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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-12-11 · PROPOSED RULES · AID Agency for International Development PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73823-73826 06-7545 Agriculture Agriculture Department PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 72939-73031 06-7543 NOTICES Agency · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

45,214 words·~206 min read·/register/2006/12/11/06-9634·

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-2006-12-11.xml --- 71 237 Monday, December 11, 2006 Contents AID Agency for International Development PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73823-73826 06-7545 Agriculture Agriculture Department PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 72939-73031 06-7543 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E6-20938 71503-71505 E6-20947 E6-20968 Air Force Air Force Department NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 71535-71537 06-9621 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73827-73829 06-7557 Army Army Department NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 71537-71538 06-9620 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Blind Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Broadcasting Broadcasting Board of Governors NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 71505 06-9634 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Assistant Secretary Office for Children and Families et al., 71549-71550 E6-21010 Civil Civil Rights Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73831-73832 06-7775 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.:
East Rockaway Inlet to Atlantic Beach Bridge, NY, 71483-71486 E6-20921 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73033-73124 06-7549 NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 71506-71507 E6-20975 Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73833-73837 06-7697 Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74125-74131 06-8369 Consumer Consumer Product Safety Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74133-74143 06-7546 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73839-73842 06-7554 Court Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73845-73846 06-8148 Defense Defense Department See Air Force Department See Army Department See Navy Department PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):
Semi-annual agenda, 74113-74124 06-7553 Semi-annual agenda, 73125-73165 06-7776 NOTICES Meetings: Science Board task forces, 71531-71532 06-9615 06-9616 06-9617 Privacy Act; systems of records, 71532-71535 E6-20979 E6-20980 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 71555 E6-21006 Registration revocations, restrictions, denials, reinstatements: Orlando Wholesale L.L.C, 71555-71557 E6-20981 Taby Enterprises of Osceola, Inc., 71557-71559 E6-20978 Schedules of controlled substances; production quotas:
Schedule I and II— 2007 aggregate, 71559-71562 E6-20920 Education Education Department PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73167-73175 06-7687 Employee Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Employee Retirement Income Security Act: Annual information return report forms; revision, 71562-71579 06-9633 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements annual report; 2006 Form M-1 availability [ **Editorial Note** : This document appearing at 71 FR 70991 in the **Federal Register** of Thursday, December 7, 2006, was incorrectly indexed in that issue's Table of Contents.] Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73177-73193 06-8150 NOTICES Atomic energy agreements; subsequent arrangements, 71539-71540 E6-20985 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas:
Maine, 71489-71491 E6-20901 Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Nevada, 71486-71489 E6-20895 PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73847-73981 06-7683 NOTICES Water pollution control: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System— Various States; storm water discharges from industrial activities; general permits, 71540-71541 E6-20986 Water supply: Public water system supervision program— Kansas, 71542 E6-20983 Nebraska, 71541-71542 E6-20977 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73983-73986 06-7544 Executive Executive Office of the President See Management and Budget Office Farm Farm Credit Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74145-74152 06-7559 NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 71542-71543 06-9641 Farm Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74153-74154 06-7542 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives: Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing, 71478-71480 E6-20860 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), 71480-71483 E6-20862 Fokker, 71475-71478 E6-20861 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Bombardier, 71492-71494 E6-20969 Pacific Aerospace Corp. Ltd., 71499-71500 E6-20976 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd, 71497-71499 E6-20971 Raytheon Aircraft Co., 71494-71497 E6-20970 FCC Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74155-74217 06-8370 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age Advisory Committee, 71543 E6-21003 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74219-74227 06-7688 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 71543 06-9648 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74229-74240 06-7773 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Highway planning and construction; licenses, permits, approvals, etc.:
Monterey County, CA; U.S. Highway 101 Prunedale Improvement Project, 71608 E6-20949 Federal Housing Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74029-74032 06-7693 Federal Housing Federal Housing Finance Board PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74241-74244 06-7550 FMC Federal Maritime Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74245-74247 06-7699 Federal Mediation Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73987-73988 06-7541 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Loans to executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders of member banks (Regulation O):
Reporting requirements, 71472-71475 E6-20956 PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74249-74255 06-7565 NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 71543-71544 E6-20933 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 71544 06-9646 FTC Federal Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74257-74269 06-7547 NOTICES Premerger notification waiting periods; early terminations, 71544-71548 06-9618 Foreign Foreign Assets Control Office PROPOSED RULES Iranian and Sudanese transactions regulations:
Agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices; exportation licensing procedures effectiveness, 71500-71501 E6-21005 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Indiana Pfizer Inc.; pharmaceutical products manufacturing and warehousing facilities, 71507 E6-20943 North Carolina DNP IMS America Corp.; thermal media and digital printer cartridge and components manufacturing plant, 71507 E6-20948 Ohio, 71507-71508 E6-20944 Virginia A.
Wimpfheimer & Bro., Inc.; textile finishing plant, 71508 E6-20945 GSA General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Semi-annual agenda, 74113-74124 06-7553 Semi-annual agenda, 73989-74001 06-8423 Government Government Ethics Office PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74033-74040 06-7558 NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 71548-71549 E6-20974 Health Health and Human Services Department See Children and Families Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration See Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73195-73275 06-8151 Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings:
National Health Service Corps National Advisory Council, 71550 E6-20989 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73277-73382 06-8372 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department See Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73385-73413 06-7694 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 71550-71551 E6-20932 E6-20934 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings:
Deemed Export Advisory Committee, 71508-71509 06-9623 Inspector Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department PROPOSED RULES Medicare and State healthcare programs; fraud and abuse: New safe harbors and special fraud alerts; comment request, 71501-71502 E6-20994 Interior Interior Department See Land Management Bureau See National Indian Gaming Commission See National Park Service PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73415-73489 06-7682 IRS Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Employee Retirement Income Security Act:
Annual information return report forms; revision, 71562-71579 06-9633 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Folding metal tables and chairs from— China, 71509-71510 E6-21009 Fresh garlic from— China, 71510-71523 E6-21011 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from— Netherlands, 71523-71530 E6-20923 Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from— Various countries, 71530-71531 E6-20925 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations:
Display controllers and products containing same and certain display controllers with upscaling functionality and products containing same, 71554 E6-21008 Silicon metal from— Brazil and China, 71554-71555 E6-21007 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73491-73538 06-7684 Labor Labor Department See Employee Benefits Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73539-73573 06-7777 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings:
Resource Advisory Councils— Central Montana, 71551-71552 E6-20973 Dakotas, 71551 E6-20972 Management Management and Budget Office PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74041-74043 06-8589 Millennium Millennium Challenge Corporation NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Quarterly report, 71579-71583 E6-20982 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Semi-annual agenda, 74113-74124 06-7553 Semi-annual agenda, 74003-74008 06-7551 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74009-74015 06-7695 NOTICES Agency records schedules; availability, 71583-71585 E6-20995 National Credit National Credit Union Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74271-74279 06-8149 NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 71585 06-9647 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda: Institute of Museum and Library Services, 74017-74018 06-8500 National Endowment for the Arts, 74019-74020 06-7772 National Endowment for the Humanities, 74021-74023 06-7698 National Indian National Indian Gaming Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74281-74285 06-7696 National Labor National Labor Relations Board NOTICES Senior Executive Service Combined Performance Review Board; membership, 71585-71586 E6-20984 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC; off-road vehicle management plan, 71552-71553 E6-20961 National Register of Historic Places; pending nominations, 71553-71554 E6-20926 National Science National Science Foundation PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74025-74027 06-7556 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: Ekips Technologies, Inc., 71538 E6-20960 Privacy Act; systems of records, 71538-71539 06-9622 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste; independent storage; licensing requirements:
Approved spent fuels storage casks; list, 71463-71472 E6-20962 PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74287-74302 06-7689 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Alcoa Inc., 71589-71591 E6-20957 Philadelphia Health & Education Corp., 71591-71593 E6-20955 Plants and materials; physical protection: Fingerprinting and criminal history records check requirements; access to safeguards information, 71593-71596 E6-20967 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Carolina Power & Light Co., 71586 E6-20954 Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 71586-71589 E6-20958 E6-20959 Office Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight See Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office Office Office of Management and Budget See Management and Budget Office Peace Peace Corps PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74069-74071 06-7552 Pension Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74073-74078 06-7685 NOTICES Employee Retirement Income Security Act:
Annual information return report forms; revision, 71562-71579 06-9633 Personnel Personnel Management Office PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74045-74067 06-7686 Postal Postal Rate Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 71596 06-9640 Public Public Debt Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 71610-71612 E6-20990 E6-20992 E6-20993 Railroad Railroad Retirement Board PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74079-74081 06-7433 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 71596 E6-20937 Regulatory Regulatory Information Service Center PROPOSED RULES Introduction to Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, 72717-72838 06-8765 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74303-74327 06-7691 NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 71597 06-9638 Options Price Reporting Authority: Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information; Reporting Plan; amendments, 71597-71598 E6-20964 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 71598-71600 E6-20966 National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 71600-71605 E6-20965 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 71605-71607 E6-20963 Selective Selective Service System PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74083-74084 06-7774 SBA Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74085-74095 06-7548 Social Social Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74097-74112 06-7690 State State Department PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73575-73582 06-7692 NOTICES Culturally significant objects imported for exhibition:
Defining Modernity: European Drawings 1800-1900, 71607 E6-20999 George Stubbs (1724-1806): British Painter, 71607-71608 E6-20996 Surface Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 74329-74332 06-7700 NOTICES Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.: Iowa Interstate Railroad, Ltd., 71608-71609 E6-20902 Railroad services abandonment: Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 71609-71610 E6-21002 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73583-73673 06-8371 Treasury Treasury Department See Foreign Assets Control Office See Internal Revenue Service See Public Debt Bureau PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73675-73798 06-8147 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 73799-73821 06-7555 Separate Parts In This Issue Parts II-LX The Unified Agenda of the Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, 72715-74450 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. 71 237 Monday, December 11, 2006 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AH93 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NUHOMS® HD Addition AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is amending its regulations to add the NUHOMS® HD cask system to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks. This final rule allows the holders of power reactor operating licenses to store spent fuel in this approved cask system under a general license. DATES: *Effective Date:* The final rule is effective on January 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/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 any problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy (DOE)] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.” To implement this mandate, the NRC approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in 10 CFR Part 72 entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new Subpart L within 10 CFR Part 72, entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” containing procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. Discussion On May 5, 2004, and as supplemented on July 6, August 16, October 11, October 28, November 19, 2004; February 18, March 7, April 14, May 20, May 24, August 16, 2005; and January 24, February 15, and September 19, 2006, the certificate holder, Transnuclear, Inc. (TN), submitted an application to the NRC to add the NUHOMS® HD cask system to the list of NRC-approved casks for spent fuel storage in 10 CFR 72.214. The NUHOMS® HD System provides for the horizontal storage of high burnup spent pressurized water reactor fuel assemblies in a Dry Shielded Canister
(DSC)that is placed in a horizontal storage module
(HSM)utilizing an OS-187H transfer cask (TC). The system is an improved version of the Standardized NUHOMS® System described in Certificate of Compliance
(CoC)No. 1004. The NUHOMS® HD System has been optimized for high thermal loads, limited space, and radiation shielding performance. The -32PTH DSC included in this system is similar to the -24PTH DSC submitted for licensing as Amendment No. 8 to the Standardized NUHOMS® System. The -32PTH DSC will be transferred during loading operations using the OS-187H TC. The OS-187H TC is very similar to the OS-197 and OS-197 TCs described in the final safety analysis report for the Standardized NUHOMS® System. The -32PTH DSC will be stored in an HSM, designated the HSM-H. The HSM-H is virtually identical to the HSM-H submitted for licensing as Amendment No. 8 to the Standardized NUHOMS® System. The NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC request and found that an acceptable safety margin is maintained. In addition, the NRC staff has determined that there continues to be reasonable assurance that public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected. The NRC published a direct final rule (71 FR 25740; May 2, 2006) and the companion proposed rule (71 FR 25782) in the **Federal Register** to add the NUHOMS® HD cask system to the listing in 10 CFR 72.214. The comment period ended on July 17, 2006. Six comment letters were received on the proposed rule. The comments were considered to be significant and adverse and warranted withdrawal of the direct final rule. A notice of withdrawal was published in the **Federal Register** on July 13, 2006; 71 FR 39520. Based on NRC review and analysis of public comments, the staff has modified, as appropriate, Technical Specifications
(TS)and the Approved Contents and Design Features, for the NUHOMS® HD system. The staff has also modified its preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (SER). In particular, regarding the potential for the dry shielded canister to corrode in a coastal marine environment, TN committed to specifying a weathering steel for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs) located near a coastal marine environment. The staff made corresponding changes to the SER and added a requirement to TS 4.4.1 to capture this commitment for the HSM-H. The proposed TS and SER have been revised in response to Comment 2. Specifically, based on questions from the staff regarding this issue, TN committed in a letter dated September 19, 2006, to add the following to Section 3.4.1.4 of the Safety Analysis Report
(SAR)for the NUHOMS HD design: “If an independent spent fuel storage installation site is located in a coastal salt water marine atmosphere, then any load-bearing carbon steel DSC support structure rail components of any associated HSM-H shall be procured with a minimum 0.20 percent copper content for corrosion resistance.” This commitment has also been captured in NUHOMS® HD TS 4.4.1 for the HSM-H, and the staff made corresponding changes to SER Section 3.2.1 to document its evaluation. The NRC finds that the TN NUHOMS® HD cask system, as designed and when fabricated and used in accordance with the conditions specified in its CoC, meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72. Thus, use of the TN NUHOMS® HD cask system, as approved by the NRC, will provide adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment. With this final rule, the NRC is approving the use of the TN NUHOMS® HD cask system under the general license in 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K, by holders of power reactor operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 50. Simultaneously, the NRC is issuing a final SER and CoC that will be effective on January 10, 2007. Single copies of the CoC and SER are available for public inspection and/or copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Discussion of Amendments by Section Section 72.214 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks CoC No. 1030 is added to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks. Summary of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule The NRC received six comment letters on the proposed rule. The commenters included representatives from industry and members of the public. Copies of the public comments are available for review in the NRC's Public Document Room, O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Comments on the Transnuclear, Inc., NUHOMS® HD Cask System Several of the commenters provided specific comments on the NRC staff's preliminary SER and the TS. To the extent possible, the comments on a particular subject are grouped together. The listing of the Transnuclear, Inc., NUHOMS® HD cask system within 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks,” has not been changed as a result of the public comments. A review of the comments and the NRC staff's responses follow: *Comment 1:* Three commenters raised issues with using Boral® for criticality control. One commenter pointed to documented widespread evidence of Boral degradation; *e.g.* , in Spain, Boral was banned from all casks after evidence of Boral's swelling and hydrogen generation was found in laboratory testing, and in the U.S., Boral has exhibited swelling, blistering, and instances of major hydrogen gas generation in dry cask fuel storage applications. Two commenters noted that NRC issued Generic Safety Issue No. 196 to study the Boral degradation problem. Other remarks concerning Boral are noted as follows:
(1)The problem has been occurring for 20 to 30 years;
(2)Boral problems occur on a random basis, and it is impossible to predict the product's performance because of uncertainty in the level of porosity in the aluminum boron carbide core of the cladded product;
(3)Boral was the material choice in past years mainly because there were no economical alternatives;
(4)The use of Boral was understandable 10 or even 5 years ago because fully dense metallic neutron absorbers were not commercially available then, but now aluminum alloy-based neutron absorbers with high boron content are produced by several suppliers;
(5)Boral is used today only because of its cost savings to the cask supplier, and it is not worth putting the health and safety of workers who load the cask at risk;
(6)From a metallurgical point of view, the most consistent performance will be demonstrated from an aluminum boron carbide neutron absorbing product which exhibits 100 percent of theoretical density, and only a fully dense neutron absorber will completely eliminate the potential of swelling and hydrogen gas generation phenomenon. *Response:* The NRC is aware that canisters containing BORAL TM may generate hydrogen while the canister is submerged in the spent fuel pool during short-term loading operations. This was observed at the Columbia Generating Station in 2002. BORAL TM will react with the spent fuel pool water during loading operations and generate hydrogen. The magnitude of the hydrogen generation could depend on many factors, such as pool water chemistry, batch-to-batch variations, time-at-temperature, etc. The hydrogen generation does not decrease the efficacy of the material as a neutron absorber. As is the case with most casks licensed by the NRC, the SAR for the NUHOMS® HD describes hydrogen generation mitigating procedures. Vendors of casks certified by NRC have recommended that the utilities monitor for hydrogen gas during loading operations and state that a purge be used when hydrogen gas concentration exceeds 2.4 percent prior to or during root-pass welding of the lid. The NRC is aware that BORAL TM can swell or blister under high temperatures and hydrostatic pressures as was observed in Spain. In October 2003, the NRC received a letter from the Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos, S. A. (ENRESA) concerning this matter in the Spanish cask. However, it is our understanding that the Equipos Nucleares, S.A
(ENSA)test conditions, under which blistering was observed, were conducted at high heat-up rates and high hydrostatic pressures, well beyond those for operating conditions for the dry cask storage systems in the U.S. It is also our understanding that the high heat-up rates and hydrostatic pressures did not permit the liquid to drain prior to expanding, thereby leading to blistering. This was due to low porosity of the BORAL TM matrix structure which does not facilitate water egress under the conditions mentioned above. The letter from ENRESA concerning this matter in the Spanish cask and the BORAL TM blistering never stated that BORAL TM has been banned from use in Spain. It should be noted that no U.S. vendors or utilities have reported any BORAL TM blistering during loading operations or manufacturer acceptance testing of a cask. The staff in the Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Division have shared data and reports with the staff in the office of Nuclear Regulatory Research concerning GSI-196, BORAL TM degradation. All data, reports, and letters (domestic and foreign) provided to ascertain criticality implications of BORAL TM degradation in the context of dry cask storage of spent fuel have shown that the efficacy was not reduced in BORAL TM used in dry cask storage systems. Blistering or swelling in BORAL TM has been reported to occur under wet storage conditions in the spent fuel pools at both domestic and foreign reactors. For example, in September 2003, FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, reported bulging of the BORAL TM coupon used to monitor the performance of the spent fuel pool racks. The bulging of this coupon was due to blistering. FPL's examination and analysis of the coupon indicated no loss in the B-10 areal density. Neutron attenuation and radiography measurements have been conducted on the BORAL TM test coupons—both seal-welded and vented—subjected to multiple wetting/drying cycles and varying heat-up rates to simulate wet storage and typical cask loading conditions. In the many test reports reviewed by the NRC staff, blistering usually occurred in the low-porosity (low B4C content) coupons. The data reported that the boron-10 areal density in the blistered specimens remained unaffected. Thus, neutron attenuation efficacy was not affected in the BORAL TM . It should be noted that the Seabrook licensee, who reported blistering in the BORAL TM coupons after about 7 years of wet storage in the spent fuel pool, reportedly demonstrated that BORAL TM suffered no loss of effectiveness as a neutron absorber. The NRC is aware that other neutron absorber materials are now available to the cask vendors; however, the NRC does not recommend any brand of material to the vendors. To date, tests have shown that the BORAL TM material still performs its intended function with or without the blisters being present. The NRC staff does not dispute the advantages of the near-theoretical-density neutron absorber materials, which have become available in recent years. However, blistering has not been shown to affect dose to workers involved in the cask loading process. Additionally, if hydrogen gas is detected during the loading operations, the vendors and licensees can use mitigating procedures to vent and purge the cask. This procedure is recommended prior to welding; thus, worker safety can be ensured. The NRC staff does agree that this problem of blistering and hydrogen generation has not been reported in the absorber materials that have a 100-percent dense matrix. However, the NRC has reviewed evaluations by the Energy Power Research Institute
(EPRI)and cask vendors, and for the most part, the boron areal density (10B/cm 2 ) in the blistered specimens remained unaffected. Thus, neutron attenuation was not affected, and there was no impact on BORAL's effectiveness as a neutron absorber. *Comment 2:* One commenter stated that the structural steel frame used to support the DSC poses a serious risk to public health and safety. The commenter made the following points:
(1)From contact with the air and humidity in the environment, these structurals can corrode from the inside as well as from the outside. Particularly at coastal sites, anything that can corrode, will corrode. Even stainless steel develops stress corrosion cracks.
