Presidential Documents. Correcting amendments

9,936 words·~45 min read·/register/2006/11/30/06-9232·

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2006-11-30.xml --- 71 230 Thursday, November 30, 2006 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Forest Service See Rural Telephone Bank NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69199 E6-20267 Army Army Department RULES Claims and accounts: Claims against United States, 69360-69402 E6-19894 Claims on behalf of United States— Worldwide claims processing, 69403-69409 E6-19901 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations:

Division of Blood Disorders, 69211 06-9472 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Vessels carrying oil in bulk, double hull standards; tank vessel design international standards; U.S. position, 69213-69214 E6-20286 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration Defense Defense Department See Army Department NOTICES Meetings: Electron Devices Advisory Group, 69204-69205 06-9465 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69219-69220 E6-20266 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Aircraft:

Bilateral agreements; maintenance provisions; implementation, 69190-69191 E6-20254 Airworthiness standards: Special conditions— Airbus Model A380-800 airplane, 69183-69186 E6-20275 Boeing Model 777 series airplane, 69186-69190 E6-20277 Class D airspace, 69191 06-9232 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Assessments: Deposit Insurance Fund; designated reserve ratio, 69323-69326 06-9203 Quarterly assessment collection and three-year retention period, 69270-69282 06-9267 Risk differentiation frameworks and base assessment schedule, 69282-69323 06-9204 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 69207-69208 E6-20263 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P., E6-20258 69205-69206 E6-20262 East Kentucky Power Cooperative, 69206 E6-20260 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 69207 E6-20259 North American Electric Reliability Council, 69207 E6-20257 PowerSmith Cogeneration Project, LP, 69207 E6-20261 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies:

Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 69208-69209 E6-20283 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration RULES Transit operations; prohibited drug use and alcohol misuse prevention: Safety-sensitive employees; controlled substances and alcohol misuse testing; duplicative requirements elimination, 69195-69198 E6-20278 PROPOSED RULES Buy America requirements; end product analysis and waiver procedures, 69412-69427 E6-20166 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

Incidental take permits— San Bernadino County, CA; Delhi Sands flower-loving fly; habitat conservation plan, 69215-69216 E6-20284 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Blood Products Advisory Committee, 69211 E6-20265 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* California— Sony Electronics, Inc.; audio, video, communications and information technology products and accessories warehousing and distribution facilities, 69202 E6-20288 Tennessee— Brother Industries (U.S.A.

) Inc.; toner cartridge manufacturing/refurbishing, 69202 E6-20287 Washington— Norvanco International Inc.; kitting of home theater systems, 69202-69203 E6-20290 E6-20292 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Lolo National Forest, MT, 69199-69200 06-9462 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health NOTICES State assistance expenditures;

Federal financial participation (2007-2008 FY), 69209-69211 E6-20264 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See National Park Service See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office IRS Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E6-20252 69222-69223 E6-20253 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping:

Brake rotors from— China, 69203-69204 E6-20256 Helical spring lock washers from— China, 69204 E6-20285 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Administrative protective orders; electronic format for distribution and notification, 69217-69218 E6-20282 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Combating exploitative child labor through education in Angola, 69218-69219 E6-20269 Millennium Millennium Challenge Corporation NOTICES Millennium Challenge Act:

Mali compact, 69226-69268 E6-19696 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 69211-69212 06-9469 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 69212-69213 06-9468 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 69212 06-9467 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 69212 06-9466 National Institute on Aging, 69213 06-9470 National Park National Park Service RULES National Park System: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, AK; vessel management, 69328-69358 E6-19968 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

Haleakala National Park, HI; commercial services plan, 69216-69217 06-9464 Postal Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69220 06-9475 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* National Methamphetamine Awareness Day (Proc. 8086), 69181-69182 06-9493 Rural Rural Telephone Bank NOTICES Loan policies: Interest rates (FY 2006), 69200-69201 E6-20255 SBA Small Business Administration RULES Small business size standards and HUBZone program: Small Business Innovation Research Program and miscellaneous amendments; correction, 69183 E6-20268 State State Department NOTICES Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000:

Sukhoy, 69220 E6-20274 Meetings: International Telecommunication Advisory Committee, 69220-69221 E6-20273 Surface Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office RULES Permanent program and abandoned mine land reclaimation plan submissions: New Mexico, 69191-69195 06-9461 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Transit Administration Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E6-20271 69221-69222 E6-20272 MISSING FOR:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69214-69215 E6-20280 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Millennium Challenge Corporation, 69226-69268 E6-19696 Part III Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 06-9203 06-9204 69270-69326 06-9267 Part IV Interior Department, National Park Service, 69328-69358 E6-19968 Part V Defense Department, Army Department, 69360-69409 E6-19894 E6-19901 Part VI Transportation Department, Federal Transit Administration, 69412-69427 E6-20166 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 71 230 Thursday, November 30, 2006 Rules and Regulations SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Parts 121 and 126 RIN 3245-AE76, 3245-AE66 Small Business Size Regulations, HUBZone Program; Correction AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)is correcting amendments to regulations governing SBA's Small Business Innovation Research

