Rules and Regulations. Final rule

25,853 words·~118 min read·/register/2006/11/20/06-9260·

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

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Parts 2091 and 2710 [WO-350-05 1430 PN] RIN 1004-AD74 Public Sales AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)amends its procedural regulations pertaining to the time allowed for the segregation of public lands proposed for sale. Under existing regulations, the BLM may segregate these lands from the operation of the public land and mineral laws for a period up to 270 days following publication of a Notice of Realty Action in the **Federal Register** . The Department of the Interior has imposed this time constraint under its discretion and not as a requirement of law. The current segregation period compresses the time necessary to address comments or protests the BLM receives after publication of a Notice of Realty Action. In order to address comments or protests in the normal course of business, as to future proposed sales, this final rule allows the BLM to segregate lands initially for a period of up to two years with the option to extend, if necessary, the initial period of segregation up to two additional years on a case-by-case basis. The BLM also is amending its segregation regulation at 43 CFR 2091.2-1 so that it will be consistent with the changes made in the BLM's public sale regulations. DATES: This rule is effective December 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Further information or questions regarding this final rule should be addressed in writing to the Director (WO 300), Bureau of Land Management 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Holdren of the BLM's Lands and Realty Group at 202 452-7779 for information about the content of this final rule, or for information regarding BLM's regulatory process, Cynthia Ellis of the BLM's Regulatory Affairs Group at 202 452-5012. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may contact these named individuals through the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Discussion of the Final Rule III. Procedural Matters I. Background The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to sell public lands managed by the BLM pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1713) (FLPMA). Regulations implementing the Secretary of the Interior's authority to sell such lands are located in 43 CFR part 2710. These regulations, issued in 1980 and partially amended in 1984, explain the following: • Policies pertaining to the BLM public land sale program (43 CFR 2710.0-6); • Definitions of applicable terms (43 CFR 2710.0-5); • The criteria and means by which lands are determined suitable for FLPMA section 203 sales (43 CFR 2710.0-3, 2710.0-8 and 2711.1); • The criteria for a qualified conveyee or purchaser (43 CFR 2711.2); • The procedure for sale, especially the notice, segregation provisions and the competitive, modified competitive, and non-competitive methods (43 CFR 2711. 1-2, 2711.3); and • Certain other procedural matters and requirements relating to conveyance documents (land patents) (43 CFR 2711.4 and 2711.5). In regulations issued in 1987 and in part amended in 1993, the BLM collected and reiterated all of the segregation rules stated throughout the BLM regulations, including the 270-day segregation rules pertaining to the proposed BLM section 203 sales (43 CFR 2091.2-1(b)). In general, the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)requires that federal agencies give notice and provide an opportunity for the public to comment whenever they propose a regulation or an amendment. However, unless precluded by statute, the APA allows exemptions from its notice and comment requirement for “interpretive rules, general statements of policy or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3). The exception applies in this instance because this final rule amends the segregation rules that are part of the procedure for BLM sales (43 CFR 2711.1-2). Correspondingly, this final rule, being procedural in nature, likewise qualifies as a categorical exclusion, which exempts the rule from certain requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). See 42 U.S.C. 4332(C); 40 CFR 1508.4. II. Discussion of the Final Rule When public lands are to be offered for sale, pursuant to FLPMA section 203, the BLM must publish a Notice of Realty Action

(NORA)in the **Federal Register** and send the NORA to interested parties within 60 days prior to the sale (43 CFR 2711.1-2(a)). The notice also provides for a 45-day comment period on the proposed public land sale. The existing regulation states that when the NORA is published in the **Federal Register** , the lands proposed for sale are segregated from appropriation under the public land and mineral laws for a term not to exceed 270 days (43 CFR 2711.1-2(d) and 2091.2-1(b)). FLPMA does not provide expressly for a segregation period in conjunction with a FLPMA section 203 sale (43 U.S.C. 1713). However, when the sale regulations were amended in 1984, the BLM added a segregation provision, limited to maximum duration of 270 days. The 270-day period has continued in effect since that time. The existing 270-day limit on segregation of public lands proposed for FLPMA section 203 sales makes it difficult for BLM to fulfill all steps associated with a sale in BLM's normal course of business. Providing the BLM additional time would allow, in the normal course of business:

(i)The research and documentation needed to ensure that a proposed sale is in compliance with planning as well as a variety of other requirements;

(ii)the opportunity to respond to the comments of the public and interested parties; and

(iii)the leeway to consider and resolve any protests lodged by the public or interested parties regarding a proposed sale. The BLM is, therefore, publishing this final rule to enlarge the period of time needed for segregation to meet these objectives. This final rule will allow a BLM State Director to extend, if deemed necessary in that official's judgment, the duration of a period of segregation for up to a maximum of two additional years on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the rule amends the BLM's segregation regulations in 43 CFR part 2091 to be consistent with the changes this rule makes relative to the FLPMA section 203 public land sale regulations in 43 CFR part 2710. III. Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review: Clarity of the Regulations. This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. The final rule simply allows the BLM needed additional time to process FLPMA section 203 public land sale actions by extending the segregation period relative to such sales. Therefore, this final rule does not require an assessment of potential benefits and costs, nor does it require an explanation pertaining to the manner in which the regulatory action is consistent with a statutory mandate. To the extent allowed by law, this final rule promotes the President's priorities and avoids undue interference with state, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action”; therefore, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act Congress enacted The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601-612) as amended, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The BLM has determined that this final rule, revising CFR 2091.2-1(b) and 2711.1-2(d) to provide for a longer segregation period of lands being considered for public sales under the FLPMA section 203, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. As stated above in the preamble, this final rule only enlarges the segregation period so that the BLM has sufficient time to conduct the necessary reviews and other administrative actions in the normal course of business. Small entities could actually gain an advantage under this final rule because it allows additional time for their comments on proposed sales to be fully considered. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2) because it will not have an annual effect on the economy greater than $100 million, nor will it result in major cost or price increases for consumers, industries, government agencies, or regions. This final rule will not increase the costs for any entities having an interest in the sale of the Federal land because new procedures are not being added. The BLM is only increasing the time provided for the segregation of lands being considered for sale to ensure that all applicable requirements and procedures are completed properly in the normal course of business. The new rule will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The new rule may actually provide a reduction in costs to consumers and others because the BLM will have more time to provide input into a proposed sale decision, thus eliminating the need for extra staffing, or overtime that could otherwise be required to meet the deadlines under the existing (former) regulations. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(2 U.S.C. 1532), the BLM must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. We expect the estimated costs to States, local, or tribal governments will remain the same, and may be reduced in some instances by reducing potential overtime costs or other costs necessary to provide pertinent data within the existing timeframes. Therefore, this final rule is revising 43 CFR 2091.2-1(b) to provide a longer segregation period for lands being considered for public sales under section 203 of FLPMA and will not result in any unfunded mandates. Executive Order 12630, Government Action and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the BLM has found that this final rule does not have significant takings implications. The revision of 43 CFR 2711.1-2(d) will merely provide a longer segregation period for lands being considered for public sales under FLPMA section 203. No takings of personal or real property will occur as a result of this final rule. A takings implication analysis is not required. Executive Order 13132, Federalism In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM finds that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have 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. The rule does not preempt state law. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM finds that this rule will not result in significant changes to BLM policy and that Tribal Governments will not be unduly affected by this rule. This rulemaking has no bearing on trust lands, or on lands for which title is held in fee status by Indian tribes or U.S. Government-owned lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this final rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Paperwork Reduction Act The BLM has determined that this rulemaking does not contain any new information collection which the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). National Environmental Policy Act The BLM has determined that this final rule addresses procedural matters, and the FLPMA section 203 sales themselves represent the culmination of a planning process that fulfills BLM's NEPA obligations (43 CFR 2710.0-6(a) and 43 CFR 1600—Planning). Therefore, this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual (DM), Chapter 2, Appendix 1. In addition, this final rule does not meet any of the 10 criteria for exceptions to categorical exclusions listed in 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2. Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department of the Interior (516 DM 2.3 A(1)), the term “categorical exclusions” means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that this final rule is administrative in content, involving only procedural changes addressing time constraints. This final rule does not impede facilitating cooperative conservation; takes appropriate account of and considers the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; properly accommodates local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and provides that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety. Executive Order 13211, Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211) This final rule is a purely administrative regulatory action and has no implications under Executive Order 13211. Executive Order 12866, Clarity of the Regulations Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. The BLM invites your comments on how to make these regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: 1. Are the requirements in the final regulations clearly stated? 2. Do the final regulations contain technical language or jargon that interferes with clarity? 3. Does the format of the final regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? 4. Would the final regulations be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) sections? 5. Is the description of the final regulation in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in making the final regulation easier to understand? Please send any written comments you have on the clarity of these regulations to the address specified above in the ADDRESSES section. List of Subjects 43 CFR Part 2091 Administrative practices and procedures, Segregation and opening of lands 43 CFR Part 2710 Administrative practices and procedures, Public lands—mineral resources, and Public lands—sale. Dated: November 3, 2006. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of the FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1740), the BLM amends § § 2091.2-1(b) and revises 2711.1-2(d), Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 2090—SPECIAL LAWS AND RULES 1. Revise the authority citation for part 2090 to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1740. 2. Amend § 2091.2-1(b) by adding two sentences at the end of paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 2091.2-1 Segregation.