(2)The upright tubes make up the only support structure for the fuel-filled canister. They cannot be inspected from the outside of the NUHOMS because they cannot be seen. All primary supports must be inspected periodically, and it is a fatal flaw to have a fuel storage canister perched about 6 feet in the air on top of a steel frame which cannot be inspected at all. It is a dangerous sort of design for unrestricted use around our country, including the plants in salt air environments. *Response:* Regarding Part (1), above, it is widely recognized that corrosion is a significant concern in coastal marine environments due to the wind borne salts deposited upon structures. Based on questions from the staff regarding this issue, TN committed in a September 19, 2006, letter to add the following to Section 3.4.1.4 of the SAR for the NUHOMS® HD design: “If an independent spent fuel storage installation site is located in a coastal salt water marine atmosphere, then any load-bearing carbon steel DSC support structure rail components of any associated HSM-H shall be procured with a minimum 0.20 percent copper content for corrosion resistance.” This commitment has also been captured in NUHOMS® HD TS 4.4.1 for the HSM-H. Consequently, the TN design incorporates a requirement to use atmospheric corrosion resisting steels (a.k.a., weathering steels) when the spent fuel storage site is near a coastal marine environment. A significant body of technical literature exists, which provides corrosion rate data for a variety of steel alloys exposed to the elements at coastal sites. From this data, TN recognized that weathering steels provide ample corrosion resistance in a coastal marine atmosphere. This corrosion resistance would assure that the accumulated corrosion loss over a 20-year license period would be immaterial to the structural integrity of the support steel inside the HSM-H. It should be noted that the data used to determine the required corrosion allowance are for samples fully exposed to the elements. It is known that samples that are fully shielded from the sun and rain show a significantly lower corrosion rate than fully exposed samples. The structural steel of the HSM-H is entirely enclosed inside a ventilated concrete structure that totally shields the steel from sunlight and precipitation. TN chose to employ the higher corrosion rate data for fully exposed samples as the basis for their corrosion allowance. This provides an added degree of conservatism to their design. In addition to the use of corrosion-resisting steels, TN has specified the application of a corrosion resistant coating over the support steel. The coating may be one of several systems. One system consists of an inorganic zinc primer with an epoxy overcoat. This is an industry-recognized, high performance, and long-lived industrial coating system that is designed to withstand very severe environments. Although the coating is specified, it is not credited in the corrosion rate calculations that are part of the structural steel design margins. The staff finds that the use of corrosion-resisting steel with a calculated corrosion rate derived from a more severe exposure environment is appropriate. Additionally, the staff finds that the use of a coating system, and the fact that the steel is enclosed in a dry, interior-like environment, provide additional protection against corrosion. Thus, the staff finds that this TN design provides reasonable assurance that the system will not experience any significant corrosion during the 20-year license period at a coastal spent fuel storage site. Regarding Part (2), the commenter is correct that the canister, in some models of the HSM, is supported in the vertical direction by a series of columns or legs, six in total, that are made of structural steel tubing. These columns are part of a three-dimensional welded and bolted frame anchored vertically and horizontally to the reinforced concrete storage module. The three pairs of columns that are each less than 3.5 feet long support a cross beam which then provides support at three locations for each of the two support rails. The framing design concept is similar to that used in structural steel framing of multi-story buildings, tankage support systems, and other applications where a three-dimensional framing concept is appropriate. In this case, since the frame is provided with lateral supports at the location of each column to the reinforced concrete horizontal storage module, the frame is considered to be a braced-frame and, therefore, has limited lateral deflection that can occur at the top of the frame. The design concept is not considered to be unique, out-of-the-ordinary, or a dangerous design configuration for this intended use. The design conditions that represent the environment in which the frame must function have been incorporated into the design criteria. In other models of the HSM, the support rails are supported directly on the reinforced concrete storage module by embedded anchors. The NUHOMS® HD support rails are supported and anchored in this manner. The commenter used the term “primary support” and indicated that all primary supports must be inspected periodically. While the NUHOMS® HD can be used at a nuclear power plant, the certification of the dry spent fuel storage system is carried out under 10 CFR part 72 and not 10 CFR part 50. Consequently, the assertion made by the commenter that “all primary supports” must be inspected periodically may be in reference to a requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a(f), for inservice testing requirements for nuclear power reactor facilities for various classes of components. These 10 CFR part 50 requirements do not apply to the passive systems that are under the jurisdiction of 10 CFR part 72. The design criteria used for the design of the NUHOMS® HD system, to support the canisters in the horizontal storage module, are sufficiently robust so that periodic inservice inspections of these structural components are not deemed to be necessary. It is correct that there is a requirement that is identified in 10 CFR 72.122(f) related to testing and maintenance of systems and components that are important to safety. Such systems and components are to be designed to permit inspection. The NUHOMS® HD rail support system could be visually inspected by remote operations using fiber optics into the HSM-H via the vent system, or the HSM-H can be opened, the canister extracted into the transfer cask, and the rail supports inspected, after appropriate radiation surveys and procedures are met. The environmental concern in Part
(2)of the comment is addressed in Part
(1)response. *Comment 3:* A commenter raised the following concern with respect to flooding: Section 4.6.3 of the Generic Technical Specification states that flood “levels up to 50 feet and water velocity of 5 fps” are allowed. The commenter was concerned about the flooding condition in which the floodwater rises to fill the inlet ducts in NUHOMS® (all of the air inlet ducts in the NUHOMS® module lie at the ground level). He questioned that if the floodwater rises high enough to block off the air flow through the inlet ducts, the DSC would not cool and concluded that without the ventilation airflow, the DSC would overheat and may even explode from pressure buildup. It seemed to the commenter that TN considered only the case of deep submergence flood in the safety evaluation, which is not a risky condition because the DSC is cooled by the flood water. The commenter further stated that low flood level is a risky condition since the DSC is several feet above the ground, and a flood of any height that remains below the DSC will choke off the ventilation air and cause the DSC to overheat. The commenter was surprised that NRC would issue “general certification” to a ventilated cask like this one to be used in flood plains, considering that there are many “nukes” on river basins that are in the potential flood zone. The commenter further stated that the condition of partial height flood should be given full technical consideration. *Response:* Regarding low level floods in the situation when the bottom vents are blocked, evaporative cooling will cool the upper volume of the HSM and the DSC as demonstrated below. A thermal analysis of a typical HSM and DSC with a fuel heat load of 24kW in accident conditions demonstrates that the DSC support steel maximum temperature is 615 °F, and the DSC shell maximum temperature is 642 °F. These component temperatures would provide evaporation of the water in the bottom of the HSM. The evaporated water would cool the DSC and the upper volume of the HSM. The staff notes that the NUHOMS® HD technical specification maximum heat load is 34.8 kW. Even at the higher heat loads, staff believes that evaporative cooling will prevent the DSC from overheating. In addition, the flood water will help cool the submerged portion of the HSM cavity. Therefore, the staff concludes that the DSC will not overheat, and the resulting DSC internal pressures will not exceed the design pressure. *Comment 4:* One commenter believed that TS 4.6.3 was unclear in the statement that NRC has allowed “seismic loads of up to 0.3 g horizontal and up to 0.2 g vertical” on the system. The commenter asked for the location in the storage facility to which the g-loads correspond, either at the C.G. of the storage system or at the pad surface on the module's centerline, and also asked if the g-load limits include the effect of soil-structure interaction alluded to in Paragraph 4.2.2. Another commenter assumed that the 0.3 g horizontal and 0.2 g vertical seismic events (per page 4-7 of Design Features in the Certificate) are free-field accelerations at the site and stated that they will get amplified at the pad due to soil-structure interaction. The on-the-pad accelerations will be further magnified at the rails due to the flexibility of the DSC support structure. Combined with the rattling impulse from the fuel, the commenter believed that a canister may roll off the rails. *Response:* The permissible seismic loads of 0.3 g horizontal and 0.2 g vertical noted by the first commenter are the maximum values at the top of the HSM-H or the top of the supporting basemat or pad the NUHOMS® HD system is allowed to be subjected to. The design of the HSM-H and the NUHOMS® HD system is based on the amplified response spectra value of 0.37 g in the orthogonal horizontal direction and 0.20 g in the vertical direction on the 0.3 g and 0.2 g values respectively. The 0.30 g horizontal and 0.20 g vertical values also reflect the resulting maximum permitted accelerations at the top of the basemat or pad after a soil-structure interaction analysis has been performed, if necessary, by the cask system user for the specific site using the site-specific free field g-values. The fact left unstated is that where a soil-structure interaction analysis must be performed by the user, the resulting amplified response value at the center of gravity of the loaded HSM-H must not exceed 0.37 g in the horizontal direction and 0.20 g in the vertical direction. Based on the proposed rule, if either of these values were exceeded, the NUHOMS® HD system could not be used. The interpretation of the second commenter is not what is reflected in the TS as discussed above. The TS g-values are not generally consistent with the free-field acceleration values at most sites. The design conditions have included analyses of the canister in place on the rail support system under the design lateral loads from the seismic events, and there is no canister roll off from the rail support system. *Comment 5:* One commenter found that the DSC support structure is not restrained against all four walls of the concrete module. A 45-ton container resting unsecured on the rails that are not braced against the four walls is a physically unstable arrangement. The commenter asked if this configuration had been analyzed to ensure that failure from resonance would not occur during earthquakes. The commenter stated that he could not find any evidence of such an evaluation in the TSAR or the NRC's SER. *Response:* It is unclear to the NRC staff what the source and basis are for these comments. The comments do not relate to the NUHOMS® HD system. There is no document identified as the TSAR (Topical Safety Analysis Report) associated with this docket application (72-1030). This terminology was associated with applications submitted in the late 1980s and early 1990s ( *e.g.* , TN-24 and TN-32 cask systems). The commenter's description of the DSC support structure does not match that of the NUHOMS® HD system. For the NUHOMS® HD system, the DSC support structure consists of a pair of structural steel rails of 12-inch deep wide-flange sections that are anchored to the reinforced concrete horizontal storage module at the bottom flanges and connected by two struts and are, therefore, considered braced. This configuration is provided in the SAR for the NUHOMS® HD system. The seismic analysis determined that amplified accelerations are based on the frequency analysis, so that any issue of resonance has been incorporated into the analysis and then into the design of the individual members. *Comment 6:* One commenter believed that being able to remove the container at the end of 20 years of licensed life should be an important safety consideration. The commenter inquired and found that no plant that has loaded a NUHOMS® in the country has ever attempted to remove the container after a few years of storage. The commenter wanted to know what would happen if the aging of the rails and container's surfaces due to years of weathering were to cause the canister to bind to the rails. *Response:* The canister itself is constructed of stainless steel. The top of the support beam has a stainless steel cover plate welded along its entire length. This stainless steel plate forms the surface upon which the canister rests and also serves as a sliding surface for canister installation or removal operations. This plate may be lubricated if desired. Long-term experiments, where stainless steel samples were exposed to the weather at coastal marine sites, have demonstrated that stainless steel is highly resistant to atmospheric corrosion under those conditions. In the case of the TN NUHOMS® HD design, the canister and related support rails are shielded from direct exposure to the weather (being enclosed in a ventilated enclosure). This sheltering from the direct weather would result in little, if any, corrosion compared to the already insignificant amounts that could occur if these components were fully exposed to the weather. Absent corrosion, there is no likelihood that the canister would bind to the support rails. Because of this, and the fact that a lubricant (grease) could be applied to the rails, if desired, the staff believes it to be highly unlikely that any difficulty would arise during a removal operation, even after an extended period of time. *Comment 7:* A commenter asked what would happen if uneven settlement of the pad from the heavy weight of the module were to cause the canister to bind to the rails. *Response:* Uneven settlement of the pad, commonly referred to as differential settlement, is not expected to occur. If it were to occur, it is highly unlikely that it would result in any differential movement between the two supporting rails for the canister that would cause the canister to bind to the rails. The reinforced concrete pad and the reinforced concrete horizontal storage module represent a very stiff structural combination, so that relative movement between the support rails cannot be logically projected based on the structural response from any differential settlement across the supporting base pad. Further, the adequacy of the pad to support the horizontal storage module, without detrimental settlements, is required under the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212. The adequacy must be maintained under static and dynamic loads of the storage cask system, considering potential amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure interaction, soil liquefaction, and other soil instabilities due to vibratory ground motion, if these conditions exist at a site. Binding of the canister to the support rails from settlement or differential movement is not expected under any design condition. *Comment 8:* A commenter asked what would happen if the 60 kips of permissible extraction force to remove the container are not sufficient. The commenter stated that this scenario is ignored in the Technical Specification of TN's TSAR. *Response:* See also response to Comment 5 regarding a document misidentified as TN's TSAR. If settlement or differential settlement of a limited magnitude were to develop over the years, the transport trailer is equipped with hydraulic jacks or positioners and an alignment system, identified as the skid positioning system that is normally used for the alignment of the transfer cask. This same system can be used to accommodate effects resulting from limited settlement or differential settlement between the basemat or storage pad and the approach slab. If a situation were to develop where the support skid positioning system could not accommodate the magnitude of the movement, the approach slab can be modified or other measures taken. *Comment 9:* A commenter stated that the NUHOMS® HSM is much heavier and bigger than the previous models, noting that each loaded module weighs over 200 tons and questioned whether the ground underneath the NUHOMS® housing would settle over the years under the weight of the modules. The commenter also cited NRC's SER on page 3-7: “It is assumed that an axial load of 80 kips is required for insertion and 60 kips for extraction,” and stated that this seems backwards. More force will be needed to extract the canister than to insert it (when the rail is new and greased). The commenter questioned how a safety concern would be addressed if because of settlement and weather effects, 60 kips is not enough to pull the canister out, and how the NUHOMS® would be emptied of fuel if the canister binded to the rails. The commenter believed that this would be a huge concern to people living near the NUHOMS® sites. He further stated that the minimum the NRC should do is to require that a demo of canister extractions at a couple of sites loaded with NUHOMS for 10 years (or more) be done to prove that the horizontally loaded canister can be successfully extracted. *Response:* With regard to the commenter's concern about the weight of NUHOMS® HSM, the 80-kip insertion load, and the 60-kip extraction load, it is noted that as stated in the SER on page 3-7, these are the design load conditions under normal operation loading conditions. In the off-normal operation loading condition, the extraction force can be allowed to reach 80 kips under that design condition. The dry cask storage system has been evaluated against the regulatory requirements for retrievability of the spent fuel, and a demonstration of canister extraction from the horizontal storage module is not deemed necessary at some time after 10 years of storage. The extraction system has been determined to be capable of functioning during the term of the certificate. *Comment 10:* A commenter stated that he could not find any evaluation of safety for the following scenarios when the DSC is being inserted into the HSM: Scenario 1: The transfer cask skid has been unfastened from the trailer and the transfer cask lid has been removed making the DSC axially unrestrained, but before the skid has been fastened to the HSM and the hydraulic ram has been engaged to the DSC grapple ring. An earthquake during this period, depending on its magnitude, has the potential to cause uncontrolled DSC movement and cause a significant radiation exposure event to the workers that could be potentially deadly to the workers. Scenario 2: The DSC has been installed in the HSM, but the HSM lid (a heavy circular lid that also restrains the DSC in the axial direction) is not yet in place. An earthquake during this period could cause a major radiation exposure event that could be potentially deadly to the workers. *Response:* Scenario 1: For the described scenario, the position of the transfer cask for the NUHOMS® HD system, before the lid is removed, is on the transfer trailer, with the cask within several feet of the open HSM-H cavity, after the centerlines of the HSM-H and the cask have been verified to be approximately coincident. The lid of the cask is then removed. The transfer trailer is then backed to within a few inches of the face of the HSM-H, the trailer brakes are set, and the tractor is disconnected from the trailer and moved away. The transfer trailer vertical jacks are positioned to locate the vertical position of the cask in its approximate insertion orientation. The skid tie-down bracket fasteners are removed, and the position of the cask is corrected, as needed for alignment, using the hydraulic skid positioning system. Then, the optical survey equipment and reference marks are used for adjusting the final alignment. The skid positioning system is then used for that final alignment, and the canister is inserted into the HSM-H access opening docking collar. The transfer cask is then secured to the HSM-H using the cask restraints. A large seismic event, during the period of time from when the transfer cask lid is removed and is several feet from the HSM-H, and before the transfer cask is anchored to the HSM-H with a sufficiently large horizontal axial component, could overcome the frictional resistance that keeps the canister inside the transfer cask. This would not, however, be an uncontrolled DSC movement, since the DSC inside the transfer cask has only an approximately 1/4 -inch radial gap, which controls the movement to essentially longitudinal/axial movement with the maximum lateral position of the DSC changing by approximately 1/64 -inch for each inch of longitudinal/axial movement. The longitudinal/axial movement is limited by the distance of several feet between the transfer cask opening and the face of the HSM-H. A longitudinal/axial movement of 3 to 5 feet of the DSC from the transfer cask opening would not constitute an uncontrolled DSC movement, since that longitudinal/axial movement is limited by the face of the HSM-H module. The possibility of the hypothesized scenario is considered to be much less than what is considered significant for design accident conditions arising from handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel. The seismic event, to produce the hypothesized movement, must have a large enough component of acceleration in the longitudinal/axial direction of the positioned transfer cask that