(SBIR)Program and its Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program. These regulations addressed Employee Stock Ownership Plans, or ESOPs, but incorrectly referred to the ESOP as an Employee Stock Option Plan. EFFECTIVE DATE: These corrections are effective on November 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Jordan, Office of Size Standards,

(202)205-6618 or by e-mail at *sizestandards@SBA.gov;* Michael P. McHale, Associate Administrator for the HUBZone Program,

(202)205-8885 or by e-mail, at *hubzone@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SBA published a final rule in the December 3, 2004 **Federal Register** (69 FR 70180) that amended the regulations governing size for the SBIR program. In the preamble to the regulation, SBA stated that it received comments supporting ownership and control of SBIR concerns by Employee Stock Ownership Plans, or ESOPs, for investment and employee incentive purposes. In the final rule, however, SBA inadvertently referred to the ESOP as an Employee Stock Option Plan. An ESOP is a retirement plan in which the small business contributes its stock to the plan for the benefit of the company's employees. Hence, SBA's regulations provide that it will consider each stock trustee and plan member to be an owner of an SBIR concern, since with an ESOP all employees that are part of the plan own the stock in the company. In comparison, an employee stock option plan is merely a right given to an employee to buy the company's stock at a set price within a certain period of time. To avoid confusion on this issue, SBA is correcting this error. SBA published in the May 24, 2004 **Federal Register** (69 FR 29411) a final rule that amended the regulations governing the HUBZone Program. In the final rule, SBA inadvertently referred to an ESOP as an Employee Stock Option Plan. Again, SBA meant to state that an ESOP is an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. Therefore, SBA is correcting this regulation as well. List of Subjects 13 CFR Part 121 Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs—business, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses. 13 CFR Part 126 Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses. Accordingly, 13 CFR parts 121 and 126 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 636(b), 637(a), 644, and 662(5); and Pub. L. 105-135, sec. 401 *et seq.* , 111 Stat. 2592. 2. Amend § 121.702 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: § 121.702 What size standards are applicable to the SBIR program?

(a)* * *

(2)If an Employee Stock Ownership Plan owns all or part of the concern, SBA considers each stock trustee and plan member to be an owner. PART 126—HUBZONE PROGRAM 3. The authority citation for part 126 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632(a), 632(j), 632(p) and 657a. 4. Amend § 126.201 by revising the second sentence of the introductory text to read as follows: § 126.201 Who does SBA consider to own a HUBZone SBC? * * * If an Employee Stock Ownership Plan owns all or part of the concern, SBA considers each stock trustee and plan member to be an owner. * * * Dated: November 17, 2006. Anthony Martoccia, Associate Deputy Administrator, Government Contracting and Business Development. [FR Doc. E6-20268 Filed 11-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM321; Special Condition No. 25-338-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus Model A380-800 Airplane, Ground Turning Loads AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. Many of these novel or unusual design features are associated with the complex systems and the configuration of the airplane, including its full-length double deck. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards regarding ground turning loads. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of these special conditions is November 9, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Thorson, FAA, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1357; facsimile

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Airbus applied for FAA certification/validation of the provisionally-designated Model A3XX-100 in its letter AI/L 810.0223/98, dated August 12, 1998, to the FAA. Application for certification by the Joint Aviation Authorities