(b)* * * The sales provisions of section 43 CFR 2711.1-2(d) provide for a segregation period, not to exceed two years unless, on a case-by-case basis, the BLM State Director determines that the extension is necessary and documents, in writing, why the extension is needed. Such an extension will not be renewable and cannot be extended beyond the additional two years. PART 2710—SALES; FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT 3. Revise the authority citation for part 2710 to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1740. 4. Revise § 2711.1-2(d) to read as follows: § 2711.1-2 Notice of realty action.

(d)The publication of the notice of realty action in the **Federal Register** segregates the public lands covered by the notice of realty action to the extent that they will not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws. Any subsequent application will not be accepted, will not be considered as filed, and will be returned to the applicant if the notice segregates from the use applied for in the application. The segregative effect of the notice of realty action terminates:

(i)Upon issuance of a patent or other document of conveyance to such lands;

(ii)upon publication in the **Federal Register** of a termination of the segregation; or

(iii)at the end of the specified segregation period, whichever occurs first. The segregation period may not exceed two years unless, on a case-by-case basis, the BLM State Director determines that the extension is necessary and documents, in writing, why the extension is needed. Such an extension will not be renewable and cannot be extended beyond the additional two years. If an extension is deemed necessary, the BLM will publish a notice following the same procedure as that stated in paragraph

(c)of this section. [FR Doc. E6-19502 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: *Effective Dates:* The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map

(FIRM)showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety

(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60. Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.11 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Modified Communities affected Licking County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-7454 and B-7462 Beaver Run Approximately 200 feet downstream of State Route 79 +869 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 400 feet downstream of Canyon Road +886 Village of Hebron. Bell Run Approximately 800 feet downstream of U.S. Route 40 +897 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Just downstream of Refugee Road +903 Buckeye Lake +893 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Buckeye Lake. Clear Run Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of Newark-Granville Road +902 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Granville. Approximately at State Route 661 +966 Heath Lateral B Approximately 160 feet upstream of Franklin Avenue +838 City of Heath, City of Newark. Approximately 320 feet upstream of State Route 13 +866 Heath Lateral C Approximately 400 feet downstream of 30th Street +844 City of Heath. Approximately 6,336 feet upstream of State Route 79 +876 Heath Lateral D Just upstream of Irving Wick Drive East +908 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,890 feet upstream of Irving Wick Drive East +936 City of Heath. Heath Lateral E Just downstream of State Route 79 +862 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,250 feet downstream of Conrail Railroad +894 City of Heath. Heath Lateral EA Approximately at confluence with Heath Lateral E +885 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,600 feet upstream of confluence with Heath Lateral E +891 City of Heath. Heath Lateral F Approximately 320 feet downstream of confluence with Heath Lateral FA +877 City of Heath. Approximately 1,140 feet upstream of confluence with Heath Lateral FA +886 Heath Lateral FA Approximately 60 feet upstream of confluence with Heath Lateral F +878 City of Heath. Approximately 2,380 feet upstream of confluence with Heath Lateral F +895 Hebron Tributary Approximately 900 feet downstream of State Route 79 +877 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Just downstream of Cumberland Street +888 Village of Hebron. Kiber Run Approximately 5,100 feet downstream of Mink Street +1,047 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3,500 feet upstream of Mink Street +1,073 Village of Johnstown. Muddy Fork Approximately 1,450 feet downstream of State Route 310 +980 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Columbia Road +1,024 City of Pataskala. North Fork Licking River Approximately 1,4000 feet upstream of Mt. Vernon Road +890 Village of St. Louisville. Approximately 0.6 miles upstream of Mt. Vernon Road +897 Raccoon Creek Approximately 1,600 feet downstream of CSX Railroad +818 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately of 1,100 feet upstream of State Route 37 +1,080 City of Newark, Village of Johnstown, Village of Alexandria, Village of Granville. Ramp Creek Approximately 850 feet downstream of Liberty Drive +849 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet downstream of Thornwood Drive +884 City of Heath. Rocky Fork (Backwater from Licking River) Approximately 200 feet upstream of Bridge Street +792 Village of Hanover. Approximately 200 feet upstream of State Route 16 +792 Sharon Valley Run Approximately at Country Club Road +876 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 300 feet downstream of Jones Road. +940 City of Newark. South Fork Licking River Downstream side of State Route 13 +816 Licking County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,600 feet upstream of Mink Street Road +1,095 City of Heath, City of Hebron, City of Newark, City of Pataskala. South Fork Licking River Approximately 0.7 miles upstream of Gale Road +918 Village of Kirkersville. Approximately 1.0 miles downstream of York Road +931 # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Licking County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at Licking County Administration Office, 20 South Second Street, Newark, Ohio 43055. Village of Alexandria Maps available for inspection at Village of Alexandria, 116 Granville Street, Alexandria, Ohio 43001. Village of Buckeye Lake Maps available for inspection at Buckeye Lake Village Office, 5192 Walnut Road, Buckeye Lake, Ohio 43008. Village of Granville Maps available for inspection at Jerry Turner/Bird and Bull Engineers & Surveyors, 2875 Dublin Granville Road, Columbus, Ohio 43235. Village of Hanover Maps available for inspection at Hanover Village Hall, 200 New Home Drive NE, Hanover, Ohio 43055. Village of Hartford Maps available for inspection at Hartford Village Town Hall, 2 North High Street, Croton, Ohio 43013. City of Heath Maps available for inspection at Heath Municipal Building, 1287 Hebron Road, Heath, Ohio 43056. Village of Hebron Maps available for inspection at Village of Hebron Zoning Department, Attention: Theresa Ours, 116 W. Main Street, Hebron, Ohio 43025. Village of Johnstown Maps available for inspection at Village of Johnstown, 599 South Main Street, Johnstown, Ohio 43031. Village of Kirkersville Maps available for inspection at Kirkersville Village Hall, 135 N 5th Street, Kirkersville, Ohio 43033. City of Newark Maps available for inspection at City of Newark Division of Engineering, 40 West Main Street, Newark, Ohio 43055. City of Pataskala Maps available for inspection at City of Pataskala Administration Office, 196 East Broad Street, Pataskala, Ohio 43062. City of Reynoldsburg Maps available for inspection at City of Reynoldsburg Municipal Building, 7232 East Main Street, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068. Village of St Louisville Maps available for inspection at Village of St. Louisville, 257 South Sugar Street, St. Louisville, Ohio 43071. Village of Utica Maps available for inspection at Village Administration Office, 39 Spring Street, Utica, Ohio 43080. Warren County, Kentucky and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7463 Sinkhole No. 2 At Media Drive +464 City of Bowling Green. Sinkhole No. 3 At Holly and Catherine Drives +465 City of Bowling Green. Sinkhole No. 4A At Holly and Catherine Drives +461 City of Bowling Green. Sinkhole No. 4B At Holly and Catherine Drives +440 City of Bowling Green. Sinkhole No. 7 At Boxwood Drive +541 City of Bowling Green and Warren County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole No. 7A At Boxwood Drive +541 Warren County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole No. 14 At Wellington Way +482 City of Bowling Green. Sinkhole No. 21 At Canton Avenue +523 City of Bowling Green. Sinkhole No. 22 At Andrea Street +529 City of Bowling Green. Sinkhole No. 25A At Pascoe Boulevard +531 City of Bowling Green. Sinkhole No. 33 At Rich Pond +568 Warren County (Unincorporated Areas). Sinkhole No. 39A At Bogle Lane +488 City of Bowling Green. Sinkhole No. 39B At Bogle Lane +485 City of Bowling Green. # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + National American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at City-County Planning Commission of Warren County, 1141 State Street, Bowling Green, Kentucky. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: November 7, 2006. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6-19528 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P 71 223 Monday, November 20, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1205 [Docket Number CN-04-001] Cotton Board Rules and Regulations: Adjusting Supplemental Assessment on Imports, (2004 Amendments); Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action withdraws a proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** on January 12, 2005, (70 FR 2034), to amend the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations by adjusting the total rate of assessment per kilogram for imported cotton for use by the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. Based on a stakeholder comment, the Agricultural Marketing Service believes that the proposed rule may not achieve its intended objectives of effectiveness and efficiency. DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn as of November 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shethir Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion Program, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Stop 0224, Washington, DC 20250-0224, telephone

