 days after the date of declaration of the emergency and for the entry of merchandise, *e.g.* , within 60 days after the date the waiver request is granted. The Department has not adopted a time limit for submission of waiver requests as suggested by the commenters. After declaring an emergency, and acting under section 318 of the Act, the President can authorize the Secretary to permit importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties. Opportunity to request, and the Secretary's determination to permit such importations are appropriate throughout the continuance of the declared emergency. A 60-day time limit on requests for importation of emergency relief supplies would frustrate the utility of the waiver mechanism by not allowing for differing circumstances or the duration of an actual emergency. The Department does, however, see merit in setting a deadline for entry of relief supplies once the Secretary has made a determination to permit such entry. A limited entry period is consistent with the entry-specific nature of a determination by the Secretary to waive duties, as well as the temporary duration of a declared emergency. Therefore, with one modification, the Department has adopted the 60-day time frame proposed by the commenters. Specifically, we have modified the proposal to allow a flexible approach to specific situations in which entry of duty-waiver merchandise will not occur within the 60-day time frame. This might occur, for example, where three shipments of duty-waiver merchandise are scheduled to enter the United States over a three month period, *i.e.* , one shipment per month. This flexible approach is reflected in our use of the word “normally” in new paragraph
(c)of section 358.103, which provides that duty-waiver merchandise must enter the United States *normally* within 60 days after the date on which the Secretary notifies the person who submitted the request or the merchandise will be subject to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, as applicable. One commenter proposed that, given the changing needs and conditions during an emergency, the Department should include some flexibility in the information requirements set forth in paragraph (a)(2). The commenter also suggested that the Department should ensure that the paperwork required not frustrate the utility of this mechanism at a time of dire need. The Department acknowledges that changing needs and conditions during an emergency might affect a requester's ability to provide all the information required for a waiver request at the time the request is submitted. However, the Department will need to have sufficient information to make a decision on a waiver request. The Department does not consider that the information requirements set forth in paragraph (a)(2) are particularly onerous, but welcomes any comments on reporting burdens associated with the information required for a waiver request. Other commenters proposed additional information requirements such as specification of the intended emergency use, identification of the U.S. customer, identification of the emergency relief-related project, and/or designation of the geographical limits for use of the merchandise. Two commenters argued that price, included in the list of required information, is not an appropriate element of any analysis of potential waiver because any price effects resulting from the emergency would similarly affect both fairly and unfairly traded goods. One commenter suggested that required information include a demonstration that the merchandise for which duty-free importation is requested be in short supply. As discussed above, this rule is not a short supply provision, and duty waiver on emergency relief supplies is not dependent on whether there is insufficient U.S. production. For this reason, the Department has not adopted the suggestion that information required under paragraph (a)(2) include a demonstration that there is insufficient U.S. production of the merchandise for which duty-free importation is requested. The Department has adopted, however, the essence of certain other suggestions regarding required information. In particular, the Department believes that identification of the person for whose account the merchandise will be brought into the United States, as well as designation of the geographical location at which the merchandise will be used, are useful pieces of information. We have modified paragraph (a)(2) to reflect these additions. Paragraph (a)(2) already provides for identification of the use to be made of the merchandise and, for this reason, we have not adopted the suggestion to include identification of the emergency relief-related project. Moreover, the term “emergency relief-related project” proposed by the commenter implies a formal, government-sponsored or -countenanced emergency relief project, which is not a limitation prescribed in this rule or in the statute. We also have not adopted the suggestion that price be excluded from the list of required information. The commenters assume that analysis of price effects is a factor in waiver requests. No such assumption is warranted. Price information may be relevant in subsequent administrative or new shipper reviews, for example, for purposes of both checking the completeness of respondents' reporting and providing an indication as to whether the merchandise was donated or sold. Paragraph
(b)provides that, if the Secretary determines to permit importation of particular merchandise free of antidumping and countervailing duties, the Secretary will notify the person who submitted the request and instruct CBP to allow entry of the merchandise without regard to antidumping and countervailing duties. One commenter proposed that the Secretary allow importation of merchandise free of antidumping and countervailing duties only where necessary to meet an important need in emergency relief efforts, to address short-term immediate humanitarian needs, where short-term need cannot adequately be met through fairly traded merchandise, and in circumstances not likely to have any significant impact on the effectiveness of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders or result in injury to a domestic industry. Another commenter proposed that importation of merchandise free of antidumping and countervailing duties should only be allowed where fairly traded merchandise cannot meet the short-term need. Other commenters proposed that the rule only allow for waiver of antidumping and countervailing duties on merchandise considered necessary for relief by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”). One commenter also suggested that the Department require that supplies for use in emergency relief work be donated, not sold. We have not adopted these suggestions. This rule establishes the procedures for importation of supplies for use in relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties during a declared emergency as authorized by Congress and is intended to facilitate access to needed resources in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency. What supplies might be needed for use in emergency relief work will depend on the circumstances of a specific declared emergency and the particular needs of persons affected by that emergency. While a FEMA list of needed emergency supplies, if created, could be instructive, the Department believes that it is appropriate for the Secretary to have maximum flexibility to review waiver requests in the context of a specific emergency and to make waiver determinations on an emergency-by-emergency basis. As discussed above, the Department does not believe that temporary limited waiver of antidumping and countervailing duties will exacerbate injury to the domestic industry. However, as set forth in new section 358.104, the Department will review the operation and impact of the waiver mechanism after five years. The Department also finds no reason to limit the definition of emergency relief supplies to only donated merchandise, as one commenter suggested, although the Secretary will consider whether the merchandise was donated or sold since that information is required to be included in a waiver request. Certain commenters suggested that there should be specific and/or short time limits on temporary waivers of antidumping and countervailing duties to prevent inappropriate long-term use of such waivers. Other commenters suggested that a waiver specify the allowable geographic limits for use of the imported merchandise. The Department agrees with these suggestions. To alleviate concerns about inappropriate long-term use of waivers, we have modified paragraph
(b)to indicate that waiver of antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of merchandise for use in emergency relief work will be specific and limited to the merchandise explicitly identified in the waiver request. Pursuant to paragraph (a)(2), a waiver request must identify, *inter alia* , the quantity of the merchandise to be imported, the proposed date of entry, the destination of the merchandise, and the use to be made of the merchandise at the designated destination. In addition, as discussed above, we have added paragraph
(c)to require that waiver merchandise enter the United States normally within 60 days after the date on which the Secretary grants a waiver request or such merchandise will be subject to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, as applicable. Certain commenters proposed that the Department provide notice to, and an opportunity for, interested parties to comment on requests before the Secretary makes a determination to permit importation of particular merchandise for use in emergency relief work. We have not adopted this proposal. The speed with which the Secretary may need to address requests for importation of emergency relief supplies will be dependent on the circumstances of an actual declared emergency. In certain situations, the Secretary may need to respond immediately and an opportunity for notice and comment could have a detrimental impact on persons in need of emergency relief supplies. The Department's regulations (19 CFR 351.104) already provide that the official record of each antidumping and countervailing duty proceeding will include material presented to the Secretary during the course of a proceeding, as well as determinations made by the Secretary, that pertain to the proceeding. As a result, requests for importation of emergency relief supplies and the Secretary's determination to permit importation, if any, will be included on the record of the relevant proceeding(s). In addition, we have added language to paragraph
(b)stating that notification of a determination by the Secretary will be posted on our website. Two commenters proposed that the Department be required to inform Congress about any application of the rule. The Department agrees that it is appropriate to inform Congress that it is establishing procedures for importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties, as authorized by section 318(a) of the Act, and it will provide notice of this rulemaking upon publication. No changes to the rule are necessary. Paragraph