can be at any point on the compass, and the event must occur within a time period of 2 to 4 hours. On an annual basis, this would occur only three to five times per year for a given facility. If such a remote accidental event were ever to occur, plant operations personnel would respond by placing temporary shielding with equipment over any exposed portion of the DSC. Scenario 2: The operations' procedures identify that upon disengagement of the transfer cask from the HSM-H, the canister's axial seismic restraint is installed. This is a design feature that uses a structural steel embedment in the reinforced concrete of the HSM-H as the anchor point for the retainer device. The commenter's assumption that the HSM-H lid or door is the axial retainer for the canister is incorrect. *Comment 11:* One commenter stated that the DSC is pushed into the HSM module using a simple hydraulic ram that has no redundant load handling features. A simple failure such as loss of hydraulic pressure during the pushing operation would leave the DSC in a partially inserted configuration. The commenter believed that a single failure proof ram system should be required or TN should demonstrate that a ram failure halfway through the DSC pushing process can be dealt with using credible recovery measures. The commenter did not believe that NRC has ever considered this issue or that TN has ever been asked to provide an answer. *Response:* The functioning of the ram operating system is not considered to be a system that is safety related since the canister is confined and shielded during the period of ram operations. A failure in the location, as hypothesized by the commenter, presents an operational problem, but no significant issues are created. The corrective action would be to repair the operating system of the ram. NRC has considered this scenario, and the NRC agrees with the safety classification of the ram assembly that it is “Not Important To Safety” as identified in Table 2-5 of the applicant's SAR. *Comment 12:* A commenter stated that the DSC, according to NRC's SER, can survive the drop from 80 inches height, but was concerned about how a dropped DSC would be lifted from the pad. The DSC seems to have no lifting or handling attachments except for the grapple, which is useable only to engage the ram for a horizontal push. *Response:* The commenter is correct in that there are no lifting or handling attachments other than the grapple ring for a loaded canister. The DSC is placed into the transfer cask within the fuel pool and then is loaded with spent fuel. Then, after removal from the fuel pool and preparation for transfer, the closed cask is moved on the transfer trailer in a horizontal orientation to a location outside the fuel handling building. The transfer trailer and cask with the DSC closed inside are moved to the pad area. The DSC is not lifted out of the transfer cask, but is pushed out of the cylindrical transfer cask directly into the HSM-H in a horizontal position, with the transfer cask coupled to the HSM-H, creating a connecting tunnel space completely enclosing the DSC. This operating procedure makes the possibility of a dropped DSC on the pad extremely unlikely and an accident that is beyond the design basis accident. If a beyond design accident condition were to arise where a loaded and unshielded DSC had to be lifted, the first step would be to provide temporary shielding and probably execute a remote lift in the horizontal position with a device brought in for special use. Such special procedures can be developed for an accident condition response. It should be noted that the 80-inch side drop is for the DSC inside the transfer cask. *Comment 13:* A commenter stated that NRC should require a stiff foundation underneath the NUHOMS® to support the weight of the NUHOMS®. At present, the commenter sees nothing in the proposed certificate that requires a strong support foundation to be built. He believes this to be a serious oversight. *Response:* The weight of the NUHOMS HD® system, as installed in-place, including the HSM-H, the DSC, and the spent fuel, is to be supported by the ISFSI basemat or pad. That structure is identified in accordance with 10 CFR 72.3 as “Not Important to Safety.” The basemat or pad is designed, constructed, maintained, and tested as a commercial grade item designed to be in compliance with 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2). This regulation requires that the user of the NUHOMS® HD cask system must evaluate and establish that the following criteria are met:
(1)The cask storage pads and areas have been designed to adequately support the static and dynamic loads of the storage casks, considering potential amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure interaction and soil liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion.
(2)For the HSM-H loaded with a filled -32 PTH DSC, the weight is approximately 207.5 tons that is distributed over the pad area, which, as a minimum, is approximately 200 square feet.
(3)The static load bearing pressure on the supporting soil material would normally be approximately 2075 pounds per square foot, a common value used for residential and commercial building foundations on fine-grained soils.
(4)The loading on the foundation is not considered to be structurally significant or unusually high. *Comment 14:* A commenter expressed the following concerns pertaining to storing fuel horizontally in a hot state:
(1)After searching the public filings by TN on this docket and Docket No. 72-1004, the commenter could not find a single evaluation of the consequences of storing fuel horizontally over long periods of time. In discussions between Westinghouse and a utility, the conclusion that they reached was that “additional analyses and evaluation will be needed to determine whether it is permissible to store Westinghouse's fuel horizontally.”
(2)A lot of fuel is already in NUHOMS® at many sites. What is happening to all of the fuel stored outside of the fuel supplier's (Westinghouse's) specifications is unknown because the condition cannot be examined. *Response:* In response to (1), after searching the TN filings, one document was found in which Westinghouse stated that “* * * additional analyses and evaluation may be needed * * *.” The NRC staff independently performed a generic analysis of spent fuel stored horizontally under the design service condition and for the service life of the NUHOMS® storage system. This analysis looked at the structural capability of the spent fuel materials to perform in the horizontal position without degrading spent fuel performance. There are two sources of stress in the fuel cladding, when in the horizontal orientation, that could result in creep. These are internal pressurization of the fuel rod and gravity. Two possible sources of deformation of the cladding, bending and creep, are possible under the horizontal position. The bending stress and the hoop stress are both considerably less than the yield stress under internal pressure and a horizontal position. The bending deflection, at the center of the span between the grid spacers, due to the downward gravitational load of the fuel, is approximately 3 millimeters. No changes occur in the stresses or radial growth as a result of storage in the horizontal position. The creep deformation is self limiting under both stresses due to the decreasing temperature of the fuel with time. If the initial maximum temperature is kept below 400 °C, as recommended by Interim Staff Guidance (ISG)-11, then the creep deformation under the maximum allowable pressurization is less than 1 percent over a 20-year storage period. No cladding failure is expected at this strain level. The additional downward load, due to the gravitational force from the unsupported, approximately 300 grams of fuel between the grid spacer supports, increases the longitudinal stress by no more than 1 percent of the material strength and results in a minuscule increase of the hoop stress. Therefore, no more additional creep is expected in the horizontal orientation than in the vertical orientation. In response to (2), the cask vendors specify the range of parameters for the fuel to be stored in the CoC. The worst case fuel is analyzed as in paragraph (1), above. The fuel is evaluated when it is removed from the reactor to determine if it falls in the specified envelope. If it is in this envelope, no adverse fuel performance is expected. *Comment 15:* A commenter stated that, in the future, the fuel that will be stored will have burned longer in the reactor. The commenter believed that the NRC should perform a careful safety evaluation before permitting even more fuel, particularly well burned fuel, to be stored horizontally. The commenter cited NRC's SER on page 4-6 that reads: “The NUHOMS HD DSC only undergoes a one-time temperature drop during backfilling of the DSC with helium gas. Because this is a one-time event, the DSC does not undergo any thermal cycling.” The commenter stated that the SER evidently assumes that the fuel will never be unloaded, unpackaged, and reloaded after it has been vacuum dried and backfilled. If that is the underlying basis of the SER, the commenter believes that the certificate should be restricted to only once-through loading such that there is no likelihood of thermal cycling of the fuel. *Response:* The staff has performed a safety evaluation and analyzed the effects of these parameters on the storage of fuel as provided in the guidance contained in ISG-11, Rev. 3. Higher burnup fuels will have the following characteristics:
(1)A higher cladding stress caused by a higher internal pressure due to an increased fission gas release from the pellets;
(2)A higher hydrogen content in the cladding resulting in a decrease in mechanical properties; and
(3)A higher heat generation rate. As long as the fuel burnup is below the approved in-reactor burnup limit (currently 62.5 GWd/MTU) and is maintained in a nonoxidizing atmosphere below 400 °C, there are no active degradation mechanisms that would cause cladding breaches to occur under normal storage conditions. In addition, the structural review must include mechanical properties of the cladding at the limit of the approved burnup to determine the behavior of the fuel under off-normal and accident conditions. The staff has evaluated the issue of thermal cycling on the behavior of irradiated fuel. Two issues of concern were thermal shock during reflood, if wet unloading occurs, and hydride reorientation. Reflood analysis is required in every SAR to evaluate the ability of the cladding to tolerate the thermal shock to the cladding due to the rapid submergence of the hot fuel in the cool pool water. For the NUHOMS® HD unloading operation, the maximum fuel cladding temperature during cask reflood is calculated to be significantly less than the vacuum drying condition because of the presence of water vapor. Consequently, during cask reflood, a lower temperature rise is expected when compared with that for the cask vacuum drying operations. Hydride reorientation, which might degrade the mechanical properties of the cladding, occurs when hydrogen goes into solution and is subsequently precipitated under stress during cooling. A number of studies indicate that thermal cycling may contribute to the phenomena of reorientation. To limit the occurrence of hydride reorientation in the cladding during storage, drying, etc., ISG-11, Rev. 3, limits the number of thermal cycles that the fuel can experience to 10 or less. Thermal cycling is only a concern if thermal cycling takes place early in the storage period when the fuel is relatively hot. Under normal storage conditions, there are no mechanisms to degrade the fuel to the point where a loaded cask would have to be opened prematurely. At later times in the storage period, when unloading and repackaging are expected to occur, the temperatures will be at a lower maximum temperature due to the reduced decay heat, and as a result, less hydrogen (the solubility decreases exponentially with temperature) will be able to go into solution during these operations. In addition, the maximum stress in the rods will be less than at the initial vacuum drying, due to the lower temperature during unloading and repackaging. As a result, hydride reorientation, and consequently thermal cycling, is not of concern during unloading later in the storage period. *Comment 16:* A commenter stated that “NRC's SER says that—The application performed dynamic impact analysis using LS-DYNA 3D on a cask-pad-soil finite element model * * *.” The commenter believed that this was not true and noted that the FSAR shows that the applicant used a cookbook approach, developed by EPRI in the time when LS-DYNA was not widely used, which is considered to be unconservative by most experts. The commenter further stated that, according to the experts he consulted, a true LS-DYNA analysis would have shown much greater g-loads under an 80-inch drop. Therefore, the SAR analysis on which the NRC has relied is inadequate and unconservative. *Response:* The analytical method used by the applicant referred to by the commenter was performed as described in the NRC's SER using NUREG/CR-6608, dated February 1998, using LS-DYNA 3D. This is a commercial finite element dynamic analysis software package capable of three-dimensional representations. The DYNA 3D software package used in the development of the analysis procedure described in NUREG/CR-6608 by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is the comparable software package that has been used in the national laboratories. The analytical approach used in NUREG/CR-6608 is considered by NRC as an acceptable method of evaluation for low-velocity impacts such as a dropped cask. It is recognized that, in this approach, the transfer cask internals that include the canister, the fuel basket, and the spent fuel are modeled only by their mass and their mass distribution. *Comment 17:* A commenter believed that the tornado missile analysis in Chapter 11 of the NUHOMS® FSAR does not consider the damaging scenario of missile impact. The commenter stated that the analysis assumes impact over the concrete walls. The most dangerous impact would occur if the missile were to hit the fasteners that keep the door of the HSM in place. If the fastener fails from the missile impact, then the door will come loose and the canister will be uncovered, exposing people nearby to radiation. The commenter did not see any evaluation of this scenario in TNs FSAR or NRC's SER. *Response:* The scenario proposed by the commenter, while not specifically identified, is encompassed by and bounded by the scenarios specifically discussed in the referenced documents. First, it is necessary to have an accurate understanding of the physical configuration of the door of the HSM-H and the opening for the door on the front wall of the HSM-H base assembly. The door thickness is a total of 2.53 feet made up of 0.65 feet of steel, and the remainder is made of concrete. Approximately 97 percent of the total thickness of the door is inside the plane of the outside face of the HSM-H, filling the recessed hole. The door is supported within the hole on two radial bearing pads that support the door on the 1.875-foot thickness of concrete of the 2.53-foot door thickness. The door is not supported in the vertical direction by the fasteners that the commenter addressed. The failure of one of those fasteners, as a result of a local missile impact, would not dislodge the door from the HSM-H base unit, and the door's radiation shielding capability would remain. Since the relevant missiles used to evaluate local missile damage effects all have physical dimensions and resulting damage zone dimensions much less than the spacing of the subject fasteners, multiple fastener loss is not likely. The fasteners' minimum spacing is approximately 5 feet, whereas the missiles considered relevant have maximum dimensions of approximately 1.5 feet. Even with multiple fastener failures, the thick door assembly will most likely remain in the deeply recessed opening after a local missile strike on the door's steel exterior, since the door assembly would have to move axially outward nearly 2 feet in order for the HSM-H to be rendered to a condition with an open door. *Comment 18:* A commenter expressed concern with the way the canister is stored. The commenter stated that it seems that the canister is lying on a couple of rails, and it is held in place by gravity and nothing else (no straps, no frame, no structurals to restrain it). *Response:* The commenter is correct that the canister is supported by two structural support rails. These are configured to create a cradle for the canister. The two rails of the cradle are each oriented at 30 degrees off the vertical centerline through the DSC, as it is in the stored horizontal position. With the 60-degree angle between the rail supports, a simple calculation demonstrates that a side load, through the center of gravity of the DSC, would have to exceed approximately 0.55 grams to disturb the at-rest position of the stored cask. This value, for lateral load, exceeds the control limits that are placed on this system, regarding the sites where the system could be used. That results in a design transverse load of 0.41 grams on the DSC. In the longitudinal direction, the DSC is restrained from movement on the rail support system by the axial retainer system that restrains DSC movement, with respect to the HSM-H. *Comment 19:* A commenter understood that the fuel is stored in the canister in a non-fixed manner and that during an earthquake, the fuel would move in the canister. The commenter inferred from reading the SAR that most of the canister's weight is in the fuel. He stated that if most of the weight is free to move about in the canister, then there is a risk of the canister rolling over and falling down during an earthquake. *Response:* The maximum values for comparing weight distribution for a loaded DSC are that 46.6 percent of the total weight of a loaded DSC is the weight of the spent fuel and the other 53.4 percent is the weight of the canister, the internal basket, and other hardware of the cask. The internal fuel basket is a cellular structure that provides a storage position 8.7 inches by 8.7 inches in cross-section for each of the 32 spent fuel assemblies that are stored. The orthogonal grid of the assemblage of these 32 cells is circumscribed by a circle created by metallic basket rails that transition from the grid configuration to a circle concentric with the inside surface of the canister. The radial space from the fuel basket and basket rails to the inside face of the canister is one-eighth of an inch. This configuration does not allow gross freedom of movement of the stored fuel, but only provides sufficient space to allow for loading and unloading of the spent fuel and for the thermal growth that is expected. Consequently, there is minimal lateral displacement of the spent fuel that can occur inside the canister. *Comment 20:* One commenter stated that he did not find a time history analysis in Appendix 3.9.9.10.2 of the SAR to determine if canister bouncing or rolling might occur. He also stated that it did not appear that the effect of soil-structure interaction was mentioned. *Response:* As described in Section 3.9.9.10.2 of Appendix 3.9.9 of the SAR, the seismic design basis for the HSM-H and the stored spent fuel in the canister is based on the maximum peak accelerations at the top of the basemat, or pad structure, not exceeding 0.3 grams in the horizontal direction or 0.20 grams in the vertical direction. For the sites where soil-structure interaction analysis is considered important, the user of the NUHOMS ® HD system will have to determine that these values are not exceeded. Additionally, as indicated in the TS, Section 4.0, Design Features, amplified seismic response spectra from such an analysis would be produced. The HSM-H system, with the stored canister, is based on a limit of 0.37 grams in both transverse and longitudinal directions and 0.20 grams in the vertical direction, at the center of gravity of the HSM-H, with respect to the amplified response spectra. Within these limits of accelerations, there will be no uncontrolled motion of the canister that would result in a safety issue. Summary of Final Revisions The proposed TS and SER have been revised in response to Comment 2 to capture and document TN's commitment to add the following to Section 3.4.1.4 of the SAR for the NUHOMS ® HD design: “If an independent spent fuel storage installation site is located in a coastal salt water marine atmosphere, then any load-bearing carbon steel DSC support structure rail components of any associated HSM-H shall be procured with a minimum 0.20 percent copper content for corrosion resistance.” Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is adding the NUHOMS ® HD cask system to the list of NRC-approved cask systems for spent fuel storage in 10 CFR 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally applicable requirements. Agreement State Compatibility Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the **Federal Register** on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws but does not confer regulatory authority on the State. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This final rule adds an additional cask to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites without additional site-specific approvals from the Commission. The EA and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the EA and finding of no significant impact are available from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov.* Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, Approval Number 3150-0132. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. Regulatory Analysis On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the Commission issued an amendment to 10 CFR Part 72. The amendment provided for the storage of spent nuclear fuel in cask systems with designs approved by the NRC under a general license. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use cask systems with designs approved by the NRC to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. In that rule, four spent fuel storage casks were approved for use at reactor sites and were listed in 10 CFR 72.214. That rule envisioned that storage casks certified in the future could be routinely added to the listing in 10 CFR 72.214 through the rulemaking process. Procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of new spent fuel storage cask designs were provided in 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart L. The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this new design and issue a site-specific license to each utility that proposes to use the casks. This alternative would cost both the NRC and utilities more time and money for each site-specific license. Conducting site-specific reviews would ignore the procedures and criteria currently in place for the addition of new cask designs that can be used under a general license, and would be in conflict with NWPA direction to the Commission to approve technologies for the use of spent fuel storage at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site reviews. This alternative also would tend to exclude new vendors from the business market without cause and would arbitrarily limit the choice of cask designs available to power reactor licensees. This final rulemaking will eliminate the above problems and is consistent with previous Commission actions. Further, the rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety. The benefit of this rule to nuclear power reactor licensees is to make available a greater choice of spent fuel storage cask designs that can be used under a general license. The new cask vendors with casks to be listed in 10 CFR 72.214 benefit by having to obtain NRC certificates only once for a design that can then be used by more than one power reactor licensee. The NRC also benefits because it will need to certify a cask design only once for use by multiple licensees. Casks approved through rulemaking are to be suitable for use under a range of environmental conditions sufficiently broad to encompass multiple nuclear power plants in the United States without the need for further site-specific approval by NRC. Vendors with cask designs already listed may be adversely impacted because power reactor licensees may choose a newly listed design over an existing one. However, the NRC is required by its regulations and NWPA direction to certify and list approved casks. This rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on the above discussion of the benefits and impacts of the alternatives, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the final rule are commensurate with the Commission's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and thus, this action is recommended. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants, independent spent fuel storage facilities, and TN. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR part 121. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109 or 10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this final rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. Congressional Review Act Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72. PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1030 is added to read as follows: § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. Certificate Number: 1030. Initial Certificate Effective Date: January 10, 2007. SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the NUHOMS ® HD Horizontal Modular Storage System Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. Docket Number: 72-1030. Certificate Expiration Date: January 11, 2027. Model Number: NUHOMS ® HD-32PTH. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of November, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. William F. Kane, Acting Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E6-20962 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 215 [Regulation O; Docket No. R-1271] Loans to Executive Officers, Directors, and Principal Shareholders of Member Banks AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”). ACTION: Interim rule with request for public comments. SUMMARY: The Board is adopting, on an interim basis, and soliciting comment on amendments to the Board's Regulation O to eliminate certain reporting requirements. These amendments implement section 601 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006. The Board proposed and supported eliminating these statutory reporting provisions because the Board had found that they did not contribute significantly to the effective monitoring of insider lending or the prevention of insider abuse. DATES: This interim rule is effective on December 11, 2006. Comments must be received by January 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1271, by any of the following methods: • Agency Web site: *http://www.federalreserve.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm* . • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *regs.comments@federalreserve.gov* . Include docket number in the subject line of the message. • FAX: 202/452-3819 or 202/452-3102. • Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm* as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark E. Van Der Weide, Senior Counsel (202/452-2263), or Amanda K. Allexon, Attorney (202-452-3818), Legal Division. Users of Telecommunication Device for the Deaf
(TTD)only, contact
(202)263-4869. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Description of Interim Rule Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act (“FRA”) restricts the ability of member banks to extend credit to their executive officers, directors, principal shareholders, and to related interests of such persons. 1 Section 22(g) of the FRA imposes some additional limitations on extensions of credit made by member banks to their executive officers. 2 Section 106(b)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970 (“BHC Act Amendments”) adds further restrictions on extensions of credit to an executive officer, director, or principal shareholder of a bank from a correspondent bank. 3 The Board's Regulation O implements sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the FRA, as well as section 106(b)(2) of the BHC Act Amendments. 4 Sections 22(g) and 22(h) and Regulation O apply, by their terms, to all banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. 5 Other Federal law subjects federally insured state non-member banks and insured savings associations to sections 22(g) and 22(h) and Regulation O in the same manner and to the same extent as if they were member banks. 6 1 12 U.S.C. 375b. 2 12 U.S.C. 375a. 3 12 U.S.C. 1972(2). 4 12 CFR part 215. 5 Section 106(b)(2) of the BHC Act Amendments applies by its terms to insured banks, mutual savings banks, savings banks, and savings associations. 6 12 U.S.C. 1828(j), 1468(b); 12 CFR 563.43. Section 601 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (“Act”) (Pub. L. 109-351) removed several statutory reporting requirements relating to insider lending by member banks. These amendments, which became effective on October 13, 2006, eliminated the statutory provisions that: • Require a member bank to include a separate report with its quarterly Reports of Condition and Income (“Call Report”) on any extensions of credit the bank has made to its executive officers since its last Call Report (12 U.S.C. 375a(9)); • Require an executive officer of a member bank to file a report with the member bank's board of directors whenever the executive officer obtains an extension of credit from another bank in an amount that exceeds the amount the executive officer could obtain from the member bank (12 U.S.C. 375a(6)); • Require an executive officer or principal shareholder of a depository institution to file an annual report with the institution's board of directors during any year in which the officer or shareholder has an outstanding extension of credit from a correspondent bank of the institution (12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(G)(i)); and • Authorize the Federal banking agencies to issue regulations that require the reporting and public disclosure of information related to extensions of credit received by an executive officer or principal shareholder of a depository institution from a correspondent bank of the institution (12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(G)(ii)). The Board proposed and supported eliminating these statutory reporting provisions because the Board had found that they did not contribute significantly to the effective monitoring of insider lending or the prevention of insider abuse. The Board is adopting, and inviting public comment on, this interim rule to implement the changes made by section 601 of the Act. In particular, the interim rule eliminates: • Section 215.9 of Regulation O, which requires an executive officer of a member bank to file a report with the member bank's board of directors whenever the executive officer obtains certain extensions of credit from another bank; • Section 215.10 of Regulation O, which requires a member bank to include a separate report with its quarterly Call Report on any extensions of credit the bank has made to its executive officers since its last Call Report; and • Subpart B of Regulation O, which requires the reporting and public disclosure of extensions of credit to an executive officer or principal shareholder of a member bank by a correspondent bank of the member bank. The interim rule also makes minor conforming changes to Regulation O to reflect the removal of these provisions. The Board invites comment on all aspects of the interim rule. The Board notes that the changes made by section 601 and this interim rule do *not* alter the substantive restrictions on loans by depository institutions to their executive officers and principal shareholders found in Regulation O. Section 601 and this interim rule also do *not* alter the substantive restrictions on loans made to executive officers and principal shareholders of depository institutions by their correspondent banks found at 12 U.S.C. 1972(2). Moreover, elimination of these reporting requirements does not limit the authority of the appropriate Federal banking agency to take enforcement action against a depository institution or its insiders for violation of these insider lending restrictions. In addition, the Board notes that Regulation O would continue to require that a depository institution and its insiders maintain sufficient information to enable examiners to monitor the institution's compliance with the regulation, 7 and the Federal banking agencies would retain authority under other provisions of law to collect information regarding insider lending by depository institutions. 7 12 CFR 215.8. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Board certifies that the interim rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Although the interim rule would apply to all member banks regardless of their size, the interim rule would reduce the regulatory burden on member banks, including small member banks, by removing requirements to report certain types of extensions of credit to insiders and to insiders of correspondent banks. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Administrative Procedure Act The provisions of the rule are effective on December 11, 2006. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Board finds that there is good cause to make the interim rule effective on Decermber 11, 2006. As noted above, the rule implements statutory changes that became effective on October 13, 2006, and also reduces burden. The Board is interested in public comment on all aspects of the interim rule and will revise the interim rule as appropriate after reviewing public comment. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the interim final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The collections of information that are proposed to be revised by this rulemaking are found in 12 CFR 215.9 and 215.10, and 12 CFR part 215, subpart B. This information previously was required to evidence compliance with the requirements of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 375a and 375b) and 12 U.S.C. 1972. The respondents/recordkeepers are for-profit financial institutions, including small businesses, and individuals. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, this information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number associated with 12 CFR 215.9 and 12 CFR part 215, subpart B is 7100-0034 (FFIEC 004). The OMB control number associated with 12 CFR 215.10 is 7100-0036 (FFIEC 031 and 041). The FFIEC 004 would be discontinued as a result of this rule. The estimated burden per response for each of the paperwork requirements associated with the FFIEC 004 information collection varies between nine minutes and one hour. It is estimated that there are 4,760 respondents and recordkeepers and an average frequency of one response per respondent each year. The total amount of annual burden that would be saved as a result of this rule is estimated to be 5,331 hours. The estimated annual cost savings would be $239,895. In addition, the last page of the FFIEC 031 and 041 reporting forms (loans to executive officers), which is associated with 12 CFR 215.10, would be eliminated as a result of this rule. The estimated burden per response for this portion of the reporting forms is fifteen minutes. It is estimated that there are 919 respondents and an average frequency of four responses per respondent each year. Therefore the total amount of annual burden that would be eliminated is estimated to be 919 hours and there is estimated to be minimal cost savings. For the FFIEC 004, individual respondent financial information is regarded as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4),
(6)and (8)). However, until the passage of the Act and the issuance of this interim rule, upon request from the public the member bank has been required to disclose the name of each executive officer and principal shareholder who, together with related interests, has loans from correspondent banks equal to a minimum of 5 percent of the member bank's capital and surplus, or $500,000, whichever is less. For the FFIEC 031 and 041, the data are not considered confidential. The Federal Reserve has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of our collections of information. At any time, comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to: Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (7100-0034 or 7100-0036), Washington, DC 20503. Plain Language Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the Board to use “plain language” in all rules published in the **Federal Register** . The Board believes the interim rule is presented in a simple and straightforward manner but invites comment on whether the Board could take additional steps to make the rule easier to understand. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 215 Credit, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority and Issuance For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR part 215 to read as follows: PART 215—LOANS TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS OF MEMBER BANKS (REGULATION O) 1. The authority citation for part 215 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 375a(10), 375b(9) and (10), 1817(k); and Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236 (1991). 2. Remove the heading Subpart A—Loans by Member Banks to Their Executive Officers, Directors, and Principal Shareholders. 3. Section 215.1 is revised to read as follows: § 215.1 Authority, purpose, and scope.
(a)*Authority* . This part is issued pursuant to sections 11(a), 22(g), and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a), 375a, and 375b), 12 U.S.C. 1817(k), and section 306 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236 (1991)).
(b)*Purpose and scope* —(1) This part governs any extension of credit made by a member bank to an executive officer, director, or principal shareholder of the member bank, of any company of which the member bank is a subsidiary, and of any other subsidiary of that company.
(2)This part also applies to any extension of credit made by a member bank to a company controlled by such a person, or to a political or campaign committee that benefits or is controlled by such a person.
(3)This part also implements the reporting requirements of 12 U.S.C. 1817(k) concerning extensions of credit by a member bank to its executive officers or principal shareholders (or to the related interests of such persons).
(4)Extensions of credit made to an executive officer, director, or principal shareholder of a bank (or to a related interest of such person) by a correspondent bank also are subject to restrictions set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1972(2). 4. In § 215.2, the introductory text is revised to read as follows: § 215.2 Definitions. For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply unless otherwise specified: 5. Remove §§ 215.9 and 215.10 and redesignate §§ 215.11, 215.12, and 215.13 as §§ 215.9, 215.10, and 215.11, respectively. 6. In newly designated § 215.9: a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove footnote 4. b. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows: § 215.9 Disclosure of credit from member banks to executive officers and principal shareholders.
(a)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii)Any political or campaign committee the funds or services of which will benefit a person or that is controlled by a person. For the purpose of this section, a related interest does not include a bank or a foreign bank (as defined in 12 U.S.C. 3101(7)). 7. Newly designated § 215.11 is revised to read as follows: § 215.11 Civil penalties. Any member bank, or any officer, director, employee, agent, or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs of the bank, that violates any provision of this part (other than § 215.9) is subject to civil penalties as specified in section 29 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 504). 8. The Appendix to Subpart A of Part 215 is redesignated as the Appendix to Part 215. 9. Remove the heading Subpart B—Reports on Indebtedness of Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders to Correspondent Banks. 10. Remove §§ 215.20, 215.21, 215.22, and 215.23. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 6, 2006. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E6-20956 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25086; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-019-AD; Amendment 39-14847; AD 2006-25-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F27 Mark 500 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Fokker Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes. This AD requires an inspection to determine whether certain main landing gear
(MLG)drag stay units
(DSUs)are installed. This AD also requires an ultrasonic inspection to determine if certain tubes are installed in the affected DSUs of the MLG, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a report that, due to fatigue cracking from an improperly machined radius of the inner tube, a drag stay broke, and, consequently, led to the collapse of the MLG during landing. We are issuing this AD to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity or collapse of the MLG. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 16, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands, for service information identified in this 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: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive
(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Fokker Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35572). That NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine whether certain main landing gear
(MLG)drag stay units
(DSUs)are installed. That NPRM also proposed to require an ultrasonic inspection to determine if certain tubes are installed in the affected DSUs of the MLG, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment received. Request To Change Incorporation of Certain Information The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the **Federal Register** needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals; traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA adds that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument, and published in the DMS. We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register
(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. In regard to the commenter's request that service documents be made available to the public by publication in the **Federal Register** , we agree that incorporation by reference was authorized to reduce the volume of material published in the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations. However, as specified in the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, the Director of the OFR decides when an agency may incorporate material by reference. As the commenter is aware, the OFR files documents for public inspection on the workday before the date of publication of the rule at its office in Washington, DC. As stated in the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, when documents are filed for public inspection, anyone may inspect or copy file documents during the OFR's hours of business. Further questions regarding publication of documents in the **Federal Register** or incorporation by reference should be directed to the OFR. In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection 2 $80 $160 7 $1,120 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-25-06 Fokker Services B.V.** : Amendment 39-14847. Docket No. FAA-2006-25086; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-019-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective January 16, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Fokker Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that, due to fatigue cracking from an improperly machined radius of the inner tube, a drag stay broke, and, consequently, led to the collapse of the main landing gear
(MLG)during landing. We are issuing this AD to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity or collapse of the MLG. 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 of the Drag Stay Units
(f)Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the MLG drag stay units
(DSUs)to determine whether Dowty Aerospace is the manufacturer and, before further flight, inspect Dowty Aerospace MLG DSUs to determine whether part number (P/N) 200261001, 200261002, 200485001, 200485002, 200684001, or 200684002 is installed. A review of the airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of these inspections if the manufacturer and the part number of the MLG DSU can be conclusively determined from that review. For airplanes equipped with MLG DSUs other than Dowty Aerospace MLG DSUs, and for airplanes equipped with Dowty Aerospace MLG DSUs having part numbers other than P/N 200261001, 200261002, 200485001, 200485002, 200684001, and 200684002, no further action is required by this AD, except as specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD.