(202)720-2259, facsimile

(202)690-1718, or e-mail at *shethir.riva@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)proposed to amend the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations by adjusting the total rate of assessment per kilogram for imported cotton collected for use by the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. The proposed rule would have reduced the total rate of assessment per kilogram for imported cotton products collected for use by the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. The proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** on January 12, 2005, at 70 FR 2034. Comments were to be received on or before March 14, 2005. In response to the proposed rule, AMS received one comment from the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA). USA-ITA made numerous assertions, some relevant and some outside the scope of the proposed rule. Among them, the commenter advised AMS to reconsider the proposed formulation and do further work necessary to develop an assessment formula that would more accurately identify the amount of U.S. cotton contained in imported cotton products. AMS believes that the commenter's request to do further work has merit, and, therefore, AMS is withdrawing the proposed rule to continue to evaluate the importer assessment issue and garner additional stakeholders' input and economic data. Accordingly, the proposed rule at 70 FR 2034 in the January 12, 2005, issue in the **Federal Register** is hereby withdrawn. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2101-2118 and 7 U.S.C. 7401. Dated: November 15, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-19559 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51 [Docket No. PRM-51-11] Sally Shaw; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated June 23, 2006, which was filed with the Commission by Sally Shaw. The petition was docketed by the NRC on November 1, 2006, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-51-11. The petitioner requests that the NRC prepare a rulemaking that will require that the NRC reconcile its generic environmental impact statement for nuclear power plant operating license renewal applications with the National Academy of Sciences Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation

(BEIR)VII Phase 2 Report. DATE: Submit comments by February 5, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this petition by any one of the following methods. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: *SECY@nrc.gov.* If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at

(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher

(301)415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov.* Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov.* Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone

(301)415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at

(301)415-1101. Please include PRM-51-11 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* A copy of the petition can be found in ADAMS under accession number ML061770056. A paper copy of the petition may be obtained by contacting Betty Golden, Office of Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-6863, toll-free 1-800-368-5642, or by e-mail *bkg2@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-7163 or toll-free: 1-800-368-5642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an application for renewal of Operating License No. DPR-28 for an additional 20 years of operation at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS). The VYNPS is located in the town of Vernon, Vermont, in Windham County on the west shore of the Connecticut River immediately upstream of the Vernon Hydroelectric Station. The operating license for VYNPS expires on March 21, 2012. A notice of receipt and availability of the application, which included the environmental report, was published in the **Federal Register** on February 6, 2006 (71 FR 6102). Subsequently, the NRC published a “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process” on April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20733). The NRC will prepare an EIS related to the review of the license renewal application. The applicable NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.95(c), required that the NRC, in determining whether to grant a renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license, prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). The regulation provides that this EIS supplement the NRC's baseline, generic EIS issued in 1996, NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (May 1996)(GEIS). Petitioner's Request The petitioner requests that the NRC prepare a rulemaking that would require that the NRC reconcile its GEIS for nuclear power plant operating license renewal applications with the National Academy of Sciences

(NAS)Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2 which was released in 2005. The petitioner asserts that the GEIS relies upon an earlier NAS report, the BEIR V, with was released in 1990. According to the NAS Web site, the BEIR VII updates the information contained in the BEIR V and draws upon new data in both epidemiologic and experimental research. The petitioner requests that NRC consider the NAS BEIR VII report as new and significant information and recalculate certain conclusions set forth in the GEIS, including early fatalities, latent fatalities and any injury projections based on this information. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of November 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-19568 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24034; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-05-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)for Pratt & Whitney PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines that were reassembled with previously used high pressure compressor

(HPC)exit brush seal packs and new or refurbished HPC exit diffuser air seal lands. That AD currently requires replacing the HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs with new brush seal packs, or replacing the HPC exit brush seal assembly with a new HPC exit brush seal assembly. This proposed AD would require replacing the HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs with new brush seal packs, using either original equipment manufactured

(OEM)parts, or FAA-approved part manufacturer approval

(PMA)equivalent parts. This proposed AD would also apply to engines reassembled with a PMA equivalent HPC exit inner and/or outer brush seal packs. This proposed AD results from a request to include PMA equivalent HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs and to include the engines with PMA equivalent parts already installed, in the AD. We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and injury to passengers. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by January 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:*

(860)565-8770; fax

(860)565-4503 for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antonio Cancelliere, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5213; telephone

(781)238-7751; fax

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-24034; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-05-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the DMS Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Discussion On August 14, 2006, the FAA issued AD 2006-17-08, Amendment 39-14729 (71 FR 49335, August 23, 2006). That AD requires replacing the HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs with new brush seal packs, or replacing the HPC exit brush seal assembly with a new HPC exit brush seal assembly. That AD was the result of a report of oil leaking into the high pressure turbine

(HPT)interstage cavity and igniting, leading to an engine case penetration and engine in-flight shutdown. That condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and injury to passengers. Actions Since AD 2006-17-08 Was Issued Since AD 2006-17-08 was issued, an air carrier requested the use of PMA equivalent parts to be included in the AD. We agree. The proposed AD now also applies to engines reassembled with PMA equivalent HPC exit inner and/or outer brush seal packs installed, and allows installation of PMA equivalent HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs for compliance to the requirements of the AD. Also since AD 2006-17-08 was issued, we determined that the requirement in paragraph