(JAA)of Europe had been made on January 16, 1998, reference AI/L 810.0019/98. In its letter to the FAA, Airbus requested an extension to the 5-year period for type certification in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(c). The request was for an extension to a 7-year period, using the date of the initial application letter to the JAA as the reference date. The reason given by Airbus for the request for extension is related to the technical challenges, complexity, and the number of new and novel features on the airplane. On November 12, 1998, the Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, granted Airbus' request for the 7-year period, based on the date of application to the JAA. In its letter AI/LE-A 828.0040/99 Issue 3, dated July 20, 2001, Airbus stated that its target date for type certification of the Model A380-800 has been moved from May 2005, to January 2006, to match the delivery date of the first production airplane. In a subsequent letter (AI/L 810.0223/98 issue 3, dated January 27, 2006), Airbus stated that its target date for type certification is October 2, 2006. In accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(d)(2), Airbus chose a new application date of April 20, 1999, and requested that the 7-year certification period which had already been approved be continued. The FAA has reviewed the part 25 certification basis for the Model A380-800 airplane, and no changes are required based on the new application date. The Model A380-800 airplane will be an all-new, four-engine jet transport airplane with a full double-deck, two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 1.235 million pounds with a typical three-class layout of 555 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model A380-800 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-98. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus A380-800 airplane because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 93-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101(a)(1). Discussion of Novel or Unusual Design Features The A380 has a landing gear arrangement consisting of a nose gear, two wing mounted gears, and two body mounted gears. This is different from the conventional tricycle landing gear arrangement envisioned by 14 CFR 25.495. The simple load condition specified in § 25.495, while providing a realistic approximation for designing a tricycle landing gear arrangement, will give unrealistic results for the A380. Safe sizing of the A380 landing gears necessitates a rational ground turning analysis that considers the way the airplane as a whole responds to a turning maneuver. Furthermore, recent studies of the current generation of transport category airplanes carried out in the U.S. and in Europe indicate a correlation between lower load factors in ground turns and higher gross weight of an airplane. This correlation was documented in the FAA-sponsored report, DOT/FAA/AR-02/129 *Side Load Factor Statistics from Commercial Aircraft Ground Operations,* dated January 2003. As stated in the report's abstract, “The results of this study clearly indicate, however, that the lateral loads experienced by the larger/heavier transport jets during ground turns are substantially less than those of smaller jet transports.” Based on this rationale, for the Model A380 airplane at maximum ramp weight—which is more than 30% heavier than any currently certificated airplane—the 0.5 g design turning load factor specified in § 25.495 is conservative. A load factor of 0.45 g is more appropriate for the A380 at maximum ramp weight. The data provided to the FAA support this reduced factor. Therefore, in lieu of the requirements of § 25.495, a special condition regarding ground turning loads is justified for the Model A380 airplane. The special condition would require the applicant to determine the loads on the airplane during ground turning in a rational manner and would allow the applicant to determine a limit turning lateral load factor—not less than 0.45 g's—for the A380 at maximum ramp weight. Discussion of Comments Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-05-16-SC, pertaining to ground turning loads for the Airbus A380 airplane, was published in the **Federal Register** on August 9, 2005 (70 FR 46106). Comments supporting the intent and the language of the proposed special conditions were received from the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA). Comments requesting changes were received from the Boeing Company. *Requested change 1:* Boeing states that it agrees special conditions are necessary, because the current regulations do not adequately address the A380 landing gear arrangement. However, Boeing disagrees with the general content of the proposed special conditions, because the proposed special conditions do not apply either the current safety standard for the Model 747 four-post gear arrangement or the standards for ground and loading conditions for multi-post gear arrangements developed by the FAA's Aviation Regulatory Advisory Committee (ARAC). Boeing adds that the current safety standard for a four post gear arrangement is found in Special Conditions A-4 issued for the Boeing 747 airplane and that this standard should apply to the Model A380 “since the configurations and gear arrangements are very similar to the Model 747 gear arrangement.* * *” Alternatively, Boeing suggests, the set of standards developed by ARAC for ground and landing conditions for multi-post gear arrangements should be incorporated as the basis of the Model A380 ground handling and landing requirements. *FAA response:* This special condition was proposed in accordance with 14 CFR 21.16, which states that the Administrator prescribes special conditions, if she or he finds that the airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for an aircraft because of a novel or unusual design feature. Section 21.16 does not constrain the Administrator to prescribe only such standards as have been proposed by ARAC, and the Administrator routinely prescribes special conditions that are neither existing standards nor standards proposed by ARAC. These special conditions are motivated primarily by the size and weight of the Model A380 airplane and the effect of these parameters on ground turning loads. Nevertheless, the FAA recognizes the importance of the multi-post landing gear configuration on the individual landing gear loads. (In separate special conditions for the A380, we have adopted the set of standards developed by ARAC for ground and landing conditions for multi-post landing gear arrangements, as Boeing suggests. Those special conditions, No. 25-324-SC, do not address ground turning loads.) As discussed in the Notice of Proposed Special Conditions, pertaining to ground turning loads, the FAA concludes that, “Safe sizing of the A380 landing gear necessitates a rational ground turning analysis that considers the way the airplane as a whole responds to a turning maneuver,” and the proposed special condition contains provisions for such an analysis. The FAA considers these provisions to adequately to address the commenter's safety concern. The 747 Special Condition A-4 was not adopted for the A380, because it does not constitute a current safety standard for all four-post main landing gear. *Requested change 2:* Boeing states that the proposed special conditions are not justified by the rationale stated by the FAA in the *Discussion of Novel or Unusual Design Features.