(d)indicates possible penalties where merchandise entered for use in emergency relief work is used in the United States for some other purpose. The merchandise may be subject to seizure or other penalty, including under section 592 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1592). This paragraph had been numbered as paragraph
(c)in the proposed rule. One commenter proposed that, given the confused and unpredictable circumstances of a declared emergency, there should be a good-faith exception when merchandise is diverted away from the purpose identified in the initial request. The commenter suggested that financial penalties be limited to instances of bad-faith misuse of the duty-waiver mechanism. Other commenters proposed that there be stronger safeguards and/or oversight to ensure proper use of emergency supplies and/or to check on appropriate use after the fact. Several commenters suggested that importers should be required to file entry-specific certifications that the merchandise is for emergency relief. Some commenters proposed that the importer be subject to penalties for improper use of goods. Other commenters argued that the proposed rule does not include sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse by importers. The Department agrees with commenters that there is a need to ensure appropriate use of the duty-waiver mechanism and imported emergency relief supplies. For this reason, as set forth in paragraph (a)(2), a request for duty waiver must include, *inter alia* , a detailed description of the merchandise, state the quantity to be imported, identify a proposed date of entry, and indicate the destination of the merchandise. In response to comments, we also have added the requirements that the request identify the person for whose account the merchandise will be brought into the United States and the use to be made of the merchandise at the designated destination. As discussed above, the Secretary's determination to grant a duty-waiver request will be specific to the described merchandise and stated entry date, use, and destination. The Secretary's determination also will be made available in the public record of the relevant proceeding(s) and notification of the determination will appear on the Department's website. Any party with specific concerns about improper use of particular imports of emergency relief supplies should contact the Department about those specific concerns. Based on receipt of such comments and on its own authority, the Department may consider the need for penalties or other action if specific instances of misuse arise. Paragraph
(d)provides maximum flexibility in this regard because it does not limit the range of possible penalties for improper use. The proposed rule clarified that merchandise entered for use in emergency relief work is subject to Department reporting requirements in antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews, but that such merchandise will be excluded from the calculation of assessment and cash deposit rates. In the final rule, these two provisions are set forth in paragraphs
(e)and (f)(1), respectively. In addition, in paragraph
(e)we have added a reference to new shipper reviews to clarify that duty-waiver merchandise also is subject to Department reporting requirements in new shipper reviews. One commenter argued that subjecting merchandise entered for use in emergency relief work to Department reporting requirements in antidumping and countervailing duty reviews creates a burden of unnecessary reporting and recordkeeping in an emergency situation. The Department disagrees with the commenter's assertion. We expect that the data with respect to merchandise entered for use in emergency relief work already would be recorded in a producer's books as a matter of normal recordkeeping. With respect to duty-waiver merchandise, respondents would need to report only the data necessary to allow the Department to identify and account for the emergency relief transactions. In addition, the time period of the emergency and the period during which the relevant review ( *i.e.* , the review related to the period during which the duty-waiver merchandise was sold or donated in the United States) is conducted are not likely to be contemporaneous. Finally, the foreign producer responding to the Department's questionnaire in an administrative or new shipper review, and that producer's bookkeeping activities, are unlikely to have been directly affected by an emergency within the United States. Certain commenters suggested that the rule clarify that duty-waiver merchandise does not count towards “commercial quantities” requirements in certain types of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. The commenter also suggested that the rule clarify the effect on suspension agreements and the effect on yearly quotas. We agree that we should clarify the treatment of merchandise entered for use in emergency relief work in certain other types of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings and circumstances. Therefore, we have added paragraph
(f)to section 351.103 to provide such clarification. Paragraph (f)(1) clarifies that merchandise entered for use in emergency relief work will be excluded from the calculation of assessment and cash deposit rates in an administrative or new shipper review. Previously, this clarification was reflected in paragraph
(d)of the proposed rule, although paragraph (f)(1) is modified to add a reference to new shipper reviews and a cross reference to the applicable statutory provision governing administrative and new shipper reviews. The remaining substance of paragraph
(d)of the proposed rule is now reflected in paragraph
(e)of the final rule, which provides that merchandise entered for use in emergency relief work is subject to Department reporting requirements in antidumping and countervailing duty administrative and new shipper reviews. Paragraph (f)(2) is new and clarifies that merchandise entered for use in emergency relief work will not count for purposes of any of the “commercial quantities” requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.222. Paragraph (f)(3) also is new and clarifies that such merchandise also will not count for purposes of the quantity allowed by, or revised price requirements established pursuant to, a suspension agreement under section 704 or section 734 of the Act. Classification E.O. 12866 This rule has been determined to be not significant under E.O. 12866. Paperwork Reduction Act Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for a failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. This rule involves collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. The information collection requirements in 19 CFR Part 358 are approved by OMB and assigned OMB control number 0625-0256. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated at 10 total burden hours. This time is an estimate of the time required to complete a waiver request, review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the collection of information. E.O. 12612 This rule does not contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Chief Counsel for Regulation at the Department certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis of this certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received on the economic impact of this rule. As a result, no Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared. List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 358 Administrative practice and procedure, Antidumping duties, Business and industry, Countervailing duties, Emergency powers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 20, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Commerce adds 19 CFR Part 358 as follows: PART 358—SUPPLIES FOR USE IN EMERGENCY RELIEF WORK Sec. 358.101 Scope. 358.102 Definitions. 358.103 Importation of supplies. 358.104 Report. Authority: 19 U.S.C. 1318(a). § 358.101 Scope. This part sets forth the procedures for importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties, as authorized under section 318(a) of the Act. § 358.102 Definitions. For purposes of this part: *Act* means the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. *CBP* means the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the United States Department of Homeland Security. *Department* means the United States Department of Commerce. *Order* means an order issued by the Secretary under section 303, section 706, or section 736 of the Act. *Secretary* means the Secretary of Commerce or a designee. *Supplies for use in emergency relief work* means food, clothing, and medical, surgical, and other supplies for use in emergency relief work. § 358.103 Importation of supplies.
(a)Where the President, acting under section 318 of the Act, authorizes the Secretary to permit the importation of supplies for use in emergency relief work free of antidumping and countervailing duties, the Secretary shall consider requests for such importation under the following conditions:
(1)Before importation, a written request shall be submitted to the Secretary by the person in charge of sending the subject merchandise from the foreign country or by the person for whose account it will be brought into the United States. Three copies of the request should be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce, Attention: Import Administration, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
(2)The request shall state the Department antidumping and/or countervailing duty order case number, the producer of the merchandise, a detailed description of the merchandise, the current HTS number, the price in the United States, the quantity, the proposed date of entry, the proposed port of entry, the mode of transport, the person for whose account the merchandise will be brought into the United States, the destination, the use to be made of the merchandise at the designated destination, and any other information the person would like the Secretary to consider.
(b)If the Secretary determines to permit duty-free importation of particular merchandise for use in emergency relief work, the Secretary will notify the person who submitted the request, instruct CBP to allow entry of the merchandise identified in the request submitted under paragraph
(a)without regard to antidumping and countervailing duties, and post notification of the determination on the Department's website.
(c)Any subject merchandise entered under paragraph
(b)of this section must enter the United States normally within 60 days after the date on which the Secretary notifies the person who submitted the request or the merchandise will be subject to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, as applicable.
(d)Any subject merchandise entered under paragraph
(b)of this section which is used in the United States other than for a purpose contemplated for it by section 318(a) of the Act may be subject to seizure or other penalty, including under section 592 of the Act.
(e)Any subject merchandise entered under paragraph
(b)of this section is subject to the Department's reporting requirements in its conduct of an antidumping and/or countervailing duty administrative or new shipper review, as applicable.