(g)of that AD, of replacing the HPC exit brush seal assembly with a new HPC exit brush seal assembly, is an option for the operators to demonstrate compliance to this proposed AD. Replacing the HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs instead, is expected to be more economical for operators. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. For that reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require replacing the OEM or PMA equivalent HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs, with OEM or PMA equivalent new brush seal packs. Instructions on replacing these parts can be found in Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin No. PW4G-112-A72-280, Revision 2, or Engine Overhaul Manual. Interim Action These actions are interim actions and we may take further rulemaking actions in the future. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 76 Pratt & Whitney PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 9 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed parts replacement, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $99,990 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $7,653,950. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14729 (71 FR 49335, August 23, 2006) and by adding a new airworthiness directive, Amendment 39-XXXXX, to read as follows: **Pratt & Whitney:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24034; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-05-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by January 19, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-17-08, Amendment 39-14729. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines that were:

(1)Reassembled with a previously used original equipment manufacturer

(OEM)or part manufacturer approval

(PMA)equivalent high pressure compressor

(HPC)exit inner brush seal pack; and

(2)Reassembled with a new or refurbished OEM or PMA equivalent HPC exit diffuser air seal inner land.

(d)These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777 airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(e)This AD results from a request to include PMA equivalent HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs and to include the engines with PMA equivalent parts already installed, in the AD. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure, damage to the airplane, and injury to passengers. Compliance

(f)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed at the following compliance times, unless the actions have already been done.

(g)Replace the HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs with OEM or FAA-approved PMA equivalent new HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs as follows:

(1)By 3,000 cycles-in-service

(CIS)since a used HPC exit inner brush seal pack and a new or refurbished HPC exit diffuser air seal land were installed in the engine, or by March 31, 2007, whichever occurs later; however

(2)If on March 31, 2007, the used HPC exit inner brush seal pack coupled with a new or refurbished HPC exit diffuser air seal inner land assembly has not accumulated 3,000 CIS, then by 3,000 CIS, or December 31, 2008, whichever occurs first.

(h)Information on replacing HPC exit inner and outer brush seal packs can be found in the Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin No. PW4G-112-A72-280, Revision 2, dated October 2, 2006, and in the engine overhaul manual. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(i)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(j)Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin No. PW4G-112-A72-280, Revision 2, dated October 2, 2006, also pertains to the subject of this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 14, 2006. Mark Rumizen, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-19536 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26356; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-166-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections for blockage of the pitot drain holes of certain air data smart probes (ADSPs), removing accumulated moisture from the pneumatic passages of the ADSPs, related investigative actions, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of erroneous air speed indications caused by blockage of the pitot sensors due to freezing of accumulated moisture in the ADSP pneumatic passages. We are proposing this AD to prevent an erroneous air speed indication, which could reduce flightcrew ability to control the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343-CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos-SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26356; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-166-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes and Model ERJ 190 airplanes equipped with Rosemount Aerospace Model 2015G2H2H air data smart probes (ADSPs) having part number (P/N) 2015G2H2H-4( ), 2015G2H2H-5( ), 2015G2H2H-6( ), or 2015G2H2H-7( ). The ANAC advises that reports have been received of erroneous air speed indications caused by blockage of the sensors of the ADSP, due to freezing of accumulated moisture in the pneumatic passages between the ADSP pressure ports and sensors. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an erroneous air speed indication, which could reduce flightcrew ability to control the airplane. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 170-34-0007, dated April 28, 2005 (for Model ERJ 170 airplanes), and Service Bulletin 190-34-0003, dated December 2, 2005 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for blockage of the pitot drain holes of certain air data smart probes (ADSPs), removing accumulated moisture from the pneumatic passages of the ADSPs, related investigative actions, and corrective actions if necessary. Related investigative actions include inspecting for damage to the ADSP seal gaskets, and verifying proper gap and step distance between the access panel/fuselage and between the access panel/base of the ADSP. Corrective actions include replacing any damaged seal gaskets with new gasket material and adjusting any gap and step discrepancies. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The ANAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directives 2006-05-05, effective June 14, 2006, and 2006-05-08, effective June 19, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. EMBRAER Service Bulletins 170-34-0007 and 190-34-0003 also refer to Rosemount Aerospace Service Bulletin 2015G2H2H-34-04, Revision 1, dated April 6, 2005, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the requirements of the proposed AD. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the ANAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the ANAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletins.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletins The service bulletins specify an inspection; however, this proposed AD would require a detailed inspection, which conforms to the Brazilian airworthiness directives. Note 3 of the proposed AD defines this type of inspection. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 93 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $14,880, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26356; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-166-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 20, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes, and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of erroneous air speed indications caused by blockage of the pitot sensors due to freezing of accumulated moisture in the air data smart probes

(ADSP)pneumatic passages. We are issuing this AD to prevent an erroneous air speed indication, which could reduce flightcrew ability to control 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. Inspect To Determine Part Number (P/N) of ADSPs

(f)Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the part number of the ADSPs. For any Rosemount Aerospace ADSP having P/N 2015G2H2H-4( ), 2015G2H2H-5( ), 2015G2H2H-6( ), or 2015G2H2H-7 ( ), do the applicable actions required by this AD. For any ADSP having any other part number, no further action is required by this AD. Note 1: The parentheses used in the identified ADSP model part numbers indicate the presence or absence of an additional letter(s), which varies with the basic ADSP model designation. The letter(s) defines minor changes that do not affect interchangeability or eligibility of the ADSP. Therefore, this AD still applies regardless of the presence or absence of these letters on the ADSP model designation. Detailed Inspection, Moisture Removal, and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions

(g)Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a detailed inspection for blockage of the pitot drain holes of the ADSP, remove accumulated moisture from the pneumatic passages of the ADSP, and, before further flight, do all related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions. Perform all required actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-34-0007, dated April 28, 2005 (for Model ERJ 170 airplanes), or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-34-0003, dated December 2, 2005 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes), as applicable. Repeat all required actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours. Note 2: EMBRAER Service Bulletins 170-34-0007 and 190-34-0003 refer to Rosemount Aerospace Service Bulletin 2015G2H2H-34-04, Revision 1, dated April 6, 2005, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(i)Brazilian airworthiness directives 2006-05-05, effective June 14, 2006, and 2006-05-08, effective June 19, 2006, also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-19532 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26355; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-198-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the fuel lines located in the left and right main landing gear

(MLG)bays to determine the clearance between the fuel and hydraulic lines. If necessary, this proposed AD would also require an inspection of fuel lines for chafing, replacement of a chafed fuel line with a new fuel line, and the repositioning of existing clamps and installation of additional clamps between the fuel and hydraulic lines. This proposed AD results from a fuel leak found in the left MLG bay. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct inadequate clearance between fuel and hydraulic lines in the MLG bay, which could lead to chafing of a fuel line and fuel leakage. A fuel leak near hot brakes could result in a fire in the MLG bay. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26355; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-198-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(MLG)bay, on a Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplane. Investigation revealed that inadequate clearance between the fuel and hydraulic lines in the MLG bay led to chafing of the fuel line and consequent fuel leakage. A fuel leak near hot brakes, if not corrected, could result in a fire in the MLG bay. Relevant Service Information Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-041, dated July 20, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the fuel lines located in the left and right MLG bays to determine the clearance between the fuel and hydraulic lines. If the clearance is less than 3 mm (millimeters), the service bulletin specifies inspecting the fuel line for chafing and doing corrective actions as necessary. If no chafing is found, the corrective action is to reposition the existing clamps and install additional clamps to obtain a minimum clearance of 3 mm between the fuel and hydraulic lines, as necessary. If chafing is found, the corrective actions are