* This rationale was essentially that the simple load conditions specified in § 25.495-while providing a realistic approximation for designing a tricycle landing gear arrangement-would give unrealistic results for the A380 and that recent studies of the current generation of transport category airplanes show a correlation between lower load factors in ground turns and higher gross weight. The FAA concluded that “Based on this rationale, for the A380 at a maximum ramp weight—which is more than 30% heavier than any currently certificated airplane—the 0.5 g design turning load factor specified in § 25.495 is conservative.” However, the Boeing Company suggests that these conclusions from the operational data are broadly applicable to the current large/heavy fleet of transport airplanes and are not unique to the Model A380 configuration or design weights. *FAA response:* The FAA agrees with Boeing that conclusions from the recent studies are broadly applicable to the current large/heavy fleet and that these studies indicate that the ground turning load factor of § 25.495 is conservative for certain heavier model airplanes. That conclusion does not alter the fact that an airplane of the size and gross weight of the A380 also exhibits decreased ground turning loads and thus warrants issuance of special conditions with ground turning loads lower than those specified in § 25.495. *Requested change 3:* Boeing states that—by proposing to lower the side load factor in the ground turn—the proposed special conditions would adopt a lesser safety standard. According to the commenter, This is a reduction of the established standard, which will result in decreased gear strength relative to the existing fleet. We consider the current 0.5g side load factor as a 'book' case intended to provide relatively simple criteria to ensure adequate side strength in lieu of an all-inclusive rational analysis. The special condition does not consider supplementary criteria to maintain equivalence to existing safety standards. *FAA response:* As discussed above, data show that there is an inverse relationship between load factors experienced by airplanes in turns and their size and gross weight (i.e., greater weight implies lower load factors). Statistical analysis of these data indicates that the probability of achieving the “book” case on the A380 is exceedingly low—to the point that it cannot practically be achieved. Using a side load factor of 0.45g still results in a turning load that is very unlikely to be exceeded in operation. (By way of comparison, a single aisle airplane, such as an A320 or a Boeing 737, is more likely to exceed the “book” case of 0.5 g's in a turn than the A380 is of exceeding 0.45 g's.) Furthermore, the special condition states that the 0.45g load factor may be used, only if it can be shown by rational analysis that this lower value cannot be exceeded in service considering adverse variations in airplane characteristics and operations. Thus there is no practical decrease in safety relative to that provided by § 25.495. Since this special condition is based on a more realistic analysis, no supplementary criteria are necessary. *Requested change 4:* The commenter indicates that “[Additionally,] the proposed SC would require a rational distribution of side load among the tires. While this provision may be conservative for the inboard gears, we find the SC not to be conservative for the wing gears. We suspect this will result in a lower level of strength for portions of the landing gear structure relative to the current commercial airplane fleet.” *FAA response:* The FAA does not agree. The special condition requires a rational distribution of side loads among tires in a severe turn, assuming a conservative turning load factor. This can be expected to result in side loads that are rationally distributed and conservative for both inboard gear and wing gear in comparison to any loading actually expected in operation. Boeing did not provided any data to support its claim that the special condition, as proposed, would result in a lower level of strength for portions of the landing gear structure relative to the current commercial fleet. *Requested change 5:* Boeing comments that “In order to justify the reduced side factor, a more extensive set of likely ground maneuvers should be considered than those listed in the proposed special conditions.* * * At a minimum, regardless of the side load factor, the rational turning analysis should consider critical combinations of steering, braking, and power as well as turning in a crosswind.” *FAA response:* The FAA does not agree that to justify the reduced side load factor, a set of likely ground maneuvers more extensive than those listed should be considered in the special conditions. The special conditions require that the rational analysis consider “the maximum load factor that can be reached during the full range of likely ground operations at maximum ramp weight.* * *” The full range of likely ground operations would include likely critical combinations of steering, braking, power, and turning in crosswinds. *Requested change 6:* Finally, Boeing comments that “A significant amount of the Model 747 main gear truck and axle assembly is designed by ground turn. Additionally, the axle stiffness, which is a very important parameter for brake interaction and for tire shoulder wear, could be negatively affected if the requirements are reduced. By lowering the loads below current practice, new service-related problems could result.” *FAA response:* The special conditions require the applicant to demonstrate that the reduced ground turning load cannot be exceeded in service. If the applicant can demonstrate this and can demonstrate compliance with other regulations affecting the integrity of landing gear, brakes, and tires, we consider that the potential for new service-related problems would be minimized. Nevertheless, as with any other type design, the FAA continually monitors the safety of airplanes in the operating fleet and has the means to require mandatory corrective actions, if warranted. Accordingly, the special conditions are adopted, as proposed, with a minor clarifying change to the text of subparagraph b. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Airbus A380-800 airplane. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the Airbus A380-800 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. In lieu of the requirements of § 25.495, the following special condition applies: a. The airplane is assumed to execute a steady turn by steering of any steerable gear or by application of any differential power. The airplane limit vertical load factor must be 1.0, and, in the absence of a more rational analysis, the limit airplane lateral load factor must be 0.5. b. The airplane is assumed to be in static balance, the lateral load factor being reacted by friction forces applied at the ground contact point of each tire. The lateral load must be shared between each individual tire in a rational or conservative manner. The distribution of the load among the tires must account at least for the effects of the factors specified in subparagraph c.