(f)Any subject merchandise entered under paragraph
(b)of this section will be excluded from:
(1)The calculation of assessment and cash deposit rates in an administrative or new shipper review under section 751(a) of the Act;
(2)“Commercial quantities” under 19 CFR 351.222; and
(3)The quantity allowed by, or revised price requirements established pursuant to, a suspension agreement under section 704 or section 734 of the Act, as applicable. § 358.104 Report. The Secretary will review and issue a report on the first five years of the operation of Part 358. The report will consider the impact of determinations to permit importation of particular merchandise for use in emergency relief work under this Part, on U.S. parties injured by dumped and/or subsidized imports. [FR Doc. E6-18193 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION 22 CFR Parts 1002 and 1005 Change of Address and Other Agency Contact Information; Technical Amendments AGENCY: Inter-American Foundation. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendments. SUMMARY: The Inter-American Foundation
(IAF)is amending its regulations to reflect a change in the agency's address, as well as in the contact office for requesting access to agency records and the hours during which staff may be reached. This action is editorial in nature and is intended to increase the accuracy of the IAFs regulations. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Verreau, Office of the General Counsel, Inter-American Foundation, 901 N. Stuart St., 10th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203, *rverreau@iaf.gov* or 703-306-4301. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The IAF is amending its regulations to reflect a change in the agencys address. The amendments also reflect changes in the contact office for requesting access to agency records from the Administration and Finance Division to the Office of the General Counsel and an increase in the hours of availability of IAF staff to respond to such requests. Publication of this document constitutes final action on these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Notice and public procedures are unnecessary because the IAF is correcting nonsubstantive errors only. II. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Because the amendments made by this document relate to management, organization, and practice, prior notice and opportunity for comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). In addition, prior notice and opportunity for comment are unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) because the process of amending and updating the sections is merely technical in nature and proposes no substantive changes to which public comment could be solicited. This final rule is made effective upon publication in the **Federal Register.** The IAF finds that good cause exists for this final rule to be exempt from the 30-day delayed effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) because a delay in effective date is unnecessary and would not be in the public interest. List of Subjects 22 CFR Part 1002 Administrative practice and procedure, Availability of agency records. 22 CFR Part 1005 Administrative practice and procedure, Prohibition of discrimination against persons with disabilities in IAF programs and activities. Therefore, the IAF amends 22 CFR parts 1002 and 1005 as set forth below: PART 1002—AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS 1. The authority citation for part 1002 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, and 31 U.S.C. 483(a). § 1002.3 [Amended] 2. Section 1002.3 is amended by: A. Removing “10 a.m. and 4 p.m.” and adding in its place “9 a.m. and 5 p.m.” B. By removing “1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209” and adding in its place “901 N. Stuart St., 10th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203”. C. By removing “Director, Administration and Finance Division (A&F Director)” and adding in its place “General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel (General Counsel's Office)”. D. By removing “Office of A&F” and adding in its place “General Counsel's Office”. § 1002.4 [Amended] 3. Section 1002.4 is amended in paragraph
(a)by removing “Director, Administration & Finance Division, Inter-American Foundation, Fifth Floor, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209” and adding in its place “General Counsel, Inter-American Foundation, 901 N. Stuart St., 10th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203”. § 1002.5 [Amended] 4. Section 1002.5 introductory text is amended by removing “Administration and Finance Division” and adding in its place “General Counsel's Office”. § 1002.7 [Amended] 5. Section 1002.7 is amended in paragraph
(a)by removing “A&F Director” and adding in its place “General Counsel”. PART 1005—ENFORCEMENT OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION 6. The authority citation for part 1005 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 794. § 1005.170 [Amended] 7. Section 1005.170(c) is amended by removing “1515 Wilson Boulevard, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209” and adding in its place “901 N. Stuart St., 10th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203”. Dated: October 13, 2006. Jennifer R. Hodges, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-18074 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7025-01-P INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION 22 CFR Part 1004 Rules for Implementing Open Meetings Within the Inter-American Foundation AGENCY: Inter-American Foundation. ACTION: Final rule; clarifying amendments. SUMMARY: The Inter-American Foundation
(IAF)is re-issuing and updating its rules for implementing open meetings, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b. This rule promotes public understanding of the decisionmaking processes of the IAF, while protecting the rights of individuals and the ability of the agency to carry out its responsibilities. This action is technical and procedural in nature and is intended to provide accuracy and clarity to the agency's existing regulations. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Verreau, Office of the General Counsel, 901 N. Stuart St., 10th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203, *rverreau@iaf.gov* or
(703)306-4301. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Inter-American Foundation
(IAF)is updating its rules for implementing open meetings, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b. This final rule amends and updates existing IAF regulations in conformance with 5 U.S.C. 552b. II. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Because the amendments made by this document relate to management, organization, procedure, and practice, prior notice and opportunity for comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). In addition, prior notice and opportunity for comment are unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) because the process of amending and updating the sections is merely technical and procedural in nature and proposes no substantive changes to which public comment could be solicited. This final rule is made effective upon publication in the **Federal Register** . The IAF finds that good cause exists for this final rule to be exempt from the 30-day delayed effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) because a delay in effective date is unnecessary and would not be in the public interest. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) The IAF has determined this action does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We anticipate the economic impact of this rulemaking will be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), we have evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities. Based on this evaluation, the IAF hereby certifies this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No substantive changes are being made to the regulations that would affect small entities. C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The IAF has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4; 2 U.S.C. 1532) do not apply to this rulemaking. D. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking. E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment) The IAF has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 published at 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). The regulations amended and updated by the IAF herein do not preempt State authority or jurisdiction, or establish any conflicts with existing State roles. The IAF has therefore determined this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property) This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. H. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This rule contains no collection of information requirements and was not reviewed by OMB. I. National Environmental Policy Act The IAF has analyzed this rule under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) and determined that this rule has no environmental effects because it amends and updates regulations that are technical, editorial or procedural in nature and is therefore excluded further environmental documentation. In addition, the agency finds this action includes no extraordinary circumstances that would have any effect on the quality of the environment. Thus, the action does not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 1004 Government in the Sunshine Act. Accordingly, 22 CFR part 1004 is revised to read as follows: PART 1004—RULES FOR IMPLEMENTING OPEN MEETINGS WITHIN THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION Sec. 1004.1 General policies. 1004.2 Definitions. 1004.3 Requirement of open meetings. 1004.4 Grounds on which meetings may be closed. 1004.5 Procedures for announcing meetings. 1004.6 Procedures for closing meetings. 1004.7 Reconsideration of opening or closing of meeting. 1004.8 Transcripts, recording of closed meeting. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b. § 1004.1 General policies. The Inter-American Foundation
(IAF)will, in accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, provide the public with the fullest practical information regarding its decisionmaking processes while protecting the rights of individuals and its ability to carry out its responsibilities. § 1004.2 Definitions. The following definitions apply:
(a)*Agency* includes any executive department, military department, government corporation, government controlled corporation other establishment in the executive branch of the government (including the Executive Office of the President) or any independent regulatory agency, and is headed by a collegial body composed of two or more individual members, a majority of whom are appointed to such position by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and any subdivision thereof authorized to act on behalf of the agency. The Inter-American Foundation is a government corporation headed by a nine-member Board of Directors, all of whom are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and is therefore an “agency” under these terms.
(b)*Meeting* means the deliberation of this Board of Directors where such deliberation determines or results in the joint conduct or disposition of official IAF business, but does not include deliberations required or permitted by subsection 1004.6 or 1004.7.
(c)*Member* means an individual who belongs to the IAF Board of Directors.
(d)*Public Observation* means attendance at any meeting but does not include participation, or attempted participation, in such meeting in any matter. § 1004.3 Requirement of open meetings. Members shall not jointly conduct or dispose of agency business other than in accordance with this section. Except as provided in § 1004.4 every portion of every meeting of the agency shall be open to public observation. § 1004.4 Grounds on which meetings may be closed. The IAF shall open every portion of every meeting of the agency for public observation. Except in a case where the agency finds that the public interest requires otherwise, this requirement does not apply where the agency determines that such portion or portions of its meeting or the disclosure of such information is likely to:
(a)Disclose matters that are:
(1)Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy, and
(2)In fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(b)Relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practice of the agency;
(c)Disclose matters specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, provided that such statute:
(1)Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such manner as to have no discretion on the issue, or
(2)Establishes practical criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(d)Disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(e)Involve accusing any person of a crime, or formally censuring any person;
(f)Disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(g)Disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such records, but only to the extent that the production of such records or information would:
(1)Interfere with enforcement proceedings,
(2)Deprive a person of a right to a fair trial of an impartial adjudication,
(3)Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
(4)Disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source,
(5)Disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or
(6)Endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel;
(h)Disclose information contained in or related to examination, operating or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;
(i)Disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. This shall not apply in any instance where the IAF has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action or where the IAF is required by law to make such disclosure of its own initiative prior to taking final IAF action on such proposal;
(j)Specifically concern the IAF's issuance of subpoena, or the IAF's participation in a civil action or proceeding, an action in a foreign court or international tribunal, or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition by the IAF of a particular case of formal agency adjudication pursuant to the procedures in section 554 of this title or otherwise involving a determination on the record after opportunity for a hearing. Note to § 1004.4: The requirements of §§ 1004.5 and 1004.6 shall not apply to any information pertaining to those meetings exempted under this section. § 1004.5 Procedures for announcing meetings.