(1)To replace the chafed fuel line with a new fuel line and

(2)to reposition the existing clamps and install additional clamps to obtain a minimum clearance of 3 mm between the fuel and hydraulic lines, as necessary. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The CAA-NL mandated the service information and issued Dutch airworthiness directive NL-2005-010 R1, dated September 7, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Netherlands. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in the Netherlands and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA-NL has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the CAA-NL's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Clarification of Inspection Terminology The “inspection” specified in the Fokker service bulletin is referred to as a “general visual inspection” in this proposed AD. We have included the definition for a general visual inspection in a note in the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $720, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Fokker Services B.V.:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26355; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-198-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 20, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a fuel leak found in the left main landing gear

(MLG)bay. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct inadequate clearance between fuel and hydraulic lines in the MLG bay, which could lead to chafing of a fuel line and fuel leakage. A fuel leak near hot brakes could result in a fire in the MLG bay. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections for Clearance and Chafing

(f)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the fuel lines located in the left and right MLG bays to determine the clearance between the fuel and hydraulic lines, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-041, dated July 20, 2005. If the clearance of a fuel line is 3 mm (millimeters) or more, no further action is required by this AD for that fuel line only. If the clearance of a fuel line is less than 3 mm, before further flight, do a general visual inspection of the fuel line for chafing in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Corrective Actions

(g)If the fuel line is found chafed during the inspection for chafing specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD, before further flight after that inspection, do the actions in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. If the fuel line is not found chafed, within 6 months after the inspection for chafing, do the actions in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(1)Replace the chafed fuel line with a new fuel line in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-041, dated July 20, 2005.

(2)Reposition the existing clamps and install additional clamps to obtain a minimum clearance of 3 mm between the fuel and hydraulic lines, as applicable, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-041, dated July 20, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(i)Dutch airworthiness directive NL-2005-010 R1, dated September 7, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-19538 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26353; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-189-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes, CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes, and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting to identify the part number and serial number of the selector valves of the nose landing gear

(NLG)and the nose gear door; and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of uncommanded partial retractions of the NLG. We are proposing this AD to prevent internal leakage of the selector valve, which, under certain conditions, could result in an uncommanded retraction of the NLG with consequent damage to the airplane and possible serious injury to ground personnel. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7305; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26353; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-189-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(NLG)of Model CL-600-2B19 airplanes caused by discrepant selector valves; the same selector valves may be installed on the airplanes identified in this proposed AD. (Further rulemaking will address the unsafe condition in Model CL-600-2B19 airplanes.) Investigation revealed that the end caps of certain NLG and nose gear door selector valves may have been incorrectly lock-wired or improperly torqued during manufacture. This could allow the valve end cap to back off and damage the valve seal, resulting in internal leakage of the valve. Such internal leakage, under certain conditions, could result in an uncommanded retraction of the NLG with consequent damage to the airplane and possible serious injury to ground personnel. Certain conditions involve the transfer or removal of electrical power from the airplane on the ground before the NLG safety pin is installed, when any pressure, including residual pressure, is present in the No. 3 hydraulic system. Operators should be aware that selector valves having Bombardier P/N 601R75146-1, which are the subject of this proposed AD, may be supplied by different manufacturers and have different manufacturer part numbers. Only selector valves manufactured by Tactair Fluid Controls, having P/N 750006000, would be affected by this proposed AD. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued the service bulletins identified in the following table. Bombardier Service Bulletins Service Bulletin Revision level Date 600-0721 (for Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes) 01 February 20, 2006. 601-0558 (for Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) airplanes) 01 February 20, 2006. 604-32-021 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes) 01 February 20, 2006. The service bulletins describe procedures for inspecting for certain S/Ns of the selector valves of the NLG and the nose gear door, and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Related investigative actions include checking for proper installation of the lock wire of the end cap and verifying the torqued value of the end cap. Corrective actions include ensuring that any selector valve that has a properly installed lock wire and properly torqued end cap is marked with a new manufacturer part number and replacing any discrepant selector valve with a new or serviceable selector valve marked with the correct part number. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. TCCA mandated the service information and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-16, dated July 6, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. The Bombardier service bulletins refer to Tactair Fluid Controls Service Bulletin SB750006000-1, Revision A, dated September 6, 2005, as an additional source of service information for doing the related investigative and corrective actions previously described. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Clarification of Inspection Terminology The service bulletins specify checking for proper installation of the lock wire; however, we have determined that this check should be a “general visual” inspection. We have included a definition of this type of inspection in Note 2 of this proposed AD. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 492 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection to determine the manufacturer P/N and S/N of the selector valve(s) would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $39,360, or $80 per airplane. The general visual inspection of the selector valve(s), if accomplished, would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26353; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-189-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 20, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes, CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes, and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) airplanes; certificated in any category; having serial numbers (S/Ns) as identified in the service bulletins specified in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable. Table 1.—Bombardier Service Bulletins Service Bulletin Revision level Date 600-0721 (for Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes) 01 February 20, 2006. 601-0558 (for Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes, and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) airplanes) 01 February 20, 2006. 604-32-021 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes) 01 February 20, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of uncommanded partial retractions of the nose landing gear (NLG). We are issuing this AD to prevent internal leakage of the selector valve, which, under certain conditions, could result in an uncommanded retraction of the NLG with consequent damage to the airplane and possible serious injury to ground personnel. 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 and Corrective Actions

(f)Within 500 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect to determine the manufacturer part number (P/N) and S/N of the selector valves of the NLG and nose gear door. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the S/Ns of the selector valves can be conclusively determined from that review. For any subject selector valve having Tactair Fluid Controls P/N 750006000 and a S/N from 0001 through 0767 inclusive, before further flight, do related investigative (including a general visual inspection for proper installation of the lock wire of the end cap) and corrective actions; in accordance with the applicable service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD. Note 1: Operators should be aware that selector valves having Bombardier P/N 601R75146-1 may be supplied by different manufacturers and have different manufacturer part numbers. Only airplanes having selector valves manufactured by Tactair Fluid Controls, having P/N 750006000, are subject to the investigative and corrective actions specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Note 3: The service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD refer to Tactair Fluid Controls Service Bulletin SB750006000-1, Revision A, dated September 6, 2005, as an additional source of service information for doing the related investigative and corrective actions required by this AD. Parts Installation

(g)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a subject selector valve having a S/N from 0001 through 0767 inclusive, unless that selector valve meets the requirements of paragraph

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

(i)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-16, dated July 6, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-19539 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26354; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-196-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 Airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the metallic tubes enclosing the vent and pilot valve wires in the left- and right-hand wing fuel tanks with non-conductive hoses. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent an ignition source inside the fuel tank that could ignite fuel vapor and cause a fuel tank explosion and loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosanne Ryburn, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2139; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26354; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-196-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( *i.e.* , type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The ANAC advises that sparking may occur between wires of the vent and pilot valves of the pressure refueling system inside the wing fuel tanks and the metallic tubes enclosing the wires. This condition, if not corrected, could provide an ignition source inside the fuel tank that could ignite fuel vapor and cause a fuel tank explosion and loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletins 145-28-0023, Revision 05, dated May 15, 2006 (for Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes), and 145LEG-28-0018, Revision 01, dated April 20, 2005 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for replacing the metallic tubes enclosing the vent and pilot valve wires in the left- and right-hand wing fuel tanks with non-conductive hoses. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The ANAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-06-02, dated June 28, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the ANAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined ANAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 620 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost between $1,121 and $1,796 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is between $744,620, and $1,163,120, or between $1,201 and $1,876 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26354; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-196-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 20, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletins 145-28-0023, Revision 05, dated May 15, 2006, and 145LEG-28-0018, Revision 01, dated April 20, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source inside the fuel tank that could ignite fuel vapor and cause a fuel tank explosion and loss of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Tube Replacement

(f)Within 5,000 flight hours or 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the metallic tubes enclosing the vent and pilot valve wires in the left- and right-hand wing fuel tanks with new, improved, non-conductive hoses, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

(1)For Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes: EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0023, Revision 05, dated May 15, 2006.