(g)For airplanes equipped with DSUs having P/N 200261001, 200485001, or 200684001: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform an ultrasonic inspection to determine if a tube having P/N 200485300 with a straight bore, or a tube having P/N 200259300 with a change in section (stepped bore), is installed on the DSUs of the MLG, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-171, dated December 16, 2004. Note 1: Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-171, dated December 16, 2004, refers to Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; and Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable, as appropriate sources of service information for inspecting MLG DSUs.
(h)If any tube having P/N 200485300 with a straight bore is found installed during the inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Before further flight, re-identify the DSU with P/N 200261004, 200485004, or 200684004, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable. After re-identifying the DSU, no further action is required by this AD for that DSU; however airplanes are still subject to the requirements specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD.
(i)If any tube having P/N 200259300 with a change in section (stepped bore) is found installed during the inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Before further flight, re-identify the DSU in accordance with paragraphs 2.A.(4)(a) and 2.A.(4)(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable. Following accomplishment of the re-identification, before further flight, do the inspection specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD. Ultrasonic Inspection for Cracking
(j)For airplanes equipped with re-identified DSUs having P/N 200261002, 200485002, 200684002, 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracking in the re-identified DSUs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable.
(1)For airplanes equipped with any DSU re-identified as P/N 200684003, 200261003, or 200485003: If no crack is detected, no further action is required by this AD for that DSU; however airplanes are still subject to the requirements specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD.
(2)For airplanes equipped with any DSU re-identified as P/N 200684002, 200261002, or 200485002: If no crack is detected, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Repeat the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph
(j)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles until the actions specified in paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this AD are done.
(ii)At the next MLG overhaul but no later than 12,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, rework and re-identify the DSU as P/N 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003, as applicable, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(3)If any crack is detected and the crack signal indication of any DSU tube is greater than or equal to 80 percent, before further flight, replace the DSU with a re-identified DSU having P/N 200261004, 200485004, 200684004, 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(4)If any crack is detected and the crack signal indication of any DSU tube is greater than zero percent but less than 80 percent, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Repeat the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph
(j)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles until the actions specified in paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this AD are done.
(ii)At the next MLG overhaul but no later than 12,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, replace the DSU with a DSU having P/N 200261004, 200485004, 200684004, 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Parts Installation
(k)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a MLG DSU, P/N 200261001, 200261002, 200485001, 200485002, 200684001, or 200684002, on any airplane, except as specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(m)Dutch airworthiness directive NL-2005-003, dated April 29, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(n)You must use the applicable service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference Service Bulletin Revision level Date Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993 2 July 29, 1994. Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993 2 July 29, 1994. Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-171 Original December 16, 2004. Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993, contains the following effective pages: Page No. Revision level shown on page Date shown on page 1 2 July 29, 1994. 2, 3 Original September 10, 1993. 4 1 November 10, 1993. Appendix A 1, 5, 7 2 July 29, 1994. 2, 6 Original September 10, 1993. 3, 4 1 November 10, 1993. Appendix B 1-5 1 November 10, 1993. Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993, contains the following effective pages: Page No. Revision level shown on page Date shown on page 1 2 July 29, 1994 2, 3 Original September 10, 1993. 4 1 November 10, 1993. Appendix A 1, 5, 7 2 July 29, 1994. 2, 6 Original September 10, 1993. 3, 4 1 November 10, 1993. Appendix B 1-5 1 November 10, 1993. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 24, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-20861 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26400; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-71-AD; Amendment 39-14948; AD 2006-25-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing Models LC41-550FG and LC42-550FG Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new Airworthiness Directive
(AD)for all Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing (previously The Lancair Company) Models LC41-550FG and LC42-550FG airplanes equipped with Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC)SA02260CH, Thermawing Deice System (also known as E-Vade). This AD requires you to deactivate the deice system and install a placard in clear view of the pilot. This AD results from problems with the installation of the Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Thermawing Deice System following STC SA02260CH. We are issuing this AD to prevent a short circuit condition at the deice heater connector, which could result in damage to the wings and horizontal stabilizer. This damage could lead to reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective on December 21, 2006. As of December 21, 2006, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation. We must receive any comments on this AD by February 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *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. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. To get the service information identified in this AD, contact Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems, 1625 Lost Nation Road, Willoughby, Ohio 44094; telephone:
(440)951-4744; fax:
(440)951-4725. To view the comments to this AD, go to *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is FAA-2006-26400; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-71-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Boffo, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone:
(847)294-7564; fax:
(847)294-7834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We received reports of problems with the installation of the Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Thermawing Deice System (also known as E-Vade) on Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing Models LC41-550FG and LC42-550FG airplanes following Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC)SA02260CH. A short circuit condition at the deice heater connector to the copper mesh material imbedded in the composite airplane structure (for lightning protection) caused burning of the wings and horizontal stabilizer, which created holes in the structure. The short circuit was caused by insufficient removal of copper mesh when the deice heater connectors were installed. This condition, if not corrected, could cause damage to the wings and horizontal stabilizer resulting in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We reviewed Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Service Letter Bulletin No. SL-06-001, Issue Date: November 15, 2006. The service information describes procedures for disabling the E-Vade system. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires disabling the E-Vade system and installing a placard in clear view of the pilot. In preparing this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to get technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We did not receive any information through these contacts. If received, we would have included a discussion of any information that may have influenced this action in the rulemaking docket. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and an opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26400; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-71-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the 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 we receive concerning this AD. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information 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 Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-25-08 Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing (Previously the Lancair Company):** Amendment 39-14948; Docket No. FAA-2006-26400; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-71-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective on December 21, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Models LC41-550FG and LC42-550FG airplanes, all serial numbers equipped with Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC)SA02260CH, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from problems with the installation of the Kelly Aerospace Thermawing Deice System (also known as E-Vade) following STC SA02260CH. We are issuing this AD to prevent a short circuit condition at the deice heater connector, which could result in damage to the wings and horizontal stabilizer. This damage could lead to reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Deactivate the Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Thermawing Deice System installed following STC SA02260CH Before further flight after December 21, 2006 (the effective date of this AD) Follow Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Service Letter Bulletin No. SL-06-001, Issue Date: November 15, 2006.
(2)Fabricate a placard that incorporates the following words (using at least 1/4 -inch black letter on a white background) and install this placard in clear view of the pilot.“DEICE SYSTEM INOPERABLE” Before further flight after December 21, 2006 (the effective date of this AD) The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may fabricate and install the placard. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with these portions of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Roy Boffo, Aerospace Engineer, 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone:
(847)294-7564; fax:
(847)294-7834, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Material Incorporated by Reference
(g)You must use Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems Service Letter Bulletin No. SL-06-001, Issue Date: November 15, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Kelly Aerospace Thermal Systems, 1625 Lost Nation Road, Willoughby, Ohio 44094; telephone:
(440)951-4744; fax:
(440)951-4725.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 29, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-20860 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25422; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-095-AD; Amendment 39-14848; AD 2006-25-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135ER and -135KE Airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all EMBRAER Model EMB-135ER and -135KE airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. This AD requires inspecting the fuel quantity indication system
(FQIS)wire harness and the direct current
(DC)fuel pump wire harness to determine if the harnesses are properly attached at their respective attachment points and properly separated from one another, and performing corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a report that the FQIS wire harness may not be properly attached at its attachment points or properly separated from the DC fuel pump wire harness. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing between those harnesses or chafing of the harnesses against adjacent airplane structure or components, which could present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or explosion. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 16, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact 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 AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive
(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 24, 2006 (71 FR 41745). That NPRM proposed to require inspecting the fuel quantity indication system
(FQIS)wire harness and the DC fuel pump wire harness to determine if the harnesses are properly attached at their respective attachment points and properly separated from one another, and performing corrective actions if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Requests To Add Revised Service Information EMBRAER advises that Revision 04, dated November 7, 2005, of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions, has been revised. EMBRAER notes that EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2006, contains minor changes and that no additional work is required. American Eagle
(AE)asks that Revision 05 of the referenced service bulletin be added to paragraph
(f)of the AD as the source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions. AE states that the only change to Revision 05 of the service bulletin is the reduced effectivity. We agree with the commenters. We have reviewed Revision 05 of the service bulletin and agree that it does not necessitate additional work; Revision 04 of the service bulletin was referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions. We have revised paragraph
(f)of the AD to reflect the revised service bulletin. In addition, we have revised the table in paragraph
(h)of this AD to specify that accomplishing the actions in paragraph
(f)of the AD in accordance with Revision 04 of the service bulletin is also considered to be an acceptable method of compliance. Requests To Limit Applicability EMBRAER notes that only airplanes with dry wing stubs are affected by the service bulletin, but the NPRM applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135ER and EMB-145 airplanes. EMBRAER states that since only Model EMB-135ER and -135KE airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes have dry wing stub configurations, the applicability in the NPRM should be changed to identify only those airplanes. AE asks that the applicability in the NPRM be limited to Model EMB-135ER and EMB-145ER airplanes only. AE also notes that only airplanes with dry wing stubs are affected by the NPRM. AE adds that it does not operate the affected airplanes. We agree with EMBRAER for the reasons provided. We have changed the applicability throughout this AD to reflect the applicability identified by EMBRAER. We have also changed the number of affected airplanes from 494 to 35 in the Costs of Compliance section of this AD. Request To Change Incorporation of Certain Information The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Document Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporated by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the **Federal Register** needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals; traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under part 21 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 21), § 21.303 (parts manufacturer approval). MARPA adds that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument, and published in the DMS. We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register
(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. We are currently reviewing our practice of publishing proprietary service information. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue, and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. However, we consider that to delay this AD action for that reason would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the requirements in this AD must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, we have not changed the AD in this regard. Change to AD We have changed paragraph
(g)of this AD to specify that the actions required in that paragraph must be done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. In addition, we have clarified the specific section of the EMBRAER Standard Wiring Practices Manual and identified it as one approved method of compliance for doing the required actions. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. These changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 35 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions 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 AD for U.S. operators is $2,800, 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-25-07 Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Amendment 39-14848. Docket No. FAA-2006-25422; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-095-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective January 16, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135ER and -135KE airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that the fuel quantity indication system
(FQIS)wire harness may not be properly attached at its attachment points or properly separated from the direct current
(DC)fuel pump wire harness. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing between those harnesses or chafing of the harnesses against adjacent airplane structure or components, which could present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or explosion. 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. Inspecting Harnesses for Proper Attachment and Separation
(f)Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-time general visual inspection of the FQIS wire harness and the DC fuel pump wire harness to determine if the harnesses are properly attached at their respective attachment points and properly separated from one another, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2006. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. 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.” Further Corrective Actions
(g)If any broken, frayed, cracked, or damaged wire, or a damaged harness, is found: Before further flight, repair the damaged wire or harness in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. One approved method is using Section 20-21-00 of the EMBRAER Standard Wiring Practices Manual. Actions Accomplished Previously
(h)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with one of the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by this AD. Table 1.—Previous Issues of the Service Information Embraer Service Bulletin Revision level Date 145-28-0025 Original April 19, 2004. 145-28-0025 01 June 9, 2004. 145-28-0025 02 November 8, 2004. 145-28-0025 03 April 28, 2005. 145-28-0025 04 November 7, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(j)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-03-01, dated April 19, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2006, contains the following effective pages: Page No. Change level shown on page Date shown on page 1, 2, 8 05 May 23, 2006. 3-7, 9-15 04 November 7, 2005. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 21, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-20862 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01-06-142] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; East Rockaway Inlet to Atlantic Beach Bridge, Nassau County, Long Island, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing another temporary final rule to continue a temporary regulated navigation area
(RNA)from the entrance of East Rockaway Inlet to the Atlantic Beach Bridge, Nassau County, New York. Significant shoaling in this area has reduced the depths of the navigable channel and has increased the risk of vessels with drafts of greater than 5 feet carrying petroleum products as cargo grounding in the channel, and the potential for a significant oil spill. This rule will continue to restrict passage of commercial vessels carrying petroleum products with a loaded draft in excess of 5 feet. DATES: This rule is effective from December 1, 2006, until June 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-06-142 and will be available for inspection or copying at Sector Long Island Sound, New Haven, CT, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant D. Miller, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound at
(203)468-4596. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On December 16, 2005, we published a temporary final rule
(TFR)entitled “Regulated Navigation Area; East Rockaway Inlet to Atlantic Beach Bridge, Nassau County, Long Island, NY” in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 74676). The effective period for that rule was November 29, 2005, to May 31, 2006. That rule was later revised and extended to December 1, 2006. (71 FR 31085, June 1, 2006). This temporary final rule will continue a temporary regulated navigation area
(RNA)in the same location until June 1, 2007. We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The original TFR was urgently needed to protect the maritime public from shoaling hazards in East Rockaway Inlet. Specifically, action was needed to prevent vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo with a loaded draft of greater than 5 feet from transiting the area so as to avoid the potential hazards associated with a grounding of a vessel. East Rockaway Inlet has experienced significant shoaling causing the channel to migrate towards the west. Water depths in the federal navigation channel have been reduced in some areas to as low as 5 feet. This channel was last dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers during the winter of 2004-2005. However, the shoaling in this area has reduced depths to a point where transit for vessels drawing greater than 5 feet increases the immediate risk of grounding. Therefore, the Coast Guard has relocated the channel buoys to the west to account for channel migration. While these aids now mark the deepest water in the channel, this channel has experienced rapid shoaling in the past, and is expected to experience the same in the future. The potential for significant shoaling continues to present a danger to the maritime public and thus appropriate regulatory measures are needed to continue to protect the maritime public from those hazards in East Rockaway Inlet. Accordingly, the Coast Guard anticipates that permanent regulations will be needed to protect the maritime users from the risk of grounding as well as the general public from the grounding hazards and resultant potential consequences of discharging petroleum into the navigable channel and surrounding area. We anticipate that by June 2007 we will be able to complete a notice-and-comment rulemaking proposing that the RNA be made permanent. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . The measures contemplated by this rule were designed to prevent vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo with a loaded draft of greater than 5 feet from transiting the area so as to avoid the potential hazards associated with a grounding of a vessel and potential resultant discharge of petroleum products. The delay inherent in the NPRM process for developing a permanent rule is contrary to the public interest insofar as it may render vessels at risk for grounding in the interim. The Coast Guard has begun the process to publish an NPRM to establish a permanent regulated navigation area addressing the passage of commercial vessels carrying petroleum products with a loaded draft in excess of 5 feet through East Rockaway Inlet. The Coast Guard has continued to encounter delays in the processing of the NPRM. This temporary final rule will allow for the continued protection of the maritime public from the particular grounding hazards that continue to affect the Rockaway Inlet while permanent rules are developed. In the last temporary final rule extending the effective period of the RNA, we requested post-promulgation comments. The Coast Guard has received no written comments or complaints to suggest any modification of the scope of the RNA. Background and Purpose East Rockaway Inlet is on the South Shore of Long Island, in Nassau County, New York. The Inlet has experienced significant shoaling since dredging was completed in the late winter of 2004-2005, causing the channel to migrate towards the west. Water depths in the area designated by the Army Corps of Engineers as the Federal navigation channel have been reduced in some areas to as low as 5 feet. This channel was last dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers during the winter of 2004-2005. The channel buoys were relocated to the west to account for channel migration. East Rockaway Inlet is frequented by small coastal tankers and tugs towing oil barges supplying two facilities: Sprague Energy Oceanside, located in Oceanside, Long Island, New York, a supplier of home heating oil for Long Island, New York, and Keyspan E.S. Barrett, an electrical power generation facility, located in Island Park, Long Island, New York. The shoaling in this area has reduced depths to a point where transit for vessels drawing greater than 5 feet increases the risk of immediate grounding, and the potential for a significant oil spill resulting from a grounding. Similar shoaling led to the groundings in late 2003 and in 2004 of small coastal tankers carrying home heating oil. Additional time is necessary to ensure the public has sufficient time to participate in the rulemaking process. The Coast Guard is continuing a temporary RNA in place until June 1, 2007, to allow the establishment of a permanent regulated navigation area by notice-and-comment rulemaking. Discussion of Rule This rule will continue to provide for the safety of vessel traffic and the maritime public in and around East Rockaway Inlet, Long Island, New York. This regulation establishes a temporary RNA on the navigable waters of the East Rockaway Inlet in an area bounded by lines drawn from the approximate position of the Silver Point breakwater buoy (LLN 31500) at 40°34′56″ N, 073°45′19″ W, running north to a point of land on the northwest side of the inlet at position 40°35′28″ N, 073°46′12″ W, thence easterly along the shore to the east side of the Atlantic Beach Bridge, State Route 878, over East Rockaway Inlet, thence across said bridge to the south side of East Rockaway Inlet, thence westerly along the shore and across the water to the beginning. The rule described herein prohibits the transit of vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo, with a loaded draft greater than 5 feet, through the RNA. Operators of vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo with a loaded draft greater than five feet who wish to transit the regulated navigation area must request permission from the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. They should seek permission at least 48 hours prior to transiting the area to prevent delays and minimize the risk of denial of entry. As under the current TFR, the COTP will consider the following factors when considering requests to enter or transit the RNA; environmental and safety factors, including but not limited to: Weather conditions affecting transit ( *e.g.* sea state, state of the tide, winds and visibility), the loaded draft of the particular vessel seeking to transit the area, and the minimum under keel clearance of the particular vessel. The Coast Guard is continuing a temporary regulated navigation area until June 1, 2007, because we anticipate we will need this much time to allow for public participation and comment on a proposed rulemaking for a permanent rule. This temporary final rule will be in effect from December 1, 2006 until June 1, 2007. Any violation of the RNA described herein, is punishable by, among others, civil and criminal penalties, in rem liability against the offending vessel, and license sanctions. In addition to publishing this TFR in the **Federal Register** , the Captain of the Port Long Island Sound will notify the maritime community of the requirements of this regulated navigation area via broadcast notifications and notifications in the local notice to mariners. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule will be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: The regulated navigation area limits only vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo with a loaded draft of greater than 5 feet; operators of vessels with a loaded draft of greater than 5 feet may request permission to transit the regulated navigation area from the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. Recreational and other maritime traffic not covered by this rule is not prohibited from transiting this area. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels carrying petroleum products intending to transit or anchor in those portions of the East Rockaway Inlet covered by the regulated navigation area; Sprague Energy Oceanside, located in Oceanside, Long Island, New York, a supplier of home heating oil, and Keyspan E.S. Barrett, an electrical power generation facility, located in Island Park, Long Island, New York, which receive the vessels affected by this regulated navigation area. For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Lieutenant Junior Grade D. Miller, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, at
(203)468-4596. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, we published a notice in the **Federal Register** (66 FR 36361, July 11, 2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would establish a regulated navigation area. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. From December 1, 2006, until June 1, 2007, add temporary § 165.T01-142 to read as follows: § 165.T01-142 Regulated Navigation Area, East Rockaway Inlet to Atlantic Beach Bridge, Nassau County, Long Island, New York.