(2)of this special condition. c. At maximum ramp weight, a limit value of lateral center of gravity

(cg)inertia load factor lower than specified in subparagraph a. but not less than 0.45g (wing axis) may be used, if it can be shown by a rational analysis that this lower value cannot be exceeded. The rational analysis must consider at least the following: 1. The maximum lateral load factor that can be reached during the full range of likely ground operations at maximum ramp weight, including ground turning, “fishtailing,” and high-speed runway exit. In each case, the full dynamic maneuver must be considered. 2. The rational analysis must include at least the following parameters:

(a)Landing gear spring curves and landing gear kinematics.

(b)Reliable tire friction characteristics.

(c)Airframe and landing gear flexibility when significant.

(d)Airplane rigid body motion.

(e)The worst combination of tire diameter, tire pressure, and runway. shapes, specified in §§ 25.511(b)(2), 25.511(b)(3), and 25.511(b)(4). d. The limit lateral load factor at maximum landing weight is 0.5. e. Details of the analysis and any assumptions used must be agreed to by the FAA. Any assumptions made in the analysis must be based on the intrinsic characteristics of the airplane and must be independent of airfield geometry. Other influences that cannot be controlled by the airplane design must be conservatively assessed. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 9, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-20275 Filed 11-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM354; Special Conditions No. 25-336-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Boeing Model 777 Series Airplane; Overhead Cross Aisle Stowage Compartments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features associated with overhead cross aisle stowage compartments. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe/Cabin Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2194; facsimile

(425)227-1232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 20, 2005, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington, applied for a supplemental type certificate to permit installation of overhead cross aisle stowage compartments in Boeing 777 series airplanes. The Boeing Model 777 series airplanes are large twin engine airplanes with four or five pairs of Type A exits. The Boeing 777 airplanes can be configured with various passenger capacities and ranges. The regulations do not address the novel and unusual design features associated with the installation of overhead cross aisle stowage compartments installed on the Boeing Model 777, making these special conditions necessary. Generally, the requirements for overhead stowage compartments are similar to stowage compartments in remote crew rest compartments (i.e., located on lower lobe, main deck or overhead) already in use on Boeing Model 777 and 747 series airplanes. Remote crew rest compartments have been previously installed and certified in the main passenger cabin area, above the main passenger area, and below the passenger cabin area adjacent to the cargo compartment of the Boeing Model 777-200, and -300 series airplanes. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of § 21.101, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group must show that the Boeing Model 777, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. T00001SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. T00001SE for the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes include Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-100, with exceptions, for various models. Refer to Type Certificate No. T00001SE, as applicable, for a complete description of the certification basis for this model, including certain special conditions that are not relevant to these special conditions. If the Administrator finds the applicable airworthiness regulations (part 25 as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 777 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a change to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The Boeing Model 777 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: the installation of powered lift-enabled stowage compartments that rise into the overhead area and lower into the cabin. The overhead cross aisle stowage compartments are configured to allow stowage of galley type standard containers as well as coats, bags, and other items typically stowed in closets or bins. These stowage compartments may be located above the emergency exit cross aisles of Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. Because the compartment is lowered into the main cabin, it could affect egress if it cannot be raised again. The overhead compartment may lower into a cross aisle as defined in § 25.813, but it may also lower into other potential egress paths. For the purposes of these special conditions, the same criteria apply, whether or not the egress path is required by § 25.813. Therefore, as used in these special conditions, the term “overhead cross aisle stowage compartment” addresses all such compartments. Each stowage compartment is accessed from the main deck by a powered lift that lowers and raises the stowage compartment between the overhead and the main deck. In addition, the lift can be hand cranked down and up in the event of a power or lift motor failure. A smoke detection system will be provided in the overhead cross aisle stowage compartments. Discussion of the Special Conditions In general, the requirements listed in these special conditions for overhead cross aisle stowage compartments are similar to those previously approved for overhead crew rest compartments in earlier certification programs, such as for the Boeing Model 777 and Model 747 series airplanes. These special conditions establish compartment access, power lift, electrical power, smoke/fire detection, fire extinguisher, fire containment, smoke penetration, and compartment design criteria for the overhead cross aisle stowage compartments. The overhead stowage compartments are not a direct analogy to stowage compartments in remote crew rest compartments installed and certified for Boeing Model 777 series airplanes, but the safety issues raised are similar. Features similar to those considered in the development of previous special conditions for fire protection will be included here also. The requirements provide an equivalent level of safety to that provided by other Boeing Model 777 series airplanes with similar overhead compartments. Operational Evaluations and Approval The FAA's Aircraft Certification Service will administer these special conditions, which specify requirements for design approvals (that is, type design changes and supplemental type certificates) of overhead cross aisle stowage compartments. The Aircraft Evaluation Group of the FAA's Flight Standards Service must evaluate and approve the operational use of overhead cross aisle stowage compartments prior to use. The Aircraft Evaluation Group must receive all instructions for continued airworthiness, including service bulletins, prior to the FAA accepting and issuing approval of the modification. Special Condition No. 1, Compartment Access and Placards Appropriate placards, or other means, are required to address door access and locking to prohibit or prevent passenger access, and operation of the overhead storage compartment. There must also be a means to preclude anyone from being trapped inside the stowage compartment, if it is large enough for a person to enter. If there is more than one door providing access, each door must be equipped with these means. Special Condition No. 2, Power Lift The power lift must be designed so the overhead stowage compartment will not jam in the down position, even if lowered on top of a hard structure. The lift must operate at a speed, and stop above the floor at such a height, that allows anyone underneath the compartment to move clear without injury. The lift controls must be placed clear of the compartment door and must be pressed continuously for lift operation. Training on power lift operation procedures must be added to appropriate manuals. Special Condition No. 3, Manual Operation There must be a means to manually operate the lift that is independent of the electrical drive system. The lift must be operable by a range of occupants, including a fifth percentile female. The manual means must be capable of lowering the overhead stowage compartment quickly to the main deck to fight a fire. The manual system must be capable of raising the compartment quickly so the cross aisle or other egress path (if applicable) is not blocked in an emergency. If electrical or manual power is removed, there must be a means, such as a brake, to prevent the compartment from unrestricted movement, i.e., falling. Training on manual operation procedures must be added to appropriate manuals. Special Condition No. 4, Handheld Fire Extinguisher For compartments larger than 25 cubic feet, a handheld fire extinguisher appropriate to fight the kinds of fire likely to occur in the overhead stowage compartment must be provided. This handheld fire extinguisher must be adjacent to the overhead compartment. This extinguisher must be in addition to those required for the passenger cabin. Special Condition No. 5, Fire Containment This special condition requires either the installation of a manually activated fire extinguishing system that is accessible from outside the overhead stowage compartment, or a demonstration that the crew could satisfactorily perform the function of extinguishing a fire under the prescribed conditions. A manually activated built-in fire extinguishing system would be required only if a crewmember could not successfully locate and get access to the fire during a demonstration where the crewmember is responding to the alarm. For the duration of the flight, the system must have adequate capacity to suppress any fire occurring in the stowage compartment considering the fire threat, volume of the compartment, and the ventilation rate. Special Condition No. 6, Smoke Penetration The design of the compartment must provide means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke or extinguishing agent originating in the compartment from entering other occupied areas. The means must take into account the time period during which the compartment may be accessed to manually fight a fire, if applicable. Smoke entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers, when access to the stowage compartment is opened to manually fight a fire, must dissipate within five minutes after the access to the stowage compartment is closed. During the one-minute smoke detection time (see Special Condition No. 7), penetration of a small quantity of smoke (one that would dissipate within 3 minutes under normal ventilation conditions) from this overhead stowage compartment into an occupied area on this airplane configuration would be acceptable based on the limitations placed in this and other associated special conditions. These special conditions place sufficient restrictions in the quantity and type of material allowed in the overhead stowage compartment that threat from a fire in this remote area would be equivalent to that experienced on the main cabin. If a built-in fire extinguishing system is used in lieu of manual fire fighting, then the fire extinguishing system must be designed so that no hazardous quantities of extinguishing agent will enter other compartments occupied by passengers or crew. Special Condition No. 7, Compartment Design Criteria The material used to construct the overhead stowage compartment must meet the flammability requirements for compartment interiors in § 25.853 and be fire resistant. Depending on the size of the compartment, certain fire protection features of Class B cargo compartments are also required. Enclosed stowage compartments equal to or exceeding 25 ft 3 in interior volume must be provided with a smoke or fire detection system to ensure that a fire can be detected within a one-minute detection time. This is the same requirement as has been applied to remote crew rest compartments. Enclosed stowage compartments equal to or greater than 57 ft 3 in interior volume but less than or equal to 200 ft 3 , must have a liner that meets the requirements of § 25.855 for a Class B cargo compartment. The overhead stowage compartment may not be greater than 200 ft 3 in interior volume. The in-flight accessibility of very large enclosed stowage compartments and the subsequent impact on the crewmember's ability to effectively reach any part of the compartment with the contents of a handheld fire extinguisher would require additional fire protection considerations similar to those required for inaccessible compartments such as Class C cargo compartments. The overhead stowage compartment smoke or fire detection and fire suppression systems (including airflow management features which prevent hazardous quantities of smoke or fire extinguishing agent from entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers) is considered complex in terms of paragraph 6d of Advisory Circular