(2)For Model EMB-135BJ airplanes: EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0018, Revision 01, dated April 20, 2005. Credit for Actions Accomplished Using Prior Revisions of Service Information

(g)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service information specified in Table 1 of this AD are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. Table 1.—EMBRAER Service Information Service Bulletin Revision level Dated 145-28-0023 04 November 7, 2005. 145-28-0023 03 April 27, 2005. 145-28-0023 02 November 8, 2004. 145-28-0023 01 June 9, 2004. 145-28-0023 Original April 19, 2004. 145LEG-28-0018 Original April 23, 2004. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, 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.

(i)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-06-02, dated June 28, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-19540 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26191; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-60-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an excessive lateral play caused by a nonconforming washer might lead to the deterioration of the elevator trim tab bearing fatigue resistance. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*

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

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

(816)329-4119; *fax:*

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26191; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-60-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.go* v, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Direction générale de l'aviation civile (DGAC), which is the aviation authority for France, has issued French AD No F-2006-028, dated February 1, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states an excessive lateral play caused by a nonconforming washer might lead to the deterioration of the elevator trim tab bearing fatigue resistance. If not corrected, lateral play could generate deterioration of bearing fatigue life. The MCAI requires a check for absence of play and installation, if necessary, of a setting washer. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EADS SOCATA has issued TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-135, ATA No. 55, dated December 2005. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 52 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $500 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $34,320, or $660 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **EADS SOCATA:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26191; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-60-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by December 20, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EADS SOCATA TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 271 through 328, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states an excessive lateral play caused by a nonconforming washer might lead to the deterioration of the elevator trim tab bearing fatigue resistance. Actions and Compliance

(e)Unless already done, within the next 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, verify there is no lateral play for both elevator trim tabs and correct, as necessary, by installing a setting washer as instructed in the EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-135, ATA No. 55, dated December 2005. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: Compliance time is defined as within 100 hours TIS or 12 months whichever occurs first. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

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

(816)329-4119; fax:

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

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

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget

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

(g)Refer to MCAI Direction générale de l'aviation civile Airworthiness Directive No. F-2006-028, dated February 01, 2006; and EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-135, ATA No. 55, dated December 2005, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 9, 2006. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-19545 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis 15 CFR Part 801 [Docket No. 061005856-6256-01] RIN 0691-AA61 International Services Surveys: BE-125, Quarterly Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets With Foreign Persons AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This proposed rule amends regulations of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce

(BEA)to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-125, Quarterly Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Foreign Persons. This rule would replace the rule for a similar but more limited survey, the BE-25, Quarterly Survey of Transactions with Unaffiliated Foreign Persons in Selected Services and in Intangible Assets. A new agency form number and survey title are being introduced because the survey program is being reconfigured to begin collection of data on transactions with affiliated foreigners using the same survey instruments as are used to collect information on transactions with unaffiliated foreigners and because services once collected on an annual basis would now be collected quarterly. This change will allow respondents to report transactions in services and intangible assets with foreign persons on one quarterly survey, rather than on as many as three different quarterly surveys and one annual survey. If adopted the BE-125 survey would be conducted quarterly beginning with the first quarter of 2007. The proposed BE-125 survey data are used to update universe estimates from similar data reported on the BE-120, Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Foreign Persons and on the benchmark and quarterly direct investment surveys that were administered to collect data on transactions with affiliated foreign persons. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule will receive consideration if submitted in writing on or before 5 p.m. January 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0691-AA61, and referencing the agency name (Bureau of Economic Analysis), by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For agency, select “Commerce Department—all.” • *E-mail: Obie.Whichard@bea.gov.* • *Fax:* Office of the Chief, International Investment Division,

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

(202)606-9890. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule would amend 15 CFR part 801.9 to replace the reporting requirements for the BE-25, Quarterly Survey of Transactions with Unaffiliated Foreign Persons in Selected Services and in Intangible Assets, with requirements for the BE-125, Quarterly Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Foreign Persons. The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Description of Changes The proposed BE-125 survey would be a mandatory survey and would be conducted, beginning with transactions for the first quarter of 2007, by BEA under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108), hereinafter, “the Act.” For the initial quarter of coverage, BEA would send the survey to potential respondents in March of 2007; responses would be due by May 15, 2007. BEA maintains a continuing dialogue with respondents and with data users, including its own internal users, to ensure that, as far as possible, the required data serve their intended purposes and are available from existing records, that instructions are clear, and that unreasonable burdens are not imposed. In reaching decisions on what questions to include in the survey, BEA considered the Government's need for the data, the burden imposed on respondents, the quality of the likely responses (for example, whether the data are available on respondents' books), and BEA's experience in previous related annual and quarterly surveys. If implemented, the BE-125 would collect all the same information as the BE-25, Quarterly Survey of Transactions Between U.S. and Unaffiliated Foreign Persons in Selected Services and in Intangible Assets, but it would also include services transactions that BEA is currently collecting on the BE-22, Annual Survey of Selected Services Transactions Between U.S. and Unaffiliated Foreign Persons, and services transactions with affiliated parties ( *i.e.* , with foreign affiliates, foreign parents, and foreign affiliates of foreign parents). In addition to discontinuing the BE-25, BEA also proposes to discontinue the BE-22 at the time the BE-125 is implemented. BEA is currently collecting information on the transactions with affiliated parties on its quarterly direct investment surveys (the BE-577, Direct Transactions of U.S. Reporter with Foreign Affiliate, the BE-605, Transactions of U.S. Affiliate, except a U.S. Banking Affiliate, with Foreign Parent, and the BE-605 Bank, Transactions of U.S. Banking Affiliate with Foreign Parent). These transactions with affiliated parties that are collected on BEA's quarterly direct investment surveys would now be collected on the BE-125. In addition, the BE-125 would combine several services into one “other selected services category”, which would include any services not individually covered by the survey or available from other sources. Survey Background The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce, would conduct the survey under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108), hereinafter, “the Act.” Section 4(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 3103(a)) provides that the President shall, to the extent he deems necessary and feasible, conduct a regular data collection program to secure current information related to international investment and trade in services and publish for the use of the general public and United States Government agencies periodic, regular, and comprehensive statistical information collected pursuant to this subsection. In Section 3 of Executive Order 11961, as amended by Executive Orders 12318 and 12518, the President delegated the responsibilities under the Act for performing functions concerning international trade in services to the Secretary of Commerce, who has redelegated them to BEA. The survey would provide a basis for updating estimates of the universe of transactions between U.S. and foreign persons in selected services and intangible assets. The data are needed to monitor trade in services and intangible assets; analyze their impact on the U.S. and foreign economies; compile and improve the U.S. international transactions, national income and product, and input-output accounts; support U.S. commercial policy on services and intangible assets; assess and promote U.S. competitiveness in international trade in services; and improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Executive Order 13132 This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federal assessment under E.O. 13132. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The requirement will be submitted to OMB as a request for a revision of a currently approved collection under OMB control number 0608-0067. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. The BE-125 quarterly survey, as proposed, is expected to result in the filing of reports containing mandatory data from approximately 1,000 respondents on a quarterly basis, or 4,000 annually. The respondent burden for this collection of information would vary from one respondent to another, but is estimated to average 16 hours per response (64 hours annually), including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total respondent burden for the BE-125 survey is estimated at 64,000 hours, compared to 35,200 hours estimated for the previous BE-25 survey. The increase in burden is a result of three factors: More U.S. persons with transactions in international services, the addition of selected services transactions that were previously covered by the BE-22, annual survey of selected services transactions (9,200 burden hours), and the inclusion of transactions with affiliated foreign persons. Comments are requested concerning:

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

(b)the accuracy of the burden estimate;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be addressed to: Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, fax: 202-606-5311; and the Office of Management and Budget, O.I.R.A., Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0058, Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, via e-mail at * pbugg@omb.eop.gov* or by fax at 202-395-7245. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that this proposed rulemaking, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The information collection excludes most small businesses from mandatory reporting. Companies that engage in international transactions in covered services or intangible assets tend to be relatively large, thereby excluding them from the definition of small entity. In addition, the reporting threshold for this survey is set at a level that will exempt most small businesses from reporting. The proposed BE-125 quarterly survey will be required from U.S. persons whose sales of covered services or intangible assets to foreign persons exceeded $6 million for the previous fiscal year or are expected to exceed of that amount during the current fiscal year, or whose purchases of covered services or intangible assets from foreign persons exceeded $4 million for the previous fiscal year or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year. This amount is applied separately to each of the individual types of transactions covered by the survey. The exemption level will exclude most small businesses from mandatory coverage. Of those smaller businesses that must report, most will tend to have specialized operations and activities, so they will likely report only one type of transaction, often limited to transactions with a single partner country; therefore, the burden on them should be small. In addition, BEA services surveys mailings are targeted mailings. Thus, since small businesses tend not to be involved in the transactions to be covered by the BE-125 survey, few small businesses should receive the survey. However, those receiving the survey are expected to incur a minimal burden in completing the exemption form. List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 801 International transactions, Economic statistics, Foreign trade, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 8, 2006. Rosemary D. Marcuss, Acting Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA proposes to amend 15 CFR part 801, as follows: PART 801—SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN SERVICES BETWEEN U.S. AND FOREIGN PERSONS 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 801 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 15 U.S.C. 4908; 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108; and E.O. 11961, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 86, as amended by E.O. 12318, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 173, and E.O. 12518, 3 CFR, 1985 Comp., p. 348. 2. Amend § 801.9 by revising paragraph (c)(6) and removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: § 801.9 Reports required.

(c)Quarterly surveys. * * *

(6)BE-125, Quarterly Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Foreign Persons:

(i)A BE-125, Quarterly Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intangible Assets with Foreign Persons, will be conducted covering the first quarter of the 2007 calendar year and every quarter thereafter.

(A)*Who must report—(1) Mandatory reporting* . Reports are required from each U.S. person that:

(a)Had sales of covered services or intangible assets to foreign persons that exceeded $6 million for the previous fiscal year or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year; or

(b)had purchases of covered services or intangible assets from foreign persons that exceeded $4 million for the previous fiscal year or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year. Because the thresholds are applied separately to sales and purchases, the mandatory reporting requirement may apply only to sales, only to purchases, or to both sales and purchases. Quarterly reports for a year may be required retroactively when it is determined that the exemption level has been exceeded.

(2)*Voluntary reporting* . Reports are requested from each U.S. person that had sales of covered services or intangible assets to foreign persons that were $6 million or less for the previous fiscal year and are expected to be less than or equal to that amount during the current fiscal year, or had purchases of covered services or intangible assets from foreign persons that were $4 million or less for the previous fiscal year and are expected to be less than or equal to that amount during the current fiscal year. Provision of this information is voluntary. The estimates may be based on recall, without conducting a detailed records search. Because these thresholds apply separately to sales and purchases, voluntary reporting may apply only to sales, only to purchases, or to both.

(B)Any person receiving a BE-125 survey form from BEA must complete all relevant parts of the form and return the form to BEA. A person that is not subject to the mandatory reporting requirement in paragraph (c)(6)(i)(A)( *1* ) of this section and is not filing information on a voluntary basis must complete Parts 1 and 2 of the survey. This requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with the reporting requirements and efficient administration of the survey by eliminating unnecessary follow-up contact.

(C)*Covered services and intangible assets.* The BE-125 survey is intended to collect information on U.S. international trade in all types of services and intangible assets for which information is not collected in other BEA surveys and is not available to BEA from other sources. The major types of services transactions not covered by the BE-125 survey are travel, transportation, insurance (except for purchases of primary insurance), financial services (except for purchases by non-financial firms), and expenditures by students and medical patients who are studying or seeking treatment in a country different from their country of residence. Covered services are: Advertising services; accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services; auxiliary insurance services; computer and data processing services; construction services; data base and other information services; educational and training services; engineering, architectural, and surveying services; financial services (purchases only, by companies or parts of companies that are not financial services providers); industrial engineering services; industrial-type maintenance, installation, alteration, and training services; legal services; management, consulting, and public relations services (including allocated expenses); merchanting services (sales only); mining services; operational leasing services; other trade-related services; performing arts, sports, and other live performances, presentations, and events; premiums paid on purchases of primary insurance; losses recovered on purchases of primary insurance; research, development, and testing services; telecommunications services; and other selected services. “Other selected services” includes, but is not limited to: Agricultural services; account collection services; disbursements to fund news-gathering costs of broadcasters; disbursements to fund news-gathering costs of print media; disbursements to fund production costs of motion pictures; disbursements to fund production costs of broadcast program material other than news; disbursements to maintain government tourism and business promotion offices; disbursements for sales promotion and representation; disbursements to participate in foreign trade shows (purchases only); employment agencies and temporary help supply services; language translation services; mailing, reproduction, and commercial art; management of health care facilities; salvage services; satellite photography and remote sensing/satellite imagery services; security services; space transport (includes satellite launches, transport of goods and people for scientific experiments, and space passenger transport); transcription services; and waste treatment and depollution services. The intangible assets covered by the BE-125 survey are rights related to: Industrial processes and products; books, compact discs, audio tapes and other copyrighted material and intellectual property; trademarks, brand names, and signatures; performances and events pre-recorded on motion picture film and television tape, including digital recording; broadcast and recording of live performances and events; general use computer software; business format franchising fees; and other intangible assets, including indefeasible rights of users.

(ii)[Reserved] [FR Doc. E6-19565 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-06-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AU44 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum (Suisun thistle) and Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis (soft bird's-beak) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, notice of availability of draft economic analysis, and amended Required Determinations. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for two tidal marsh plants: *Cirsium hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* (Suisun thistle) and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis* (soft bird's-beak). We also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed critical habitat designation and an amended Required Determinations section of the proposal. The draft economic analysis identifies potential costs will be $1.6 million in undiscounted dollars over a 20-year period as a result of the proposed designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing and recovery. Discounted future costs are estimated to be $1.4 million over 20 years ($95,002 annually) at a 3 percent discount rate, or $1.2 million over 20 years ($116,722 annually) at a 7 percent discount rate. The amended Required Determinations section provides our determination concerning compliance with applicable statutes and Executive Orders that we have deferred until the information from the draft economic analysis of this proposal was available. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended Required Determinations section. DATES: We will accept public comments until December 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any one of the following methods:

(1)*E-mail:* You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: suisunplantsCH@fws.gov. For directions on how to file comments electronically, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section.

(2)*Mail or hand delivery:* You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825.