(a)*Location.* The following area is established as a regulated navigation area (RNA): All waters of East Rockaway Inlet in an area bounded by lines drawn from the approximate position of the Silver Point breakwater buoy (LLN 31500) at 40°34′56″ N, 073°45′19″ W, running north to a point of land on the northwest side of the inlet at position 40°35′28″ N, 073°46′12″ W, thence easterly along the shore to the east side of the Atlantic Beach Bridge, State Route 878, over East Rockaway Inlet, thence across the bridge to the south side of East Rockaway Inlet, thence westerly along the shore and across the water to the beginning.
(b)*Regulations.*
(1)Vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo, with a loaded draft greater than 5 feet, are prohibited from transiting within the regulated navigation area.
(2)Operators of vessels carrying petroleum products as cargo with a loaded draft greater than 5 feet must request to transit the regulated navigation area to the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound (COTP). They should seek permission at least 48 hours prior to transiting the area to prevent delays and minimize the risk of denial of entry. Factors the COTP will consider before granting permission to enter or transit the RNA described in paragraph
(a)of this section are: Environmental and safety factors, including, but not limited to: Weather conditions affecting transit ( *e.g.* sea state, state of the tide, winds, and visibility,) the loaded draft of the particular vessel seeking to transit the area, and the minimum under keel clearance of the particular vessel.
(c)*Effective period.* This section is effective from December 1, 2006, until June 1, 2007. Dated: November 27, 2006. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-20921 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0630; FRL-8243-9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Monitoring and Volatile Organic Compound Rules AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing full approval of certain revisions and a limited approval/limited disapproval of other revisions to the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the **Federal Register** on August 31, 2006 and addresses definitions, organic solvent controls, and various monitoring provisions. Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action approves seventeen provisions and approves and simultaneously disapproves two other provisions and recommends that Nevada correct the rule deficiencies. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on January 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0630 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at *http://regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX,
(415)947-4126, *rose.julie@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. I. Proposed Action On August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51793), EPA proposed approval of the provisions of chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code
(NAC)listed below in Table 1. Table 1.—Provisions Proposed for Approval NAC No. NAC title Adopted Submitted 445B.015 “Alternative method” defined 10/03/95 01/12/06 445B.062 “Equivalent method” defined 10/03/95 01/12/06 445B.063 “Excess emissions” defined 10/04/05 01/12/06 445B.084 “Hazardous air pollutant” defined 11/03/93 01/12/06 445B.134 “Person” defined 09/16/76 01/12/06 445B.153 “Regulated air pollutant” defined 10/04/05 01/12/06 445B.202 “Volatile organic compounds” defined 03/03/94 01/12/06 445B.22093 Organic solvents and other volatile organic compounds 10/04/05 01/12/06 445B.256 Monitoring systems: Calibration, operation and maintenance of equipment 10/03/95 01/12/06 445B.257 Monitoring systems: Location 09/16/76 01/12/06 445B.258 Monitoring systems: Verification of operational status 09/16/76 01/12/06 445B.259 Monitoring systems: Performance evaluations 09/16/76 01/12/06 445B.260 Monitoring systems: Components contracted for before September 11, 1974 09/16/76 01/12/06 445B.261 Monitoring systems: Adjustments 09/16/76 01/12/06 445B.263 Monitoring systems: Frequency of operation 09/16/76 01/12/06 445B.264 Monitoring systems: Recordation of data 08/22/00 01/12/06 445B.265 Monitoring systems: Records; reports 04/26/84 01/12/06 We proposed to approve these regulations because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the regulations and our evaluation. On August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51793), EPA also proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the provisions listed in Table 2. Table 2.—Provisions Proposed for Limited Approval/Disapproval NAC No. NAC title Adopted Submitted 445B.262 Monitoring systems: Measurement of opacity 09/18/03 01/12/06 445B.267 Alternative monitoring procedures or requirements 09/18/03 01/12/06 We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these provisions improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because, in certain respects, these provisions conflict with section 110 of the Act. Specifically, these provisions provide inappropriate Director's discretion in NAC 445B.262, paragraph 1, and NAC 445B.267, paragraph 1, which are discussed in greater detail in our proposed action. II. Public Comments and EPA Responses EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from Jennifer L. Carr and Michael Elges, Division of Environmental Protection, State of Nevada Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, by letter dated September 25, 2006. We summarize the comments and provide our responses in the paragraphs that follow. Note that some of the comments in the September 25, 2006 letter are directed only at a related EPA proposal published on August 28, 2006 (71 FR 50875), and these comments will be addressed in a separate final action we expect to publish in the near future. *Comment #1:* The first comment from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
(NDEP)indicates that our proposed rule should have identified two SIP revisions that have been submitted by NDEP in addition to the one dated January 12, 2006 and should have explained how they provide support for our proposed action on the monitoring and volatile organic compound
(VOC)rules published on August 31, 2006. These two submittals include one dated February 16, 2005 and another dated March 24, 2006. *Response #1:* We agree and provide a more complete discussion of the relevant SIP submittals below. On February 16, 2005, NDEP submitted a large revision to the applicable Nevada SIP. The February 16, 2005 SIP submittal includes new and amended statutes and rules as well as requests for rescission of certain rules in the existing SIP. The February 16, 2005 SIP submittal also contains documentation of public participation (i.e., notice and public hearing) and adoption for all of the submitted rules through the hearing on November 30, 2004 held by the State Environmental Commission. On January 12, 2006, NDEP submitted an amended version of the February 16, 2005 SIP submittal. The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal contains updated regulatory materials including new and amended rules adopted by the State Environmental Commission on October 4, 2005 but otherwise contains the same materials as the earlier submittal with the exception of the documentation of public participation. The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal only contains documentation of public participation for rule amendments adopted by the State Environmental Commission on October 4, 2005 but did not re-submit the related documentation included in the earlier submittal. Therefore, the January 12, 2006 SIP submittal supersedes the earlier SIP revision submittal dated February 16, 2005 for all purposes except for the documentation of public participation for adoption dates from November 30, 2004 and earlier. Our consideration of the rules submitted on January 12, 2006 and proposed for approval or limited approval on August 31, 2006 takes into account the public participation documentation contained in the earlier submittal (except, as noted, for the rules adopted on October 4, 2005 for which documentation was provided by NDEP in the January 12, 2006 SIP submittal). CAA section 110(l) requires reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions by States for subsequent submittal to EPA for approval or disapproval under CAA section 110(k)(3). The public participation documentation provided by NDEP in the February 16, 2005 SIP submittal (and in the January 12, 2006 SIP submittal package for the October 4, 2005 rule amendments) is sufficient for the purposes of CAA section 110(l). NDEP's SIP submittal dated March 24, 2006 includes a definition of the term “person” in section 0.039 of title 0—Preliminary Chapter—General Provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). The general definition of “person” in NRS 0.039 is the State's basic definition of this term, and other statutory and regulatory provisions that cite “person” need only define the term for the specific purposes therein as necessary to add or subtract entities listed in the basic definition of “person” in NRS 0.039. We approved NRS 0.039, as submitted on March 24, 2006, and NRS 445.150 (“Person”), in a final rule published on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51766). NDEP's submittal, and EPA's approval, of the basic definition of “person” in NRS 0.039 and the expanded definition of “person” for air pollution control purposes in NRS 445B.150, together with NDEP's submittal, and EPA's approval, of NAC 445B.134 (“Person”), which was included in the proposal finalized herein, provide the complete definition of “person” for the purposes of Nevada's air pollution regulatory program. *Comment #2:* NDEP disagrees with EPA's characterization that Nevada eliminated some terms in the definition of “person” and explains that the Nevada State Legislature created a basic definition of “person” and put it in the General Provisions chapter of the State statutes and that, together with that action, the NRS definition of “person” in the air control chapter (currently NRS 445B) was revised to refer to the basic definition, not repeat it, and include only those additional terms that expanded the basic definition. NDEP also indicates that, on September 6, 2006, the State Environmental Commission adopted amendments to the term “person” in NAC 445B.134 to refer directly to the basic definition in the General Provisions of the NRS and that NDEP expects to submit the amended definition to EPA in the near future. *Response #2:* EPA appreciates the distinction and understands that the complete definition of “person” for the purposes of Nevada's air pollution regulatory program and as codified at NAC 445B.134, which was proposed for approval in our August 31, 2006 notice (71 FR 51793), relies on the basic definition in NRS 0.039 as expanded by the definition of “person” in NRS 445B.150. We approved both NRS 0.039 and NRS 445B.150 as a revision to the Nevada applicable SIP in a notice also published on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51766). EPA also appreciates the State's effort to amend NAC 445B.134 to further clarify the reliance of the regulatory definition of “person” on both the general definition in NRS 0.039, which NAC 445B.134 (as submitted on January 12, 2006) does not cite, as well as the air-pollution-specific definition in NRS 445B.150, which NAC 445B.134 (as submitted on January 12, 2006) does cite, and will take action on the amended definition when it is submitted. *Comment #3:* NDEP comments that EPA's recommendation to revise the definition of “volatile organic compounds” in NAC 445B.202 by linking the related definition in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)to a particular date is unnecessary because NAC 445B.202 refers to the CFR definition as adopted by reference in NAC 445B.221, which contains a specific date for the CFR definition. *Response #3:* We agree that amending NAC 445B.202 to include a specific date for the cited CFR definition is unnecessary given the link in NAC 445B.202 to NAC 445B.221 where such a date is specified. *Comments #4:* NDEP indicates that several minor clarifications and editorial corrections suggested by EPA were adopted into the NAC by the State Environmental Commission on September 6, 2006 and will be submitted in the near future. *Response #4:* We appreciate these revisions, and will take action when they are submitted to EPA. III. EPA Action No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing the approval of the provisions listed in Table 1 and also finalizing the limited approval of the provisions listed in Table 2. This action incorporates the submitted rules into the Nevada SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of the rules listed in Table 2. EPA recommends that Nevada revise the deficient provisions to exclude the director's discretion conditions. No sanctions are associated with this action because this is not a required submittal. Note that the submitted provisions have all been adopted by the State Environmental Commission, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent EPA or the state agency from enforcing them. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state rules as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state rules implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.,* as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register.** A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register.** This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: November 2, 2006. Jane Diamond, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart DD—Nevada 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(56)(i) (A)( *5* ), ( *6* ), and ( *7* ) to read as follows: § 52.1470 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(56)* * *
(i)* * *
(A)* * * ( *5* ) The following sections of the Nevada Air Quality Regulations were adopted on the dates listed below and recodified as Chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code in November 1994: ( *i* ) September 16, 1976: 445B.134, 445B.257, 445B.258, 445B.259, 445B.260, 445B.261, and 445B.263. ( *6* ) The following sections of Chapter 445 of the Nevada Administrative Code were adopted on the dates listed below and recodified as Chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code in November 1994: ( *i* ) April 26, 1984: 445B.265. ( *ii* ) November 3, 1993: 445B.084. ( *iii* ) March 3, 1994: 445B.202. ( *7* ) The following sections of Chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code were adopted on the dates listed below: ( *i* ) October 3, 1995: 445B.015, 445B.062, and 445B.256. ( *ii* ) August 22, 2000: 445B.264. ( *iii* ) September 18, 2003: 445B.262 and 445B.267. ( *iv* ) October 4, 2005: 445B.063, 445B.153, and 445B.22093. [FR Doc. E6-20895 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R01-OAR-2006-OAR-0226; FRL-8253-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; Redesignation of the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine Ozone Nonattainment Areas to Attainment and Approval of These Areas' Maintenance Plans AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Maine. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) is requesting that the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine (also known as the Midcoast area) ozone nonattainment areas be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, the ME DEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of maintenance plans for the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine areas that provide for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years. EPA is approving the redesignation requests and the maintenance plan as revisions to the Maine SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA is also approving the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the 8-hour maintenance plan for these areas for purposes of transportation conformity. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on January 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2006-OAR-0226. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number
(617)918-1664, fax number
(617)918-0664, e-mail *Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 60937), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the State of Maine. The NPR proposed approval of Maine's request to redesignate the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas and a SIP revision that establishes separate maintenance plans for these areas. The maintenance plans set forth how each area will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years in accordance with Section 175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The NPR also proposed approval of the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) associated with the maintenance plans. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the ME DEP on August 3, 2006. Other specific requirements of Maine's redesignation requests, the 175A maintenance plans, and the MVEBs, and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No adverse public comments were received on the NPR, however, two commenters did discover minor typographical errors in the NPR. EPA agrees with these commenters that there were typographical errors in the NPR. Some of the values for monitored ozone levels were misstated in two tables in the NPR. These misstatements were minor, and did not affect EPA's conclusions on the redesignation requests, that the design values for these areas qualify for redesignation. A response to comments document correcting the record was placed into the docket for this action. II. Final Action EPA is approving the State of Maine's August 3, 2006 redesignation requests and maintenance plans for the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine areas, because the requirements for approval have been satisfied for each area. EPA has evaluated Maine's redesignation requests, and determined that they meet the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. EPA believes that the redesignation requests and monitoring data demonstrate that the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine areas have attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the associated maintenance plans for these areas, submitted on August 3, 2006, as a revision to the Maine SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plans for the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine area because they meet the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. EPA is also approving the MVEBs associated with these maintenance plans. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: November 30, 2006. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart U—Maine 2. Section 52.1023 is amended by adding paragraphs
(g)and
(h)to read as follows: § 52.1023 Control strategy: Ozone.
(g)Approval. EPA is approving a redesignation request for the Portland, Maine 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Maine submitted this request on August 3, 2006. The request contains the required Clean Air Act Section 175A maintenance plan. The plan establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2016 of 16.659 tons per summer day
(tpsd)of volatile organic compound and 32.837 tpsd of nitrogen oxide (NO <sup>X</sup> ) to be used in transportation conformity determinations in the Portland area.