(AC)25.1309-1A, “System Design and Analysis.” The FAA considers failure of the overhead stowage compartment fire protection system (that is, smoke or fire detection and fire suppression systems) in conjunction with an overhead stowage fire to be a catastrophic event. Based on the “Depth of Analysis Flowchart” shown in Figure 2 of AC 25.1309-1A, the depth of analysis should include both qualitative and quantitative assessments (reference paragraphs 8d, 9, and 10 of AC 25.1309-1A). The requirements to enable crewmember(s) quick access to the overhead stowage compartment and to locate a fire source inherently places limits on the amount of baggage stowed and the size of the overhead stowage compartment. The overhead stowage compartment is limited to stowage of galley type standard containers as well as coats, bags, and other items typically stowed in closets or bins. It is not intended to be used for the stowage of other items. The design of such a system to include other items may require additional special conditions to ensure safe operation. Discussion of Comments Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-06-09-SC for the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes was published in the **Federal Register** on October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61432). An amended proposed notice of special conditions No. SC-06-29A-SC for the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes was published in the **Federal Register** on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64478). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed, except for clarifying changes. Applicability These special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes with overhead cross aisle stowage compartments. Should Boeing Commercial Airplane Group apply later for a change to Type Certificate No. T00001SE to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well. Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register,** however, as the certification date for the Boeing 777 series is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause exists for make these special conditions effective upon issuance. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. Each overhead cross aisle stowage compartment and the adjacent area, including the structural frame, mechanical system and drive motor, must meet the following requirements: 1. *Compartment Access and Placards.* There must be a means to prohibit or prevent passengers from entering or operating the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment. Placards prohibiting access are acceptable. If a compartment is large enough for a person to enter, there must be a means to preclude anyone from being trapped inside the stowage compartment. If a latching/locking mechanism is installed, the door must be capable of being opened from the outside without the aid of special tools. The mechanism must not prevent opening from the inside of the stowage at any time. 2. *Power Lift.* There must be a means such as a load or force limiter to protect the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment power lift from failure or jamming in the down position in the event it is lowered on top of a hard structure such as a galley cart.