(a)In the case of each meeting, the IAF shall make public, at least one week before the meeting, of the time, place and subject matter of the meeting, whether it is to be open or closed to the public, and the name and phone number of the official designated by the IAF to respond to requests for information about the meeting. Such announcement shall be made unless a majority of the Board of Directors of the IAF determines by a recorded vote that the IAF requires that such a meeting be called at an earlier date, in which case the IAF shall make public announcement of the time, place and subject matter of such meeting and whether open or closed to the public, at the earliest practical time.
(b)Immediately following the public announcement, the IAF will submit notice for publication in the **Federal Register** .
(c)The IAF shall also make public the announcement by other reasonable means, accessible to the public. § 1004.6 Procedures for closing meetings.
(a)The closing of a meeting or a portion of a meeting shall occur only when:
(1)A majority of the membership of the IAF Board votes to take such action. That vote shall determine whether or not any portion or portions of a meeting or portions of a series of meetings may be closed to public observation for any of the reasons provided in § 1004.4 and whether or not the public interest nevertheless requires that portion of the meeting or meetings remain open. A single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings, a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public, or with respect to any information concerning such series of meetings, so long as each meeting in such series involves the same particular matters and is scheduled to be held no more than thirty days after the initial meeting in such series. The vote of each Board member participating in such vote shall be recorded and no proxies shall be allowed.
(2)Whenever any person whose interests may be directly affected by a portion of a meeting requests that the IAF close such portion to the public for any of the reasons referred to in § 1004.4 the IAF, upon request of any one of its Board members, shall take a recorded vote, whether to close such portion of the meeting.
(b)Within one day of any vote taken pursuant to this Section, the IAF shall make publicly available a written copy of such vote reflecting the vote of each member on the question and full written explanation of its action closing the entire or portion of the meeting together with a list of persons expecting to attend the meeting and their affiliation.
(c)The IAF shall, subject to change, announce the time, place and subject matter of the meeting at least 7 days before the meeting.
(d)For every closed meeting pursuant to § 1004.4, the General Counsel of the IAF shall publicly certify prior to a Board of Directors' vote on closing the meeting, that, in his or her opinion, the meeting may be closed to the public and shall state each relevant exemptive provision. A copy of such certification, together with a statement from the presiding officer of the meeting setting forth the time and place of the meeting, and the persons present, shall be retained by the IAF. § 1004.7 Reconsideration of opening or closing of meeting. The time or place of a Board meeting may be changed, without vote, following public announcement. The IAF will announce any such change at the earliest practicable time. The subject matter of a meeting, or the determination of the agency to open or close a meeting, or portion of a meeting, to the public, may be changed only if a majority of the Board of Directors determines by a recorded vote that IAF business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible, and the IAF publicly announces such change and the vote of each member upon such change at the earliest practicable time. § 1004.8 Transcripts, recording of closed meetings.
(a)The IAF shall maintain a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to record fully the proceedings of each meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public, except that in the case of a meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public pursuant to paragraph (d), (h), or
(j)of § 1004.4, the IAF shall maintain either such a transcript or recording, or a set of minutes. Such records shall fully and clearly describe all matters discussed and shall provide a full and accurate summary of any actions taken, and the reasons therefore, including a description of each of the views expressed on any item and the record of any roll call vote (reflecting the vote of each member on the question). All documents considered in connection with any action shall be identified in such records.
(b)The IAF, after review by the General Counsel shall make promptly available to the public, in a place easily accessible to the public, the transcript or electronic recording or minutes of the discussion of any time on the agenda, or any item of the testimony of any witness received at the Board meeting, except for such item or items of such discussion or testimony as the IAF determines to contain information which may be withheld under § 1004.4. Copies of such transcript, or a transcription of such recording disclosing the identity of each speaker, shall be furnished to any person at the actual cost of duplication or transcription. The IAF shall maintain a complete verbatim copy of the transcript, a complete copy of the minutes or a complete electronic recording of each meeting, or portion of a meeting, closed to the public, for a period of at least two years after such meeting, or until one year after the conclusion or any IAF proceedings with respect to which the meeting or portion was held, whichever occurs later. Dated: October 13, 2006. Jennifer R. Hodges, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-18073 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 [Docket No. H054A] RIN 1218-AB45 Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)is making a minor amendment to its final rule governing occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium in general industry, which was promulgated on February 28, 2006. This amendment implements a settlement agreement (Agreement) entered into among OSHA, the Surface Finishing Industry Council (SFIC), Public Citizen Health Research Group (HRG), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (Steelworkers) on October 25, 2006, to resolve SFIC's legal challenge to the standard. DATES: The amendment in this document will be effective November 29, 2006. Declarations of Party Status must be received by OSHA or postmarked on or before November 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: In accordance with the instructions in Section IV of this notice, Declarations of Party Status must be submitted to Richard Fairfax, Director of Enforcement Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room N3119, Washington, DC 20210; Fax:
(202)693-1681. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Fairfax, Director of Enforcement Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room N3119, Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2190. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background OSHA promulgated its final rule governing occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (also written as chromium
(VI)or Cr(VI)) in general industry (the standard) on February 28, 2006. *See* 71 FR 10100-385. The standard requires employers to use feasible engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposures to Cr(VI) at or below the permissible exposure limit
(PEL)of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (5 μg/m 3 ), calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA). If an employer can demonstrate that feasible engineering and work practice controls are not sufficient to reduce exposures to or below the PEL, it must use those controls to attain the lowest levels achievable and then provide affected employees with supplemental respiratory protection. 29 CFR 1910.1026(f). The standard also requires employers to provide respiratory protection for employees during periods when feasible engineering and work practice controls are being installed, during emergencies, and in certain other situations. 29 CFR 1910.1026(g)(1). Although employers have until May 31, 2010, to implement feasible engineering controls, they must begin to comply with respirator requirements by November 27, 2006 (for employers with 20 or more employees) and May 30, 2007 (for employers with 19 or fewer employees). 29 CFR 1910.1026(n). SFIC, a trade association whose members are primarily surface- and metal-finishing (electroplating) job shops, filed a timely petition for review of the standard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SFIC's petition was consolidated with other petitions for review of the standard, including one filed jointly by HRG and the Steelworkers on behalf of workers affected by the standard, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. SFIC, OSHA, HRG and the Steelworkers engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve SFIC's challenge to the standard. The negotiations resulted in OSHA, SFIC, HRG, and the Steelworkers agreeing to the settlement being attached to the standard as Appendix A. Eligible SFIC members and other metal- and surface-finishing job shop facilities may become parties to this Agreement by following the instructions in Section IV of this notice. The Agreement creates an optional, alternative compliance timetable for metal- and surface-finishing operations at eligible worksites. Facilities that elect to participate must implement engineering controls on an expedited schedule (by December 31, 2008), but will have relief from certain respirator requirements in the interim. (See Section II below for a detailed summary of the Agreement.) This is not a material change to the substantive requirements of the standard, and therefore the amendment does not require a new finding of significant risk. *See Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO* v. *American Petroleum Institute* , 448 U.S. 607 (1980). *See also* 71 FR at 10221-25. Moreover, this Agreement is conceptually consistent with findings OSHA made during the original rulemaking—namely that engineering controls are preferable to respiratory protection and that electroplating job shops will face unique economic feasibility issues in complying with the PEL of 5 μg/m 3 using either respirators *or* engineering controls. In the preamble to the final standard, OSHA explained its longstanding preference for engineering and work practice controls over respiratory protection. The agency concluded that respirators do not “provide the same degree of protection” as other types of controls. 71 FR at 10335. OSHA stated that the “use of respirators in the workplace presents a number of independent safety and health concerns.” *Id.* Those concerns include the impairment of vision and communication, the physiological burdens associated with the weight of the respirator, and the increased breathing resistance experienced during respirator use. *Id.* OSHA also concluded that “respirators are inherently less reliable than engineering and work practice controls” insofar as the effectiveness of respirators depends on appropriate selection and fit, proper use, and proper maintenance—all conditions that “can be difficult to attain, and are subject to human error.” *Id.* In contrast, OSHA found that “[e]ngineering controls are reliable, provide consistent levels of protection to a large number of workers, can be monitored, allow for predictable performance levels, and can efficiently remove a toxic substance from the workplace.” 71 FR at 10345. In its economic feasibility analysis, OSHA concluded that the record did not support a finding that the proposed PEL of 1 μg/m 3 was economically feasible for electroplating job shops. Based upon the evidence in the record, OSHA found that the cost of compliance with the proposed PEL of 1 μg/m 3 could jeopardize the competitive structure of the industry. Although OSHA ultimately concluded that the final PEL of 5 μg/m 3 *is* economically feasible for electroplating job shops, the agency also found that the cost of compliance will have a very significant adverse economic impact on this industry. 