(3)*Facsimile:* You may fax your comments to 916-414-6712.

(4)*Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Roessler, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address listed in ADDRESSES (telephone 916-414-6600; facsimile 916-414-6712). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed critical habitat designation for *Cirsium hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis* published in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2006 (71 FR 18456) and on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

(1)The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat, as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), including whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including such area as part of critical habitat;

(2)Specific information on the amount and distribution of *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* or *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis,* and what habitat is essential to the conservation of these plants and why;

(3)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed habitat;

(4)Information on the extent to which any State and local environmental protection measures referred to in the draft economic analysis may have been adopted largely as a result of the listing of *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* or *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis;*

(5)Information on whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation, and information on any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked;

(6)Information on whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;

(7)Information on whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat;

(8)Information on areas that could potentially be disproportionately impacted by designation of critical habitat for *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* or *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis;*

(9)Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, and in particular, any impacts on small entities or families; the reasons why our conclusion that the proposed designation of critical habitat will not result in a disproportionate effect to small businesses should or should not warrant further consideration; and other information that would indicate that the designation of critical habitat would or would not have any impacts on small entities or families;

(10)Information on whether the draft economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation; and

(11)Information on whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and comments. Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, an area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, national security, or any other relevant impact. All previous comments and information submitted during the initial comment period on the April 11, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 18456) need not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES ). Our final designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we received during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on this analysis, the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic analysis, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion. If submitting comments electronically, please also include “ *Attn:* RIN 1018-AU44” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider withholding this information, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analysis by mail from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at the address listed under ADDRESSES or by visiting our Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/.* Background We published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for *Cirsium hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis* on April 11, 2006 (71 FR 18456). Because the proposed critical habitat partially overlaps between the two species, the proposed critical habitat totaled approximately 2,726 acres

(ac)(1,103 hectares (ha)) in Solano, Contra Costa, and Napa counties, California. In a June 14, 2004, settlement agreement, we agreed to submit for publication in the **Federal Register** a final critical habitat designation for these plants on or before April 1, 2007. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Draft Economic Analysis Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based on the April 11, 2006, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for *Cirsium hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis* (71 FR 18456), we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. The current draft economic analysis estimates the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and other conservation-related actions for these species on government agencies and private businesses and individuals. The economic analysis identifies potential costs will be $1.6 million in undiscounted dollars over a 20-year period as a result of the proposed designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing and recovery. Discounted future costs are estimated to be $1.4 million over 20 years ($95,002 annually) at a 3 percent discount rate, or $1.2 million over 20 years ($116,722 annually) at a 7 percent discount rate. The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of *Cirsium hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis,* including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis* in essential habitat areas. The draft analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, this draft analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date these species were listed as endangered (November 20, 1997; 62 FR 61916) and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following a designation of critical habitat. As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on this draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposal. We may revise the proposal or its supporting documents to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. Required Determinations—Amended In our April 11, 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 18456), we indicated that we would be deferring our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these determinations. In this notice we are affirming the information contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Order 13132 and Executive Order 12988; the Paperwork Reduction Act; and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951). Based on the information made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13211, Executive Order 12630, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Regulatory Planning and Review In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. Based on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for *Cirsium hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis,* costs related to conservation activities for *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis* pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act are estimated to be approximately $1.6 million (undiscounted) over 20 years. Discounted future costs are estimated to be $1.4 million over 20 years ($95,002 annually) at a 3 percent discount rate, or $1.2 million over 20 years ($116,722 annually) at a 7 percent discount rate. Therefore, based on our draft economic analysis, it is not anticipated that the proposed designation of critical habitat for *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis* would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the **Federal Register** , the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has not formally reviewed the proposed rule or accompanying economic analysis. Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will then need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Act, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat. In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)) (SBREFA), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based upon our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments received, this determination is subject to revision as part of the final rulemaking. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations. To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for *Cirsium hydrophilum* *var. hydrophilum* and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis* would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (such as residential and commercial development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation. If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process. In our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of *Cirsium hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis* and proposed designation of its critical habitat. The small business entities that may be affected include a private non-profit land conservation organization and a private ranch. The draft economic assessment does not project significant impacts to either entity because one business has unknown revenue with effects of the proposed habitat designation likely being negligible. The other business would potentially face annualized costs worth only 0.32 percent of annual revenues. As such, we do not anticipate that this proposed regulation will result in a significant impact to a substantial number of small business entities. Please refer to our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts. Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed designation of critical habitat for *Cirsium hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis* is considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 due to it potentially raising novel legal and policy issues. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared without the regulatory action under consideration. The draft economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on the information in the draft economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis* conservation activities within proposed critical habitat are not expected. As such, the proposed designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), the Service makes the following findings:

(a)This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. (At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.) “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except

(i)a condition of Federal assistance; or

(ii)a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.” The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.

(b)As discussed in the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for *Cirsium hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis,* the impacts on nonprofits and small governments are expected to be small. There is no record of consultations between the Service and any of these governments since *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis* were listed as endangered on November 20, 1997 (62 FR 61916). It is likely that small governments involved with developments and infrastructure projects will be interested parties or involved with projects involving section 7 consultations for *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis* within their jurisdictional areas. Any costs associated with this activity are likely to represent a small portion of a local government's budget. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis* will significantly or uniquely affect these small governmental entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Executive Order 12630—Takings In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for *Cirsium hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *Cordylanthus mollis* ssp. *mollis* in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat for *C. hydrophilum* var. *hydrophilum* and *C. mollis* ssp. *mollis* does not pose significant takings implications. Author The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: November 13, 2006. Todd Willens, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E6-19572 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 71 223 Monday, November 20, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of New Recreation Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) AGENCY: Homochitto National Forest, USDA Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of new recreation fee site. SUMMARY: Okhissa Lake is a recreational complex currently under development on the Homochitto National Forest, located near Bude, Mississippi. The lake will open for use by the public for boating and fishing between July and November 2007. The exact opening date will depend on completing work on infrastructure needed to support fishing (restrooms, boat launch, parking lots, etc.). Other recreational day-use activities (swimming, picnicking) will be available later as amenities to accommodate them are added. The Forest Service proposes to charge $5 per vehicle for access to all day-use activities (boat launching, swimming, and picnicking). Fees will not be charged until infrastructure needed to support an activity is available for use by the public. A $50 annual pass will also be available for purchase by the public. The annual pass would allow 12-month access to all day-use activities (boat launching, swimming, and picnicking). Opportunities for developed and primitive camping will be available in the future as work needed to accommodate these activities is complete. When available, the Forest Service will charge $13 for developed camping and $7 for primitive camping. Funds received from these fees will be used for continued operation and maintenance of the recreational complex and allow additional amenities to be added in the future. Funds will also be used to enhance or restore fisheries habitat of the lake. DATES: Recreational boating and fishing opportunities at Okhissa Lake will be available to the public between July and November 2007. Other recreational activities described above will be available as infrastructure to support them is added. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gainey, Recreation Program Manager, 601-965-1617, National Forests in Mississippi, 100 West Capitol Street, Suite 1141, Jackson, MS 39269. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, P.L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish advance notice in the **Federal Register** whenever new recreation fee areas are established. The Homochitto National Forest currently manages only one other developed recreation site that provides camping, fishing and other day-use activities. Comparable recreational use fees are currently charged at this site. Development of Okhissa Lake and associated facilities are aimed at creating new recreational opportunities in an area that is economically depressed. Dated: November 7, 2006. Antoine L. Dixon, Forest Supervisor, National Forest in Mississippi. [FR Doc. 06-9260 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 31

Traces to 31 documents

U.S. Code