(a)The lift controls must be placed so the operator is clear of the lift and designed such that the controls must be pressed continuously for lift operation.

(b)The lift must raise and lower the stowage compartment at a slow enough rate, and stop above the floor at such a height, that anyone underneath can easily move clear without injury.

(c)Stowage compartment operation training procedures must be added to the appropriate flight attendant manuals. 3. *Manual Lift.* There must be a means in the event of failure of the aircraft's main power system, or of the powered overhead cross aisle stowage compartment lift system, for manually activating the lift system.

(a)This manual means must be independent of the electrical drive system

(b)The manual means must be accessible and operable by a range of occupants, including a fifth percentile female.

(c)The manual means must be capable of lowering the stowage compartment to the main deck quickly enough to fight a fire in the stowage compartment before overhead cross aisle stowage compartment fire containment is compromised.

(d)The manual means must be capable of quickly raising the stowage compartment such that the cross aisle, or other egress path is not blocked in the event of an emergency.

(e)Stowage compartment firefighting training procedures must be added to the appropriate manuals.

(f)The lift system must include a means, such as a brake, to retain the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment in any position of travel when the manual or electric drive force is removed. 4. *Fire Extinguisher.* The means to manually fight a fire in the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment must consider the additional stowage volume and time required to manually lower the compartment after indication. For compartments larger than 25 ft 3 the following equipment must be provided directly adjacent to each overhead cross aisle stowage compartment: at least one approved handheld fire extinguisher, in addition to the fire extinguisher requirements of § 25.851 and § 121.309, appropriate for the kinds of fires likely to occur within the overhead stowage compartment. 5. *Fire Containment.* Fires originating within the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment must be controlled for the duration of the flight without a crewmember having to access the compartment. Alternatively, the design of the access provisions must allow crewmembers equipped for firefighting to have unrestricted access to the compartment. If the latter approach is elected it must be demonstrated that a crewmember has sufficient access to enable them to extinguish a fire. The time for a crewmember on the main deck to react to the fire alarm, (and, if applicable, to don the firefighting equipment and to open the compartment) must not exceed the flammability and fire containment capabilities of the stowage compartment. 6. *Smoke Penetration.* There must be a means provided to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke or extinguishing agent originating in the overhead cross aisle stowage compartment from entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers. If access is required to comply with Special Condition No. 5, this means must include the time period when accessing the stowage compartment to manually fight a fire. Smoke entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers, when access to the stowage compartment is opened to manually fight a fire, must dissipate within five minutes after the access to the stowage compartment is closed. Prior to the one minute smoke detection time (reference note 2 in paragraph (7)) penetration of a small quantity of smoke (one that would dissipate within 3 minutes under normal ventilation conditions) from the stowage compartment into an occupied area is acceptable. Flight tests must be conducted to show compliance with this requirement. 7. *Compartment Design Criteria.* The overhead cross aisle stowage compartment must be designed to minimize the hazards to the airplane in the event of a fire originating in the stowage compartment.

(a)*Fire Extinguishing System.* If a built-in fire extinguishing system is used in lieu of manual firefighting, then the fire extinguishing system must be designed so no hazardous quantities of extinguishing agent will enter other compartments occupied by passengers or crew. The system must have adequate capacity to suppress any fire occurring in the stowage compartment, considering the fire threat, volume of the compartment, and the ventilation rate.

(b)*Compartment Size.* All overhead cross aisle stowage compartments must meet the design criteria given in the table below. As indicated by the table below, enclosed stowage compartments greater than 200 ft 3 in interior volume are not addressed by this special condition. Stowage Compartment Interior Volumes Fire protection features Less than 25 ft 3 25 ft 3 to 57 ft 3 57 ft 3 to 200 ft 3 Materials of Construction 1 Yes Yes Yes. Detectors 2 No Yes Yes. Liner 3 No Yes Yes. 1 *Material* The material used to construct each enclosed stowage compartment must be at least fire resistant and must meet the flammability standards established for interior components (that is, 14 CFR Part 25 Appendix F, Parts I, IV, and V) per the requirements of § 25.853. For compartments less than 25 ft 3 in total interior volume, the design must ensure the ability to contain a fire likely to occur within the compartment under normal use. 2 *Detectors* Enclosed stowage compartments equal to or exceeding 25 ft 3 in total interior volume must be provided with a smoke or fire detection system to ensure that a fire can be detected within one minute. Flight tests must be conducted to show compliance with this requirement. Each system (or systems) must provide:

(a)A visual indication in the flight deck within one minute after the start of a fire;