71 FR at 10301. OSHA considered whether permitting the use of respirators in lieu of engineering controls would alleviate any of the economic burden on this industry, but concluded that for these facilities “respirator use would be almost as expensive as using engineering controls.” 71 FR at 10310. *See also* 71 FR at 10301. In light of the aforementioned findings, OSHA considers it reasonable to provide eligible facilities with the option of devoting their resources to implementing engineering controls on an expedited basis instead of to interim respirator requirements. OSHA believes that the Agreement and corresponding amendment to the standard will have the positive result of expediting the installation of engineering controls for a narrow group of employers with unique economic feasibility concerns. Although the Agreement will provide participating electroplating facilities with temporary, limited relief from short-term respirator requirements, provisions in the Agreement (discussed more fully in Section II of this notice) ensure that those facilities will still provide respirators in certain situations, *e.g.* , for certain metal-finishing tasks when exposures exceed the PEL and for any other employees who request respiratory protection. In entering into the Agreement and adopting this amendment, OSHA did not make and is not presently making any representations regarding its enforcement of the hexavalent chromium standard in facilities that are *not* parties to the Agreement. Moreover, neither the Agreement nor the corresponding amendment to the standard have any relationship to OSHA's enforcement of any other occupational safety or health standards. II. Explanation of the Agreement Amendment to the Compliance Date Provisions OSHA is amending the hexavalent chromium standard for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1026) as follows:
(1)Existing paragraph 1910.1026(n)(3) is being amended to clarify that facilities that are parties to the Agreement are covered by the compliance deadline in new paragraph (n)(4) instead of the otherwise applicable May 31, 2010, compliance deadline for engineering controls;
(2)A new paragraph, 1910.1026(n)(4), is being added to the standard to provide that facilities that are parties to the Agreement must implement feasible engineering controls by December 31, 2008; and
(3)The Agreement between OSHA, SFIC, HRG, and the Steelworkers is being attached to the standard as Appendix A. Facilities that become parties to the Agreement must comply with all provisions of the standard in accordance with the compliance dates set forth in 29 CFR 1910.1026(n), as amended, except that in certain circumstances (described below) OSHA will not enforce respirator requirements in those facilities prior to December 31, 2008. Accelerated Implementation of Engineering Controls Facilities that become parties to the Agreement must implement those feasible engineering controls necessary to reduce hexavalent chromium levels at their facilities to or below the 5 μg/m 3 PEL, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1), by December 31, 2008. In fulfilling this obligation, the facilities may select from the engineering and work practice controls listed in Exhibit A to this Agreement or adopt any other controls. Respirator Enforcement With the exception of the six classes of employees described below, OSHA has agreed not to enforce the respirator protection provisions at 29 CFR 1910.1026(f) and
(g)prior to December 31, 2008, for metal- and surface-finishing operations in facilities that are parties to, and are complying with, the Agreement. The six classes of employees for which OSHA *will* enforce all of the standard's respiratory protection provisions are as follows:
(1)Employees who are exposed to Cr(VI) in excess of the PEL while performing tasks described in Exhibit B to the Agreement. These tasks, as described more completely in Exhibit B, include Cr(VI) chemical additions, Cr(VI) preparation and mixing, Cr(VI) tank cleaning, and Cr(VI) painting operations.
(2)Through November 30, 2007, employees whose exposures to Cr(VI) exceed an interim “respirator threshold” of 20 μg/m 3 (measured as an 8-hour time-weighted average).
(3)Beginning December 1, 2007, employees whose exposures to Cr(VI) exceed an interim “respirator threshold” of 12.5 μg/m 3 (measured as an 8-hour time-weighted average).
(4)Employees who are exposed to Cr(VI) and request a respirator.
(5)Any other employees who are required by their employers to wear a respirator.
(6)Employees with exposures for which respirators were required under the previous Cr(VI) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1000, and any other employees covered by respirator programs in effect on May 30, 2006. Compliance Plan and Monitoring The standard requires all employers, including facilities that are parties to the Agreement, to make an initial exposure determination for each employee exposed to Cr(VI). Facilities that are parties to the Agreement may do this using either the monitoring option described at 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(i) (which involves taking a sufficient number of personal breathing zone air samples to accurately characterize full shift exposure on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area) or the performance-oriented option described at 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(3) (which involves using any combination of air monitoring data, historical monitoring data, or objective data sufficient to accurately characterize employee exposures). Thereafter, each facility that is a party to the Agreement must conduct periodic monitoring in accordance with the Scheduled Monitoring Option provision at 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2). Under this provision, if monitoring reveals employee exposures to be above the PEL, the employer shall perform periodic monitoring at least every three months. If monitoring reveals employee exposures to be at or above the action level of 2.5 μg/m 3 (as an 8-hour TWA), the employer shall perform periodic monitoring at least every six months. If monitoring indicates that employee exposures are below the action level, the employer may discontinue monitoring for those employees whose exposures are represented by such monitoring. The standard requires employers to notify employees whenever an exposure determination indicates exposures above the PEL. This notification must be in writing and must describe the corrective actions being taken to reduce employee exposures to or below the PEL. 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(4). In accordance with this requirement, facilities that are parties to the Agreement must prepare a written compliance plan that sets forth the specific control steps being taken to reduce exposures to or below the PEL and must update that plan each time monitoring reveals exposures above the PEL. Upon request, compliance plans and monitoring results must be provided to OSHA, affected employees and employee representatives. Training In addition to training employees as required by Section 1026(l)(2) of the standard, facilities that are parties to the Agreement must train their employees in the provisions of the Agreement within sixty
(60)days of the Opt-in Date ( *see* Section IV). This training must be provided in a manner and language the employees can understand. Facilities That Are Not Parties to the Agreement The terms of the Agreement and the amendment being made to Section
(n)of the standard have no impact on the compliance requirements applicable to facilities that are not eligible to or do not elect to become parties to the Agreement. Facilities that are not parties to the Agreement must comply with all respirator requirements beginning on the applicable compliance date (November 27, 2006 for employers with 20 or more employees and May 30, 2007 for employers with 19 or fewer employees) and will have until May 31, 2010 to implement feasible engineering controls. III. Eligibility Criteria An employer's facility is eligible to become a party to the Agreement if
(1)The employer is a member of SFIC *or* the facility is a surface-finishing or metal-finishing job shop that sells plating or anodizing services to other companies; *and*
(2)the facility is within the jurisdiction of Federal OSHA. The terms of the Agreement apply only to surface- and metal-finishing operations in those facilities. IV. Instructions for Eligible Facilities Employers can make their eligible facilities parties to the Agreement by completing a Declaration of Party Status. Declarations are available on OSHA's Web site at *http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hexavalentchromium/hexchrom_settlement.html. A separate declaration must be completed for each facility.* Questions about eligibility and other inquires about becoming a party to the Agreement can be directed to OSHA's Office of Health Enforcement at
(202)693-2190 Completed declarations must be mailed or sent by facsimile to: Richard Fairfax, Director of Enforcement Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room N3119, Washington, DC 20210; Fax:
(202)693-1681. Declarations of Party Status must be received by OSHA or postmarked on or before November 30, 2006. For purposes of the Settlement Agreement, this deadline is known as the “Opt-in Date.” V. Instructions for Facilities in State Plan Jurisdictions SFIC members and other electroplating job shop facilities within the jurisdiction of OSHA-approved State occupational safety and health plans may contact their State plan agencies to determine if their State programs will honor and implement the terms of this Federal Agreement, including the amendment to the standard, or take an alternative position, which may include entering into separate arrangements with surface- and metal-finishing job shop facilities or their representatives. The 22 State plans covering the private sector are in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Contact information for these State plans is available on OSHA's Web site at *http://www.osha.gov/fso/osp/index.html.* VI. Pertinent Legal Authority This amendment is published under authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). *See* 29 U.S.C. 651(b), 655, and 5 U.S.C. 553. OSHA promulgated the Cr(VI) standard in February 2006, after extensive notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings. For the reasons set forth below, additional public notice and comment for the amendment described in this notice is not required. The amendment described in this notice applies only to surface-finishing and metal-finishing (electroplating) operations in eligible facilities that voluntarily elect to participate in the alternative timetable for compliance. It follows that the only entities and persons affected by this amendment are
(1)Employers who operate those facilities and
(2)employees who work in those facilities. To a significant extent, employers and employees had actual notice of, and ample opportunity to comment on, this amendment by virtue of the participation of representatives (SFIC for employers, and HRG and the Steelworkers for employees) in the settlement negotiations preceding publication of this notice. Under the APA, the agency may make a “good cause” finding that notice and comment would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). In this instance, OSHA finds that public notice and comment for this minor amendment is both unnecessary and impracticable. OSHA's determination that good cause exists for proceeding without additional notice and comment is based on the following factors:
(1)This amendment is a minor, non-substantive, and industry-specific change to the compliance date provisions of the standard. The vast majority of industries and facilities covered by the standard will be unaffected by the amendment, and even at affected worksites, the substantive requirements of the standard remain unchanged.