(h)Approval. EPA is approving a redesignation request for the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Maine submitted this request on August 3, 2006. The request contains the required Clean Air Act Section 175A maintenance plan. The plan establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2016 of 3.763 tons per summer day
(tpsd)of volatile organic compound and 6.245 tpsd of nitrogen oxide (NO <sup>X</sup> ) to be used in transportation conformity determinations in the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties area. PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 2. Section 81.320 is amended by revising the entries for the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine area in the 8-hour ozone standard table to read as follows: § 81.320 Maine. Maine—Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/classification Date 1 Type Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Cos., ME: Hancock County
(part)(includes only the following cities and towns): Bar Harbor, Blue Hill, Brooklin, Brooksville, Cranberry Isle, Deer Isle, Frenchboro, Gouldsboro, Hancock, Lamoine, Mount Desert, Sedgwick, Sorrento, Southwest Harbor, Stonington, Sullivan, Surry, Swans Island, Tremont, Trenton, and Winter Harbor January 10, 2007 Attainment Knox County
(part)(includes only the following cities and towns): Camden, Criehaven, Cushing, Friendship, Isle au Haut, Matinicus Isle, Muscle Ridge Shoals, North Haven, Owls Head, Rockland, Rockport, St. George, South Thomaston, Thomaston, Vinalhaven, and Warren January 10, 2007 Attainment Lincoln County
(part)(includes only the following cities and towns): Alna, Boothbay, Boothbay Harbor, Breman, Bristol, Damariscotta, Dresden, Edgecomb, Monhegan, Newcastle, Nobleboro, South Bristol, Southport, Waldoboro, Westport, and Wiscasset January 10, 2007 Attainment Waldo County
(part)(includes only the following town): Islesboro January 10, 2007 Attainment Portland, ME: Androscoggin County
(part)(includes only the following town): Durham January 10, 2007 Attainment Cumberland County
(part)(includes only the following cities and towns): Brunswick, Cape Elizabeth, Casco, Cumberland, Falmouth, Freeport, Frye Island, Gorham, Gray, Harpswell, Long Island, New Gloucester, North Yarmouth, Portland, Pownal, Raymond, Scarborough, South Portland, Standish, Westbrook, Windham, and Yarmouth January 10, 2007 Attainment Sagadahoc County (includes all cities & towns) January 10, 2007 Attainment York County
(part)(includes only the following cities and towns): Alfred, Arundel, Berwick, Biddeford, Buxton, Dayton, Elliot, Hollis, Kennebunk, Kennebunkport, Kittery, Limington, Lyman, North Berwick, Ogunquit, Old Orchard Beach, Saco, Sanford, South Berwick, Wells, and York January 10, 2007 Attainment * * * * * * * a Includes Indian country located in each county or area, except otherwise specified. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E6-20901 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 71 237 Monday, December 11, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26558; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-206-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 Airplanes; and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 Series 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 DHC-8-100 (as described above), DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require doing a one-time inspection for damage of the electrical cable harness assembly located on the left and right wing root to fuselage aft seal, and repair if necessary; and reworking the fuselage aft seal assembly (left and right) to create a clearance between the electrical cable assemblies and the edge of the fairing panel. This proposed AD results from a report that an airplane encountered an uncommanded propeller feathering during climb, which resulted in an emergency landing. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing or grounding of the wiring against the aft seal assemblies, which, if not corrected, could interrupt the operation of various systems, including the propeller feather control, alternating current
(AC)electrical power, and standby hydraulic power, and result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Wagner, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7306; 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-2006-26558; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-206-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. TCCA advises that a Model DHC-8 airplane encountered an uncommanded propeller feathering during climb, which resulted in an emergency landing. Investigation showed that the wing-to-fuselage aft seal assembly had chafed through the wires associated with the auto-feather control system. Chafing or grounding of the wiring against the aft seal assemblies, if not corrected, could interrupt the operation of various systems, including the propeller feather control, alternating current
(AC)electrical power, and standby hydraulic power, and result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-24-83, Revision A, dated August 2, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting for damage of the electrical cable harness assembly located at the left and right wing root to fuselage aft seal, and repair if necessary. The service bulletin also describes procedures for reworking the fuselage aft seal assembly (left and right) to create a clearance between the electrical cable assemblies and the edge of the fairing panel. The rework described in Service Bulletin 8-24-83, Revision A, contains the instructions for incorporating Bombardier Modification Summary Package 8Y122031, Revision B, dated December 2, 2004. (The technical content of Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS8Q2400005, Revision C, dated January 7, 2005, is equivalent to Modification Summary Package 8Y122031, Revision B.) The rework includes removing a rivet and installing a new rivet, installing new anchor nuts with a clamp, and winding a protective layer of “spiral wrap” around the affected electrical cable assemblies. 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-2006-15, dated June 14, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Clarification of Inspection Terminology Where the TCCA airworthiness directive specifies to “visually inspect” and the service bulletin specifies to “inspect” the electrical cable harness assembly, this proposed AD refers to the inspection as a general visual inspection. 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 136 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 4 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $75 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $53,720, or $395 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 de Havilland, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26558; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-206-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 10, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 606, inclusive. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that an airplane encountered an uncommanded propeller feathering during climb, which resulted in an emergency landing. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing or grounding of the wiring against the aft seal assemblies, which, if not corrected, could interrupt the operation of various systems, including the propeller feather control, alternating current
(AC)electrical power, and standby hydraulic power, and result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection and Rework
(f)Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD. Do all actions in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-83, Revision A, dated August 2, 2005. The actions in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD must be done before the rework in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Note 1: Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-83, Revision A, contains the instructions for incorporating Bombardier Modification Summary Package 8Y122031, Revision B, dated December 2, 2004. (The technical content of Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS8Q2400005, Revision C, dated January 7, 2004, is equivalent to Bombardier Modification Summary Package 8Y122031, Revision B.)
(1)Do a general visual inspection for damage of the electrical cable harness assembly located on the left and right wing root-to-fuselage aft seal. If any damage is found, repair the damage before further flight.
(2)Rework the fuselage aft seal assembly (left and right) to create a clearance between the electrical cable assemblies and the edge of the fairing panel. 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.” Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Revision of Service Bulletin
(g)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-83, dated December 23, 2004, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements in paragraph
(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(i)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-15, dated June 14, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 1, 2006. Kevin M. Mullin, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-20969 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26075; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-55-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company (The Beech Aircraft Company and BEECH Previously Held Type Certificate Nos. 3A15, 3A16, 5A3, and A-777) Models 35-33, 35-A33, 35-B33, 35-C33, E33, F33, G33, 35-C33A, E33A, F33A, E33C, F33C, 35, A35, B35, C35, D35, E35, F35, G35, H35, J35, K35, M35, N35, P35, S35, V35, V35A, V35B, 36, A36, A45 (T-34A, B45), D45 (T-34B), 95-55, 95-A55, 95-B55, 95-B55A, 95-B55B (T-42A), 95-C55, 95-C55A, D55, D55A, E55, E55A, 56TC, A56TC, 58, 95, B95, B95A, D95A, and E95 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive
(AD)72-22-01, which applies to certain Raytheon Aircraft Company
(RAC)(The Beech Aircraft Company and BEECH previously held Type Certificate Nos. 3A15, 3A16, 5A3, and A-777) Models 33, 35, 36, 45, and 95 series airplanes. AD 72-22-01 currently requires you to determine if each uplock roller is of the greasible type (one having a drilled and grooved inner race), replace any nongreasible uplock roller (one having a solid inner race) with the greasible type before further flight, install hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the uplock rollers, and repetitively lubricate the uplock mechanism. Since we issued AD 72-22-01, there was a recent incident involving a RAC Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplane where a seizure of the uplock rollers occurred. This malfunction of the uplock rollers is addressed in AD 72-22-01. Thus, the FAA has determined that the actions of AD 72-22-01 should also apply to certain serial numbers of the Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplanes. Consequently, this proposed AD would retain all the actions of AD 72-22-01, would add those Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplanes to the applicability of this proposed AD, and would list out the specific serial numbers. We are proposing this AD to decrease the possibility of gear-up landings caused by seizure of the uplock rollers. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 9, 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:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone:
(800)429-5372 or
(316)676-3140. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4174; facsimile:
(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-26075; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-55-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 we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion Reports of RAC 33, 35, 36, 45, and 95 series airplanes equipped with non-greasible uplock rollers having a solid inner race that renders lubrication of the uplock roller mechanism ineffective caused us to issue AD 72-22-01, Amendment 39-1544 (37 FR 22371, October 19, 1972). AD 72-22-01 currently requires the following on certain RAC 33, 35, 36, 45, and 95 series airplanes: • Determining if each uplock roller is of the greasible type (one having a drilled and grooved inner race); • Replacing any nongreasible uplock roller (one having a solid inner race) with the greasible type before further flight; • Installing a hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the uplock rollers; and • Repetitively lubricating the uplock mechanism. Since we issued AD 72-22-01, there was a recent incident involving a RAC Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplane where a seizure of the uplock rollers occurred. The design of the uplock rollers is the same as those uplock rollers on the airplanes addressed by AD 72-22-01. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a gear-up landing. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211, Rev. I, and Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211. The service information describes procedures for: • Determining if each uplock roller is of the greasible type (one having a drilled and grooved inner race); • Replacing any nongreasible uplock roller (one having a solid inner race) with the greasible type before further flight; • Installing a hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the uplock rollers; and • Repetitively lubricating the uplock mechanism. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would supersede AD 72-22-01 with a new AD that would retain all the actions of AD 72-22-01, would add those Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplanes to the applicability of this proposed AD, and would list out the specific serial numbers. This proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 9,714 airplanes in the U.S. registry. The differences in costs between this proposed AD and AD 72-22-01 are the costs associated with the number of Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplanes that were not affected by AD 72-22-01. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed actions to determine if each uplock roller is of the greasible type (one having a drilled and grooved inner race), replace any nongreasible uplock roller (one having a solid inner race) with the greasible type before further flight, install hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the uplock rollers, and initially lubricate the uplock mechanism: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 2 work-hours × $80 per hour = $160 $30 $190 $1,845,660 We estimate the following costs for each lubrication of the uplock mechanism. Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 None $80 $777,120 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. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information 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 Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 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 removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD)72-22-01, Amendment 39-1544, and adding the following new AD: **Raytheon Aircraft Company (The Beech Aircraft Company and BEECH previously held Type Certificate Nos. 3A15, 3A16, 5A3, and A-777)** : Docket No. FAA-2006-26075; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-55-AD; Supersedes AD 72-22-01; Amendment 39-1544. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by February 9, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 72-22-01, Amendment 39-1544. Unsafe Condition
(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers
(SNs)that are certificated in any category:
(1)Group 1 (maintains the actions from AD 72-22-01): Model SNs
(i)35-33, 35-A33, 35-B33, 35-C33, E33, F33, and G33 CD-1 through CD-1256.
(ii)35-C33A, E33A, and F33A CE-1 through CE-349.
(iii)E33C and F33C CJ-1 through CJ-30.
(iv)35, A35, B35, C35, D35, E35, F35, G35, H35, J35, K35, M35, N35, P35, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B D-1 through D-9287.
(v)36 and A36 E1 through E-283.
(vi)A45 (T-34A, B45) and D45 (T-34B) All.
(vii)95-55, 95-A55, 95-B55, and 95-B55A TC-1 through TC-1402.
(viii)95-C55, 95-C55A, D55, D55A, E55, and E55A TE-1 through TE-846.
(ix)56TC and A56TC TG-1 through TG-94.
(x)58 TH-1 through TH-174.
(xi)95, B95, B95A, D95A, and E95 TD-2 through TD-721.
(2)Group 2: Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplanes, SNs TF-1 through TF-70. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a recent incident involving a Raytheon Aircraft Company
(RAC)Model 95-B55B (T-42A) airplane where a seizure of the uplock rollers occurred. We are issuing this AD to decrease the possibility of gear-up landings caused by seizure of the uplock rollers. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Determine if each uplock roller is of the greasible type (one having a drilled and grooved inner race)
(A)*For Group 1 airplanes:* Within 300 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after October 25, 1972 (the effective date of AD 72-22-01) Follow Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211, Rev. I, or Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211.
(B)*For Group 2 airplanes:* Within 300 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD
(2)Replace any nongreasible uplock roller (one having a solid inner race) with the greasible type
(A)*For Group 1 airplanes:* Before further flight after the determination required by paragraph (e)(1)(A) of this AD Follow Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211, Rev. I, or Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211.
(B)*For Group 2 airplanes:* Before further flight after the determination required by paragraph (e)(1)(B) of this AD
(3)Install hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the uplock rollers
(A)*For Group 1 airplanes:* Within 300 hours TIS after October 25, 1972 (the effective date of AD 72-22-01) Follow Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211, Rev. I, or Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211.
(B)*For Group 2 airplanes:* Within 300 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD
(4)Lubricate the uplock mechanism
(A)*For Group 1 airplanes:* Initially within 300 hours TIS after October 25, 1972 (the effective date of AD 72-22-01). Repetitively lubricate thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS Follow Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211, Rev. I, or Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211.
(B)*For Group 2 airplanes:* Initially within 300 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD. Repetitively lubricate thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4174; facsimile:
(316)946-4107, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(g)AMOCs approved for AD 72-22-01 are approved for this AD. Related Information
(h)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone:
(800)429-5372 or
(316)676-3140. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-26075; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-55-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 4, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-20970 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26371; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-70-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Limited PC-12 and PC-12/45 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 executive seats equipped with pedestal legs that were produced using a material that deviates from the approved design data. 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 January 10, 2007. 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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301; telephone
(816)329-4059; 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-2006-26371; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-70-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the aviation authority for Switzerland, has issued FOCA AD HB-2006-444, dated November 7, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that executive seats equipped with pedestal legs were produced using a material that deviates from the approved design data. As a consequence the pedestal legs may not perform as intended under emergency landing conditions. In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires a one time inspection to identify the Vendor Part Number
(VPN)of the pedestal legs and the Serial Number (S/N) of the executive seat and the replacement of the pedestal legs if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Pilatus Aircraft Limited has issued Service Bulletin No.: 25-032, dated October 2, 2006, and DeCrane Aircraft Seating Company, Inc. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB05147 Revision B, dated June 26, 2006. 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 394 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 0.5 work-hours per product to comply with the inspection requirement of the proposed AD. In addition, we estimate this proposed AD would affect about 59 seats and take about 1 work-hour per seat to comply with the parts replacement requirement of the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. 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 $15,760, or $40 per product for inspection and $4,720, or $80 per seat for parts replacement. 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: **Pilatus Aircraft Limited:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26371; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-70-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by January 10, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 683, that are:
(1)Certificated in any category; and
(2)Equipped with executive passenger seats Model Number 4006 manufactured by DeCrane Aircraft Seating Company, Inc. Vendor Part Number
(VPN)403150-1 or 403150-2 with Serial Numbers (S/N) identified in DeCrane Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB05147 Revision B, dated June 26, 2006. Reason
(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states that executive seats equipped with pedestal legs were produced using a material that deviates from the approved design data. As a consequence the pedestal legs may not perform as intended under emergency landing conditions. In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires a one time inspection to identify the VPN of the pedestal legs and the S/N of the executive seat and the replacement of the pedestal legs if necessary. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD:
(i)Perform an inspection to identify the VPN of the pedestal legs and the S/N of the executive seat following the accomplishment instructions in Pilatus PC-12 Service Bulletin No.: 25-032, dated October 2, 2006.
(ii)If during the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD any pedestal legs with a VPN and executive seats with a S/N which correspond with the data in DeCrane Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB05147 Revision B, dated June 26, 2006 are found, prior to further flight, replace the affected pedestal legs following the accomplishment instructions in Pilatus PC-12 Service Bulletin No.: 25-032, dated October 2, 2006, with new pedestal legs with VPN 431005-17 and 431005-18. The removed parts must be returned to Pilatus.