(b)A warning in the main passenger cabin. This warning must be readily detectable by a flight attendant, taking into consideration the positioning of flight attendants throughout the main passenger compartment during various phases of flight. 3 *Liner* If it can be shown the material used to construct the stowage compartment meets the flammability requirements of a liner for a Class B cargo compartment (that is, § 25.855 at Amendment 25-93 and Appendix F, part I, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)), in addition to the above 1 *Material requirement* , then no liner would be required for enclosed stowage compartments equal to or greater than 25 ft 3 in total interior volume but less than 57 ft 3 in total interior volume. For all enclosed stowage compartments equal to or greater than 57 ft 3 in total interior volume but less than or equal to 200 ft 3 , a liner must be provided that meets the requirements of § 25.855 for a Class B cargo compartment. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 15, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-20277 Filed 11-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 43 [Docket No.: FAA-2004-17683] RIN 2120-AI19 Implementing the Maintenance Provisions of Bilateral Agreements AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; notice of effective date. SUMMARY: The FAA is announcing the effective date of the final rule, published July 14, 2005, that amended the regulations governing maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed on U.S. aeronautical products by certain Canadian persons. That revision removes specific regulatory references and other requirements and requires that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations be performed in accordance with a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement

(BASA)between the United States and Canada and associated Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP). When the rule was published, the FAA announced the amendments would become effective concurrent with the date the MIP entered into force. The MIP was signed and entered into force on August 31, 2006; accordingly, the amendments became effective on that date. DATES: The effective date of § 43.17 is August 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William D. Scott, Flight Standards, Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone

(502)753-4202; facsimile

(502)753-4232, e-mail: *william.d.scott@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final Rule On July 14, 2005, the FAA issued a final rule amending § 43.17 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed on U.S. aeronautical products by certain Canadian persons. (70 FR 40872). The United States and Canada had entered into an international agreement called a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement

(BASA)that was in line with BASAs negotiated with other countries. The FAA and its Canadian counterpart, Transport Canada Civil Aviation

(TCCA)of the Department of Transport, were negotiating Maintenance Implementation Procedures

(MIP)to accompany the BASA. The amendment to § 43.17 removes specific regulatory references that if not removed would have constrained development of a standardized MIP. The amendment also makes other minor changes and requires that all maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed by Canadian Approved Maintenance Organizations

(AMOs)and Aviation Maintenance Engineers

(AMEs)on U.S. aeronautical products be done in accordance with a BASA between the United States and Canada and the associated MIP. The MIP has been finalized. It was signed on August 31, 2006, and became effective immediately upon signing. In the preamble to the final rule the FAA stated, “These amendments become effective concurrent with the date the MIP accompanying the BASA between the United States and Canada enters into force.” Since the MIP is now final and entered into force on August 31, 2006, the FAA now sets the effective date for the above-referenced amendment to § 43.17 to be August 31, 2006. The FAA has also prepared guidance material to assist maintenance providers in complying with the MIP. This guidance is contained in Advisory Circular

(AC)AC 43-10B. A copy of the AC may be obtained by accessing the FAA's Regulatory and Guidance Library Web page at *http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgWebcomponents.nsf/HomeFrame?OpenFrameSet.* International Compatibility In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO)Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), FAA finds good cause for issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. Seeking public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. This rule sets the effective date for a rulemaking that has already been through the public comment process. Seeking prior public comments on the effective date is impracticable, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of this rule. In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA announces the effective date of 14 CFR part 43, Amendment 43-40, published July 14, 2005. The amendments require that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations be performed in accordance with a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement

(BASA)between the United States and Canada and associated Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP). The MIP was signed and entered into force on August 31, 2006; accordingly, the amendments became effective on that date. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 22, 2006. John M. Allen, Acting Director, Flight Standards Service. [FR Doc. E6-20254 Filed 11-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25270; Airspace Docket No. 06-ASO-9] Establishment of Class D Airspace; Eastman, GA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action changes the name of the Eastman-Dodge County Airport to Heart of Georgia Regional Airport and establishes Class D airspace at Eastman, GA. On October 9, 1995, the Eastman-Dodge County Airport Authority adopted a name change for the airport. A non-Federal contract tower with a weather reporting system has been constructed at Heart of Georgia Regional Airport. Therefore, the airport meets criteria for Class D airspace. Class D surface area airspace is required when the control tower is open to contain Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and other Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at the airport. This action establishes Class D airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport. EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, January 18, 2000. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark D. Ward, Group Manager, System Support, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone

(404)305-5627. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On August 2, 2006, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by changing the name of the Eastman-Dodge City Airport and establishing Class D airspace at Eastman, GA (71 FR 43678). This action provides adequate Class D airspace for IFR operations at Heart of Georgia Regional Airport. Designations for Class D Airspace are published in FAA Order 7400.9P, effective September 16, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. The Rule This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) changes the name of the Eastman-Dodge County Airport to Heart of Georgia Regional Airport and establishes Class D airspace at Eastman, GA. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore,

(1)is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends § 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, effective September 16, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASO GA D Eastman, GA [NEW] Heart of Georgia Regional Airport, GA (Lat. 32°12′51″ N, long. 83°07′41″ W) That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of the Heart of Georgia Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 6, 2006. Anne Boykin, Acting Group Manager, System Support, Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. 06-9232 Filed 11-29-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 11

Traces to 11 documents

U.S. Code

CFR