(2)The amendment simply adds an additional compliance option to the standard. Given the voluntary nature of the new compliance date provision, no affected employer can be prejudiced by the amendment. The terms of the Agreement and the new compliance date provision apply only to facilities that voluntarily file a Declaration of Party Status with OSHA. Any facility wishing to adhere to the standard as originally promulgated may do so.
(3)No employees are adversely affected as a result of the Agreement or the amendment to the standard. Even at facilities that are parties to the Agreement, where OSHA will not be enforcing all interim respirator requirements, each employee who wishes to wear a respirator has a right to request and receive one under the terms of the Agreement, and any employee who makes such a request and is exposed above the PEL will be protected by the full respirator program provided under the standard. In addition, employees currently covered by existing respirator programs will continue to receive respiratory protection. Moreover, OSHA has concluded that employees at participating facilities—including those who request respirators in the interim—will benefit from the expedited implementation of engineering controls.
(4)As described more fully in Section I of this notice, this amendment is consistent with, and an outgrowth of, findings OSHA made based on the record that was developed, with extensive public input, during the chromium rulemaking. No new or additional findings are required to support the amendment.
(5)This amendment arises out of the unique context of settlement negotiations conducted during litigation over the validity of the chromium standard. The new compliance date provision is the result of extensive negotiations between OSHA, SFIC, HRG, and the Steelworkers, and it resolves SFIC's challenge to the rule.
(6)Time-consuming notice and comment on this technical amendment to the standard is impracticable given that the benefits the parties expect to realize from the Agreement depend on immediate or virtually immediate implementation of the terms of the settlement. Any lengthy delay associated with additional rulemaking could undermine the essential (and time sensitive) premise of the Agreement, namely that participating facilities will implement engineering controls earlier than otherwise required in exchange for some interim relief from short-term respirator requirements. In addition, OSHA's enforcement personnel need to know promptly which facilities are parties to the Agreement. Only facilities that become parties to the Agreement are eligible for any relief from the respiratory protection requirements of the standard. VII. Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification In promulgating the final hexavalent chromium standard in February 2006, OSHA found that the rule was economically and technologically feasible for all affected industries. *See* 71 FR at 10256-302. The amendment described in this notice is a minor change to the compliance date provision of the standard and applies, on a voluntary basis, to a very small percentage of all facilities covered by the rule. OSHA has concluded that this amendment does not affect its economic or technological feasibility findings. Furthermore, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In fact, this action will increase compliance flexibility for affected small businesses by offering them an additional compliance schedule option. The addition of such an option may decrease costs for some affected employers, and will increase costs for none. VIII. Environmental Impacts, Unfunded Mandates, Federalism, and Environmental Health and Safety Risks for Children In the final hexavalent chromium standard, OSHA also reviewed environmental impacts, unfunded mandates, and federalism issues, and considered the impact of the rule on the environmental health and safety of children. *See* 71 FR at 10326 (federalism and unfunded mandates); 71 FR at 10326-27 (protecting children from environmental health and safety risks); 71 FR at 10327 (environmental impact). For the reasons noted in section VII above, OSHA finds that the amendment does not alter the findings or determinations rendered in these analyses. IX. Paperwork Reduction Act On February 27, 2006, OSHA submitted the information collection request for the final hexavalent chromium standard to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On March 28, 2006, OMB approved the collections of information contained in the final chromium standard and assigned them OMB Control Number 1218-0252. The amendment described in this notice does not change the burden associated with the preparation, maintenance or disclosure of information as calculated and described by OSHA at the time the final standard was originally promulgated. *See* 71 FR at 10325-26. X. State Plans In accordance with Section 18(c)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2)), when Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent amendment to an existing standard, the 26 States or U.S. territories with OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must revise their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment. The State standard must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, must be applicable to both the private and public (State and local government employees) sectors, and must be completed within six months of the publication date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard, or an amendment to a standard, which does *not* impose additional or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, States are encouraged but not required to take parallel action. In addition, State plans operate under authority of State law, and agreements reached by Federal OSHA are not binding on the States unless they become parties to the agreements or otherwise specifically agree to their terms. The State plans were required to adopt OSHA's hexavalent chromium standard within six months of the Federal promulgation, *i.e.* , by August 28, 2006. The Federal settlement and the corresponding amendment to OSHA's hexavalent chromium standard provide SFIC members and other surface- and metal-finishing job shops under Federal OSHA's jurisdiction with an optional alternative to the compliance timetable described in Section
(n)of the standard as originally promulgated. This action does not impose additional or more stringent requirements. Further, the 22 States with OSHA-approved State plans covering private sector employment were not parties to the negotiations that resulted in this amendment. Accordingly, State plans are not bound by the Agreement or obligated to adopt OSHA's amendment to its standard. Nevertheless, OSHA encourages the 22 State plans that cover both the private and public (State and local government) sectors (see list in Section V of this notice) to honor and implement the terms of the Agreement, including adopting a corresponding amendment to their State standard, or to take an alternative position, which could include entering into separate arrangements with surface- and metal-finishing job shops (or their representatives) in their jurisdiction. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910 Cancer, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health, Occupational safety and health. XI. Authority and Signature This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. The Agency issues the final sections under the following authorities: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008); and 29 CFR Part 1911. Signed at Washington, DC on October 25, 2006. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor. Amendment to the Final Standard Chapter XVII of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is to be amended as follows: PART 1910—[AMENDED] Subpart Z—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for Subpart Z of Part 1910 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657: Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, except those substances that have exposure limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The latter were issued under section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, Section 1910.1000 Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 but not under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic (organic compounds), benzene, cotton dust, and chromium
(VI)listings. Section 1910.1001 also issued under section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704) and 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 but not under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911. Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029 and 1910.1200 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653. Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 106-430, 114 Stat. 1901. 2. In § 1910.1026: a. Paragraph (n)(3) is revised. b. Paragraph (n)(4) is added. c. Appendix A to § 1910.1026 is added. The revisions and additions read as follows: § 1910.1026 Chromium (VI).