(2)As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install any executive seats model number 4006 produced by DeCrane Aircraft Seating Company, Inc., VPN 403150-1 or 403150-2 with S/Ns identified in DeCrane Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB05147 Revision B, dated June 26, 2006, on any Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplane, unless the mandatory actions of this AD have been implemented. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. 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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4059; 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 Federal Office of Civil Aviation
(FOCA)AD HB-2006-444, dated November 7, 2006; Pilatus Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No.: 25-032, dated October 2, 2006; and DeCrane Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB05147 Revision B, dated June 26, 2006, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 4, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-20971 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26285; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-69-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd Model 750XL 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 possible undersize rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 86.2. 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 January 10, 2007. 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: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; 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-2006-26285; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-69-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued CAA AD DCA/750XL/8, Drafted: May 9, 2006; Effective Date: August 31, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states the finding of the possible installation of undersize rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 86.2. The MCAI requires that you inspect the rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 86.2, and replace undersize rivets. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd has issued PAC Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/019, Date Issued: April 21, 2006. 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 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 16 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 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 $9,660, or $1,380 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: **Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd** : Docket No. FAA-2006-26285; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-69-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by January 10, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model 750XL airplanes, serial numbers 102, 104 through 120, 122, and 125, certificated in any category. Reason
(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states the finding of the possible installation of undersize rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 86.2. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, within the next 150 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 86.2, and replace undersize rivets, following PAC Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/019, Date Issued: April 21, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. 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: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; 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 Civil Aviation Authority AD DCA/750XL/8, Drafted: May 9, 2006; Effective Date: August 31, 2006; and PAC Pacific Aerospace Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/019, Date Issued: April 21, 2006, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 4, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-20976 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Parts 538 and 560 Comment Request Regarding the Effectiveness of Licensing Procedures for Exportation of Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, and Medical Devices to Sudan and Iran AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments on the effectiveness of OFAC's licensing procedures for the exportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. Pursuant to section 906(c) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of Pub. L. 106-387, 22 U.S.C. 7201 *et seq.* ) (the “Act”), OFAC is required to submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation of licensing procedures for such exports. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before January 10, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to the Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information about these licensing procedures should be directed to the Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, telephone:
(202)622-2480. Additional information about these licensing procedures is also available under the heading “Other OFAC Sanctions Programs” at *http://www.treas.gov/ofac.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The current procedures used by OFAC for authorizing the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran are set forth in 31 CFR 538.523-526 and 31 CFR 560.530-533. Under the provisions of section 906(c) of the Act, OFAC must submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation, during the preceding two-year period, of the licensing procedures required by section 906 of the Act for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. This report is to include:
(1)The number and types of licenses applied for;
(2)The number and types of licenses approved;
(3)The average amount of time elapsed from the date of filing of a license application until the date of its approval;
(4)The extent to which the licensing procedures were effectively implemented; and
(5)A description of comments received from interested parties about the extent to which the licensing procedures were effective, after holding a public 30-day comment period. This notice solicits comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness of OFAC's licensing procedures for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. Interested parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received on or before January 10, 2007 will be considered by OFAC in developing the report to the Congress. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, OFAC requires written comments. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. OFAC will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the comments be treated confidentially because of their business proprietary nature or for any other reason. OFAC will return such comments when submitted by regular mail to the person submitting the comments and will not consider them. All comments made will be a matter of public record. Copies of the public record concerning these regulations may be obtained from OFAC's Web site ( *http://www.treas.gov/ofac* ). If that service is unavailable, written requests may be sent to: Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20220, Attn: Merete Evans. Effective September 21, 2004, Executive Order 13357 terminated the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12543 of January 7, 1986, with respect to the policies and actions of the Government of Libya and revoked Executive Orders 12543, 12544 of January 8, 1986, and 12801 of April 15, 1992 (all of which had imposed sanctions against Libya in response to the national emergency). Consequently, the prohibitions of the Libyan Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 550 (the “LSR”), have been lifted, and all property and interests in property blocked under the LSR have been unblocked. Accordingly, specific licenses issued by OFAC for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Libya are no longer required pursuant to the LSR and, therefore, OFAC is not soliciting comments on its licensing procedures under that program. This termination of the Libya Sanctions does not, however, eliminate the need to comply with other provisions of law, including the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 *et seq.* , which are administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Approved: November 28, 2006. Adam J. Szubin, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. [FR Doc. E6-21005 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-25-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of Inspector General 42 CFR Part 1001 Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts AGENCY: Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS. ACTION: Notice of intent to develop regulations. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 205 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, this annual notice solicits proposals and recommendations for developing new and modifying existing safe harbor provisions under the Federal anti-kickback statute (section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act), as well as developing new OIG Special Fraud Alerts. DATES: To assure consideration, public comments must be delivered to the address provided below by no later than 5 p.m. on February 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Please mail or deliver your written comments to the following address: Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: OIG-111-N, Room 5246, Cohen Building, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. We do not accept comments by facsimile
(FAX)transmission. In commenting, please refer to file code OIG-111-N. Comments received timely will be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, in Room 5541 of the Office of Inspector General at 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Schaer,
(202)619-0089, OIG Regulations Officer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. OIG Safe Harbor Provisions Section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)) provides criminal penalties for individuals or entities that knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit or receive remuneration in order to induce or reward business reimbursable under the Federal health care programs. The offense is classified as a felony and is punishable by fines of up to $25,000 and imprisonment for up to 5 years. OIG may also impose civil money penalties, in accordance with section 1128A(a)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(a)(7)), or exclusion from the Federal health care programs, in accordance with section 1128(b)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(b)(7)). Since the statute on its face is so broad, concern has been expressed for many years that some relatively innocuous commercial arrangements may be subject to criminal prosecution or administrative sanction. In response to the above concern, the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act of 1987, section 14 of Public Law 100-93, specifically required the development and promulgation of regulations, the so-called “safe harbor” provisions, specifying various payment and business practices which, although potentially capable of inducing referrals of business reimbursable under the Federal health care programs, would not be treated as criminal offenses under the anti-kickback statute and would not serve as a basis for administrative sanctions. OIG safe harbor provisions have been developed “to limit the reach of the statute somewhat by permitting certain non-abusive arrangements, while encouraging beneficial and innocuous arrangements” (56 FR 35952, July 29, 1991). Health care providers and others may voluntarily seek to comply with these provisions so that they have the assurance that their business practices will not be subject to liability under the anti-kickback statute or related administrative authorities. Existing OIG safe harbors describing those practices that are sheltered from liability are codified in 42 CFR 1001. B. OIG Special Fraud Alerts OIG has also periodically issued Special Fraud Alerts to give continuing guidance to health care providers with respect to practices OIG finds potentially fraudulent or abusive. The Special Fraud Alerts encourage industry compliance by giving providers guidance that can be applied to their own practices. OIG Special Fraud Alerts are intended for extensive distribution directly to the health care provider community, as well as to those charged with administering the Federal health care programs. In developing these Special Fraud Alerts, OIG has relied on a number of sources and has consulted directly with experts in the subject field, including those within OIG, other agencies of the Department, other Federal and State agencies, and those in the health care industry. C. Section 205 of Public Law 104-191 Section 205 of Public Law 104-191 requires the Department to develop and publish an annual notice in the **Federal Register** formally soliciting proposals for modifying existing safe harbors to the anti-kickback statute and for developing new safe harbors and Special Fraud Alerts. In developing safe harbors for a criminal statute, OIG is required to engage in a thorough review of the range of factual circumstances that may fall within the proposed safe harbor subject area so as to uncover potential opportunities for fraud and abuse. Only then can OIG determine, in consultation with the Department of Justice, whether it can effectively develop regulatory limitations and controls that will permit beneficial and innocuous arrangements within a subject area while, at the same time, protecting the Federal health care programs and their beneficiaries from abusive practices. II. Solicitation of Additional New Recommendations and Proposals In accordance with the requirements of section 205 of Public Law 104-191, OIG last published a **Federal Register** solicitation notice for developing new safe harbors and Special Fraud Alerts on December 9, 2005 (70 FR 73186). As required under section 205, a status report of the public comments received in response to that notice is set forth in Appendix F to the OIG's Semiannual Report covering the period April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006. 1 OIG is not seeking additional public comment on the proposals listed in Appendix F at this time. Rather, this notice seeks additional recommendations regarding the development of proposed or modified safe harbor regulations and new Special Fraud Alerts beyond those summarized in Appendix F to the OIG Semiannual Report referenced above. 1 The OIG Semiannual Report can be accessed through the OIG Web site at *http://oig.hhs.gov/publications/semiannual.html.* A. Criteria for Modifying and Establishing Safe Harbor Provisions In accordance with section 205 of HIPAA, we will consider a number of factors in reviewing proposals for new or modified safe harbor provisions, such as the extent to which the proposals would effect an increase or decrease in— • Access to health care services, • The quality of services, • Patient freedom of choice among health care providers, • Competition among health care providers, • The cost to Federal health care programs, • The potential overutilization of the health care services, and • The ability of health care facilities to provide services in medically underserved areas or to medically underserved populations. In addition, we will also take into consideration other factors, including, for example, the existence (or nonexistence) of any potential financial benefit to health care professionals or providers that may take into account their decisions whether to
(1)order a health care item or service or
(2)arrange for a referral of health care items or services to a particular practitioner or provider. B. Criteria for Developing Special Fraud Alerts In determining whether to issue additional Special Fraud Alerts, we will also consider whether, and to what extent, the practices that would be identified in a new Special Fraud Alert may result in any of the consequences set forth above, as well as the volume and frequency of the conduct that would be identified in the Special Fraud Alert. A detailed explanation of justifications for, or empirical data supporting, a suggestion for a safe harbor or Special Fraud Alert would be helpful and should, if possible, be included in any response to this solicitation. Dated: December 6, 2006. Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General. [FR Doc. E6-20994 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-04-P 71 237 Monday, December 11, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 5, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Certification Program for Imported Articles of *Pelargonium* spp. and *Solanum* spp. to Prevent Introduction of Potato Brown Rot. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0221. *Summary of Collection:* Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation of plants, plant products, and plant pest and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pest into the United States. The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 include a certification program for articles of *Pelargonium* spp. and *Solanum* spp. imported from countries where the bacterium *Ralstonia solanacearum* race 3 biovar 2 is known to occur. This bacterial strain causes potato brown rot, which causes potatoes to rot through, making them unusable and seriously affecting potato yields. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) require the collection of information through a phytosanitary certificate (foreign), trust funds, and compliance agreements. If the information is not collected, potato fields could become infected with the strain of *R. solanacearum* and this could drastically reduce or eliminate potato fields. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 27. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,022. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-20938 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 5, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Forest Service *Title:* Visitor Permit and Visitor Registration Card. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0019. *Summary of Collection:* The Organic Administration Act (30 stat. 11), the Wilderness Act (78 stat. 890), the Wild and Scenic River Act (82 stat. 906) and Executive Order 11644, all authorize the Forest Service
(FS)to manage the forests to benefit both land and people. The information collected from the Visitor's Permit Form (FS-2300-30) and Visitor Registration Card (FS-2300-32) help the Forest Service ensure that visitors' use of National Forest System lands is in the public interest and compatible with the mission of the agency. The information is collected from National Forest System land visitors, who will be asked to describe their intended use of the land and the estimated duration of their visit. *Need and Use of the Information:* FS will collect the visitor's name, address, area to be visited, date of visit, length of stay, method of travel, number of people, and number of pack and saddle stock. The permit and registration card allows managers to identify heavily used areas to prepare restoration and monitoring plans that reflect where use is occurring, and in extreme cases, to develop plans to move forest users to lesser-impacted areas. The completed forms also provide managers with information useful in locating lost forest visitors. Not being able to use these forms could result in overuse and site deterioration in environmentally sensitive areas. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 368,400. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (per visit). *Total Burden Hours:* 19,320. Forest Service *Title:* Youth Conservation Corps Application & Medical History Forms. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0084. *Summary of Collection:* Under Pub. L. 93-408, the Youth Conservation Corps Act (YCC), the Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture), and agencies within the Department of the Interior (the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management) cooperate to provide seasonal employment for eligible youth 15 to 18 years old. *Need and Use of the Information:* Youth, ages 15-18, who seek training and employment with participating agencies through the YCC must complete an application form (FS-1800-18) and once selected for employment must complete a medical history form (FS-1800-3). The applicant's parents or guardian must sign both forms. The application form is used in the random selection process and the medical history form provides information needed to determine certification of suitability, any special medical or medication needs, and a file record for the Federal Government and participants. If these forms were not used, the Federal Government's ability to oversee the Youth Conservation Corps program would be greatly impaired. The organizational and liability issues that would result from inability to collect the information needed to manage the program would be virtually insurmountable. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 20,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 2,267. Forest Service *Title:* Agreement to Initiate
(ATI)and Exchange Agreement (EA). *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0105. *Summary of Collection:* Land exchanges are discretionary, voluntary real estate transactions between the Secretary of Agriculture (acting by and through the Forest Service) and a non-Federal exchange party (or parties). Land exchanges can be initiated by a non-Federal party (or parties), and agent of a landowners, a broker, a third party, or a non-Federal public agency. Each land exchange requires preparation of an Agreement to Initiate, as required by Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 254, subpart C, section 254.4—Agreement to Initiate and Exchange. As the exchange proposal develops, the exchange parties may enter into a binding Exchange Agreement, pursuant to Title 36 CFR part 254, subpart A, section 254.14—Exchange Agreement. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Agreement to Initiate document specifies the preliminary and on-biding intentions of the non-Federal land exchange party and the Forest Service in pursuing a land exchange. The Agreement to Initiate contains information such as the description of properties considered for exchange, an implementation schedule of action items, identification of the party responsible for each action item, and target dates for completion of action items. The Exchange Agreement documents the conditions necessary to complete the exchange. It contains information identifying parties, description of lands and interests to be exchanged, identification of all reserved and outstanding interests, and all other terms and conditions necessary to complete the exchange. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; individuals or households; State, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 120. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 120. Forest Service *Title:* Objection to New Land Management Plans, Plan Amendments, and Plan Revisions. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0158. *Summary of Collection:* The process for submitting objections to new land management plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions is set forth in Title 36 CFR 219.13. An objector must provide their name, mailing address, telephone number, and identify the specific proposed plan, amendment, or revision that is the subject of the objection. This is the minimum information needed for a citizen or organization to explain the nature of and rational for objections to new land management plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions. This information must accompany a concise statement explaining how the environmental disclosure documents, if any, and proposed plan, amendment, or revision are inconsistent with law, regulation, Executive Order, or policy and any recommendations for change. The Reviewing Officer then reviews the objection(s) and relevant information and responds to the objector(s) in writing. *Need and Use of the Information:* The information collected (objections to new land management plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions) is analyzed and responded to by a Forest Service official. At times, this information is used to modify land and resource management planning decisions. Forest supervisors and regional forests that make decisions on land and resource management planning also use the information. Without this information, the agency's decision-making will suffer from a reduction in public input and agency relationships with the public will deteriorate. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 1,210. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (once). *Total Burden Hours:* 1,210. Forest Service *Title:* Economic, Social, and Cultural Aspects of Livestock Ranching on the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0171. *Summary of Collection:* Management of federal lands is hampered in many cases because land managing agencies lack sufficient information to understand and monitor socio-cultural values and changing attitude toward land and resource use. The lack of up-to-date information impedes efforts of the Forest Service
(FS)to work with livestock ranchers who graze their cattle under permit on FS managed land (permittees). Cultural differences and historic problems over land use contribute to disagreements and misunderstanding between the permittees and federal land managers. Information on the economic, social, and cultural contributions of livestock ownership to federal permittees is of interest to land managers, policy makers, social scientists, the general public, and the permittees themselves. FS will use a questionnaire to collect information from livestock permittees from the Santa Fe and Carson National Forest. *Need and Use of the Information:* FS will collect data on economic, social, and cultural contributions of livestock ownership to the permittees of northern New Mexico. The information will help FS personnel manage the land more effectively and work more cooperatively with the permittees by increasing understanding of the local culture and the role of livestock ownership in that culture. If the data is not collected, grazing allotment plans and forest plan revisions will not be based on the most current and appropriate socio-cultural and economic information. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; farms; business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 150. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 225. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-20947 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 6, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food Safety and Inspection Service *Title:* Electronic Animal Disease Reporting System. *OMB Control Number:* 0583-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS)has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act
(FMIA)(21 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA)(21 U.S.C. 451 *et seq.* ). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by ensuring that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. In accordance with 9 CFR 320, 381.175, 180, 303.1(b)(3), 352.15, and 354.91, establishments that slaughter meat, poultry, exotic animals, and rabbits are required to maintain certain records regarding their business operations and to report this information to the Agency as required. For the Agency's electronic Animal Disease Reporting System (eADRS), establishments report (by shift) slaughter totals in number of heads and weight by animal category. EADRS is an information system that tracks and reports data on the number of animals slaughtered, animal diseases, and animal welfare information in the United States. *Need and Use of the Information:* For eADRS, establishments report orally to FSIS inspection personnel in the plant slaughter totals (by shift) in number of heads and weight by animal category. FSIS uses this information to plan inspection activities, to develop sampling plans for testing, to target establishments for testing, for Agency budget planning, and in its reports to Congress. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 1,159. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (daily). *Total Burden Hours:* 23,180. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-20968 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, December 6, 2006, 2:15 p.m.-3:15 p.m. PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3360, 330 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20237. *Closed Meeting:* The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG)will meet in a special session to review and discuss budgetary issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international broadcasting. This meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B)). In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6)). CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Carol Booker at
(202)203-4545. Dated: December 6, 2006. Carol Booker, Legal Counsel. [FR Doc. 06-9634 Filed 12-7-06; 10:22 am]
Connectionstraces to 68
Traces to 68 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
61 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 72
  • 10 CFR 50
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 13 CFR 121
  • 68 Stat. 929
  • 83 Stat. 444
  • Pub. L. 86-373
  • 73 Stat. 688
  • 88 Stat. 1242
  • Pub. L. 95-601
  • 92 Stat. 2951
  • Pub. L. 102-486
  • 106 Stat. 3123
  • Pub. L. 91-190
  • 83 Stat. 853
  • Pub. L. 97-425
  • 96 Stat. 2229
  • Pub. L. 100-203
  • 101 Stat. 1330
  • 112 Stat. 2750
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 119 Stat. 806
  • 68 Stat. 955
  • 96 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2202
  • 98 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2252
  • 12 CFR 215
  • 12 CFR 563.43
  • Pub. L. 109-351
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • Pub. L. 102-242
  • 105 Stat. 2236
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 14 CFR 21
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
+ 21 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
C.F.R.§ 72.214
C.F.R.§ 50.55
C.F.R.§ 72.122
C.F.R.§ 72.212
C.F.R.§ 72.3
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 605
C.F.R.§ 50.109
C.F.R.§ 72.62
Cite10 CFR 72
Cite10 CFR 50
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-113
Cites 129 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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