(n)*Dates* * * *
(3)Except as provided in (n)(4), for all employers, engineering controls required by paragraph
(f)of this section shall be implemented no later than May 31, 2010.
(4)In facilities that become parties to the settlement agreement included in Appendix A, engineering controls required by paragraph
(f)of this section shall be implemented no later than December 31, 2008. Appendix A to § 1910.1026 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Surface Finishing Industry Council et al., Petitioners, v. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Respondent. [Docket No. 06-2272 and consolidated cases] Public Citizen Health Research Group et al., Petitioners, v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Respondent. [Docket No. 06-1818] Settlement Agreement The parties to this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) are the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor (“OSHA”), the Surface Finishing Industry Council or its successors (“SFIC”), surface-finishing and metal-finishing facilities which have opted into this Agreement pursuant to paragraph 7 (“Company” or “Companies”), Public Citizen Health Research Group (“HRG”), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (“Steelworkers”). *Whereas* , On February 28, 2006, OSHA promulgated a revised hexavalent chromium standard for general industry (“the Standard”) that includes a permissible exposure limit (“PEL”) for hexavalent chromium of 5 micrograms per cubic meter (“μg/m 3 ”) measured as an 8-hour time-weighted average (“TWA”), and a deadline of May 31, 2010, for employers to come into compliance with this PEL through the implementation of engineering controls. The deadline for compliance with the remaining provisions of the Standard, including those requiring the use of respiratory protection to comply with the PEL, is November 27, 2006, for employers with twenty
(20)or more employees, and May 30, 2007, for employers with nineteen
(19)or fewer employees. 29 CFR 1910.1026, 71 FR 10100 (Feb. 28, 2006); *Whereas,* SFIC filed a Petition for Review of the Standard in the Eleventh Circuit that was consolidated with other Petitions in the Third Circuit (Case No. 06-2272); *Whereas,* SFIC filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene in the matter of HRG's Petition for Review in the Third Circuit (Case No. 06-1818), which has been granted; *Now, therefore,* the parties to this Agreement do hereby agree to the following terms: 1. *Term of this Agreement.* This Agreement will be effective upon execution and will expire on May 31, 2010. 2. *Accelerated implementation of engineering controls.* The Companies agree that in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1) they will implement those feasible engineering controls necessary to reduce hexavalent chromium levels at their facilities by December 31, 2008, to or below the 5 μg/m 3 PEL. In fulfilling this obligation, the Companies may select from the engineering and work practice controls listed in Exhibit A to this Agreement or adopt any other controls. 3. *Compliance plan and monitoring.* In accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(4)(ii), each Company will prepare, and update as required, a written plan setting forth the specific control steps being taken to reduce employee exposure to or below the PEL by December 31, 2008. In addition, Companies will make an initial exposure determination as required by 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1) using either the procedures for personal breathing zone air samples described in 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2) or the performance-oriented option described at 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(3). Thereafter, Companies will conduct periodic monitoring in accordance with the “Scheduled Monitoring Option” provisions at 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2) and related provisions at 29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(4)-(6). The Companies agree that upon request compliance plans prepared in accordance with this paragraph, as well as all monitoring results obtained in compliance with this paragraph, will be provided to OSHA, affected employees and employee representatives. 4. *Respirator use.* The respiratory protection provisions at 29 CFR 1910.1026(f) and
(g)will apply to the Companies in accordance with the terms and dates set forth in the Standard, except that prior to December 31, 2008, for Companies that are in compliance with this Agreement, OSHA will enforce those respiratory protection provisions only with respect to employees who fall into one of the following six
(6)categories:
(1)Employees who are exposed to hexavalent chromium in excess of the PEL while performing tasks described in Exhibit B to this Agreement;
(2)through November 30, 2007, employees whose exposures to hexavalent chromium exceed a “respirator threshold” of 20 μg/m 3 (measured as an 8-hour TWA);
(3)beginning December 1, 2007, employees whose exposures to hexavalent chromium exceed a “respirator threshold” of 12.5 μg/m 3 (measured as an 8-hour TWA);
(4)employees who are exposed to hexavalent chromium and request a respirator;
(5)any other employees who are required by the Companies to wear a respirator; and
(6)employees with exposures for which respirators were required under the previous hexavalent chromium standard (1910.1000) and any other employees covered by respirator programs in effect on May 30, 2006. 5. *Employee information and training.* Company employees will be trained pursuant to the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(2). In addition, the Companies agree to train employees in the provisions of this Agreement within sixty
(60)days of the Opt-In Date (defined in paragraph 7 of this Agreement). The training regarding this Agreement shall be provided in language the employees can understand. 6. *Enforcement.* Within thirty
(30)days of the execution of this Agreement, OSHA will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** amending 29 CFR 1910.1026 as follows:
(1)A copy of this Agreement will be attached to the Standard as Appendix A;
(2)a new paragraph, 1910.1026(n)(4), will be added to the Standard, and will read: “In facilities that become parties to the settlement agreement included in Appendix A, engineering controls required by paragraph
(f)of this section shall be implemented no later than December 31, 2008”; and
(3)existing paragraph 1910.1026(n)(3) will be amended to read: “Except as provided in (n)(4), for all employers, engineering controls required by paragraph
(f)of this section shall be implemented no later than May 31, 2010.” 7. *Opt-In Date for Companies to become parties to this Agreement.* The **Federal Register** notice described in paragraph 6 of this Agreement will provide notice of the provisions of this Agreement, and of the revisions to the Standard described in paragraph 6, and will provide until November 30, 2006, for eligible facilities to become parties to this Agreement, and be subject to all of the duties, obligations, and rights herein. The last date for signing by facilities shall be referred to as the Opt-In Date. The opt in option will be available on a facility by facility basis and only to SFIC members and other surface-finishing and metal-finishing job shop facilities within the jurisdiction of Federal OSHA. (For purposes of this Agreement, a “job shop” is defined as a facility that sells plating or anodizing services to other companies.) Moreover, the terms of this Agreement apply only with respect to the performance of surface-finishing and metal-finishing operations in those facilities. Although this Agreement applies only to facilities within the jurisdiction of Federal OSHA, OSHA will encourage States with OSHA-approved State occupational safety and health plans to either honor and implement the terms of this Agreement, including the amendments to the standard described in paragraph 6, or to take an alternative position, which may include entering into separate arrangements with surface- and metal-finishing job shop facilities (or their representatives) in their jurisdiction. 8. *Effect on third parties.* Nothing in this Agreement constitutes an admission by SFIC or the Companies that a significant risk of material health impairment exists for hexavalent chromium justifying a reduction of the PEL to 5 μg/m 3 . Nor does anything in this Agreement constitute any other admission by SFIC or the Companies for purposes of this litigation or future litigation or standards-setting. This Agreement is not intended to give any rights to any third party except as expressly provided herein. 9. *OSHA inspections.* OSHA may do monitoring inspections to assess compliance with and progress under this Agreement and the Standard, and nothing in this Agreement limits OSHA's right to conduct inspections at Companies” facilities in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act. 10. *Scope of Agreement.* The terms of this Agreement apply only in the circumstances and to the Companies specified herein. In entering into this Agreement, OSHA is not making any representations regarding its enforcement policy with respect to either
(1)The hexavalent chromium standard as applied to employers who are not parties to this Agreement or
(2)any other occupational safety or health standards. 11. *Effect of invalidation of the Standard.* If the Standard is invalidated, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the application to SFIC or the Companies of any PEL that is promulgated by OSHA on remand. This Agreement would not foreclose SFIC or the Companies from participating in rulemaking proceedings or otherwise challenging any new PEL promulgated by OSHA on remand. 12. *Withdrawal of Petitions and Interventions.* SFIC agrees to move to withdraw its Petition for Review in the above-captioned case, Case No. 06-2272, within five
(5)working days of the execution of this Agreement. SFIC further will move to dismiss its motion to intervene in Case No. 06-1818 and all other challenges simultaneously with its motion to withdraw in Case No. 06-2272 as Petitioner. 13. *Attorneys' fees.* Each party agrees to bear its own attorneys' fees, costs, and other expenses that have been incurred in connection with SFIC's Petition for Review, SFIC's intervention in HRG's Petition for Review, and the negotiation of this Agreement up to and including filing of the motions to dismiss. 14. *Support of Agreement.* In the event that all or any portion of this Agreement is challenged in any forum, the signatories below agree to move to intervene in support of this Agreement. Agreed to this 25th day of October, 2006. Baruch A. Fellner, Counsel for SFIC, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036,
(202)955-8500. Lauren S. Goodman, Counsel for OSHA, United States Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210,
(202)693-5445. Scott L. Nelson, Counsel for HRG and the Steelworkers, Public Citizen Litigation Group, 1600 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20009,
(202)588-7724. Exhibit A Available Engineering and Work Practice Controls The Companies agree that work towards the implementation of these available engineering and work practice controls should not be delayed to accommodate their completion by December 31, 2008. The Companies are encouraged to implement from among these controls as soon as practicable. 1. Parts Transfer Practices • *Minimize droplet formation.* Instruments akin to garden hoses are used to rinse off parts coming out of chemical baths. This causes many small droplets to form, which are easily atomized or vaporized and contribute to airborne chromium concentration. The industry is currently developing ways to minimize the formation of small droplets, dripping, or splashing, possibly by reducing hose pressure. • *Minimize air current flow.* Strong air currents across these droplets may contribute to their vaporization, and therefore minimizing air current flow across the droplets may reduce airborne hexavalent chromium levels. • *Slow part speeds as feasible.* The speed at which parts are pulled out of a chemical tank causes splashing, which adds to chromium vaporization. By slowing the speed at which parts are taken out of tanks, splashing and vaporization can be minimized. The feasibility of this control must be evaluated in light of the negative effect on productivity. 2. Plating Bath Surface Tension Management and Fume Suppression • *Lower surface tension.* Lower surface tension in chemical baths leads to fewer drops forming. Chromium baths currently have a surface tension of 35 dynes per centimeter. As a comparison, water has a surface tension of 72 dynes per centimeter. Lowering surface tension further would lead to reduced airborne hexavalent chromium levels. • *Fume suppressants.* Fume suppressants create a physical barrier between the chemical bath and the air, which prevents vaporization. Some suppressants, however, may cause pitting or other metal damage, and therefore their use is not always possible. 3. Facility Air Disturbance Monitoring • *Improvement of local exhaust ventilation
(LEV)capture efficiency.* The majority of electroplating facilities are not air-conditioned. As a result, doors are kept open to let in cool air, but this causes air currents that prevent the LEVs from performing efficiently. The use of fans has a similar effect. Industry is researching how to minimize these air currents so that LEVs can perform as designed. Such methods may include the use of partitions to degrade air current flow, or checklists that may include location and positioning of cross drafts, fans, doors, windows, partitions and process equipment that Companies can use to audit their workplaces in order to improve their capture efficiency. 4. Technology Enhancements In Lieu of LEV Retrofitting • *Eductors.* Many chemical baths are currently mixed via air agitation: Air pipes bubble air into the tank to keep the chemicals mixed and to prevent them from settling. An adverse effect of this agitation is that air bubbles escape at the surface of the tank, resulting in some chromium vaporization. By using eductors (horn-shaped nozzles) in tanks, the chemicals flow from a pump to create solution movement below the surface without the use of air bubbles, and the amount of chromium vaporization can be significantly reduced. 5. Different Means of Chromium Additions • *Liquid Chromium.* Dry hexavalent chromium flakes are occasionally added to tanks, which can generate airborne particulates of hexavalent chromium. Adding liquid chromium at or near the surface of a tank would lower airborne chromium levels and reduce splashing from tanks. • *Hydration of flakes before addition.* To add liquid chromium to tanks, the dry flakes must be hydrated. Whether this process is performed by chemical suppliers that provide plating solutions to metal finishing companies or by metal finishing companies that have the necessary experience and equipment, appropriate work practices such as mixing techniques must be implemented to minimize the potential airborne levels of hexavalent chromium. 6. Dust Control • *Better housekeeping.* Chrome dust that comes off products that are polished or grinded is actually elemental chromium, not hexavalent chromium, so polishing and grinding contribute little to airborne hexavalent chromium levels. However, Companies should use good housekeeping practices, including wet mopping, and wet wipedowns, to reduce the amount of dust present. 7. Improvement and Maintenance of Existing LEVs • *Improvement and maintenance of existing LEVs.* Companies may repair and maintain their current LEVs. Because the final rule indicates that at least 75 percent of the industry is in compliance with the PEL with LEVs working at 40% of capacity, increasing LEV function can materially affect compliance. 8. Other Controls • *Other methods.* Companies are constantly determining best work practices and technological controls through laboratory research and practical experience. Companies will implement other engineering and work practice controls as necessary and as practicable to reduce potential hexavalent chromium workplace exposures. Exhibit B Workplace Tasks Requiring Respirators Where PEL Is Exceeded Some well-known and relatively few, discrete tasks related to metal finishing activities result in potentially higher workplace exposures of hexavalent chromium. Where the applicable PEL for hexavalent chromium is exceeded, respirators shall be worn to conduct the following activities:
(1)Hexavalent chromium chemical additions. In order to have the metal deposited onto the part, hexavalent chromium must be added to the plating tank periodically. This is a discrete activity that involves the addition of either a dry flake of hexavalent chromium chemicals or a liquid solution of hexavalent chromium into the plating tank. Respirators shall be worn during the period it takes to add the hexavalent chromium chemical to the tank.
(2)Hexavalent chromium preparation and mixing. Different mixtures of hexavalent chromium chemicals are needed for different types of chromium plating processes. For example, hard chromium plating can require higher concentrations of hexavalent chromium because a thicker coating and longer plating process may be needed for the critical product quality and performance. Similarly, different types of decorative chromium plating processes may need different levels of hexavalent chromium and other chemicals such as catalysts. These mixtures can be in the form of dry flakes or liquid solutions. All of these different hexavalent chromium chemical mixtures are generally prepared by metal finishing suppliers and distributors. Some metal finishing companies may also prepare hexavalent chromium solutions from the dry flakes prior to addition to the plating tanks. Respirators shall be worn during the period it takes to prepare these hexavalent chromium mixtures and solutions whether the activity is conducted at a chemical supplier or a metal finishing company.
(3)Hexavalent chromium tank cleaning. Occasionally, the tanks used for chromium plating may need to be emptied and cleaned. This process would involve the draining of the solution and then the removal of any residues in the tank. Workers cleaning out these tanks may have to enter the tank or reach into it to remove the residues. Respirators (as well as other appropriate PPE) shall be worn during the period it takes to clean the tanks and prepare them for use again.
(4)Hexavalent chromium painting operations. Some metal finishing operations apply paints with higher concentrations of hexavalent chromium to a line of parts, particularly for aerospace applications when a high degree of corrosion protection is needed for critical product performance. Paints are generally applied in such operations with some type of spray mechanism or similar dispersion practice. In some instances, it may be difficult to keep workplace exposures below the PEL for such paint spraying activities. Respirators shall be worn during such spray painting operations. [FR Doc. 06-8971 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
U.S. Code
24 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 1030
  • 7 USC 601-674
  • 7 USC 601-604
  • 7 CFR 900
  • 7 CFR 1032
  • 7 CFR 1033
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 14 CFR 97
  • 19 CFR 358
  • Pub. L. 107-210
  • 22 CFR 1002
  • 22 CFR 1005
  • 31 USC 483(a)
  • 22 CFR 1004
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 29 CFR 1910
  • 448 U.S. 607
  • 29 CFR 1911
  • Pub. L. 106-430
  • 114 Stat. 1901
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 601
C.F.R.§ 21.29
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 97.20
SCOTUS448 U.S. 607
Cite7 CFR 1030
Cite7 USC 601-674
Cites 51 · 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.