Rules and Regulations. Final rule

34,353 words·~156 min read·/register/2007/01/08/06-9969

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 New Animal Drugs For Use in Animal Feeds; Monensin AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application

(NADA)filed by Elanco Animal Health. The supplemental NADA revises the concentration of monensin in Type C medicated feeds used for improved feed efficiency, and for the prevention and control of coccidiosis in cattle fed in confinement for slaughter. DATES: This rule is effective January 8, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric S. Dubbin, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-126), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0232, e-mail: *eric.dubbin@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, filed a supplement to NADA 95-735 that provides for use of RUMENSIN 80 (monensin) Type A medicated articles. The supplement revises the concentration of monensin in Type C medicated feeds used for improved feed efficiency, and for the prevention and control of coccidiosis in cattle fed in confinement for slaughter. The supplemental NADA is approved as of December 1, 2006, and the regulations in 21 CFR 558.355 are amended to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has carefully considered the potential environmental impact of this action and has concluded that the action will not have a significant impact on the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required. FDA's finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding, contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 Animal drugs, Animal feeds. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows: PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 2. Section 558.355 is amended as follows: a. Revise paragraph (d)(2); b. Revise the introductory text of paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(vii); c. Revise paragraph (f)(3)(vii)( *b* ); d. Amend paragraph (f)(3)(i)( *b* )( *1* ) by revising the second sentence and adding a new third sentence. The revisions read as follows: § 558.355 Monensin.

(d)* * *

(2)Type C cattle feeds containing 40 grams or less monensin per ton shall bear an expiration date of 30 days after its date of manufacture.

(f)* * *

(3)* * *

(i)[ *Amount per ton* ]. Monensin, 5 to 40 grams. ( *b* ) * * * ( *1* ) *Limitations* . * * * Feed continuously in complete feed at a rate of 50 to 480 milligrams of monensin per head per day. No additional improvement in feed efficiency has been shown from feeding monensin at levels greater than 30 grams per ton (360 milligrams per head per day). * * *

(vii)*Amount per ton* . Monensin, 10 to 40 grams. ( *b* ) *Limitations* . For cattle fed in confinement for slaughter, feed at a rate of 0.14 to 0.42 milligram per pound of body weight per day, depending upon the severity of challenge, up to maximum of 480 milligrams per head per day. Dated: December 19, 2006. Steven D. Vaughn, Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-4 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0648; FRL-8266-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Identification of the Northern Virginia PM2.5 Nonattainment Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision consists of the addition of counties in Northern Virginia which were designated as nonattainment for the fine particulate (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This rule is effective on March 9, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by February 7, 2007. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0648 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: *miller.linda@epa.gov.* C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0648, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air Quality Planning and Analysis Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0648. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the * www.regulations.gov* index. 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 in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Miller,

(215)814-2068, or by e-mail at *miller.linda@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On May 8, 2006, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of the addition of counties in the Northern Virginia PM2.5 nonattainment area to the air quality regulations in the Virginia Code (9 VAC 5-20-204). This section of the Virginia regulations identifies areas included in nonattainment areas for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add a new standard for fine particulates (PM 2.5 ), airborne particles with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. The health-based standards for air quality are the PM 2.5 annual NAAQS, 15 micrograms per cubic meter, based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations; and the 24-hour NAAQS. 65 micrograms per cubic meter based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. Nonattainment areas for the fine particle standard (PM 2.5 ) were promulgated by EPA on January 5, 2005 as required by section 197(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Additional information on the designation process and requirements for nonattainment areas is found in the **Federal Register** document for the designations (70 FR 944 and 71 FR 19844). The designation of these counties and local jurisdictions in a PM 2.5 nonattainment area is not the subject of this rulemaking. II. Summary of SIP Revision The Commonwealth of Virginia is amending 9 VAC 5-20-204.A.3 to include the previously designated counties and local jurisdictions into the Northern Virginia portion of the Washington, DC PM 2.5 nonattainment area. The counties and local areas included in the nonattainment area are Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudon County, Prince William, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City. This SIP revision approves the addition of these counties and local jurisdictions to the planning areas listed in the Virginia Code (9 VAC 5-20-204.A.3). III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information

(1)That are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment;

(2)that are prepared independently of the assessment process;

(3)that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or

(4)that are required by law. On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.” Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law. IV. Final Action EPA is approving the revision (VA D05) which identifies areas designated as part of the Northern Virginia portion of the Washington, DC PM 2.5 nonattainment area. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. The designation process included opportunity for public comment. In addition, there were no public comments in the State public participation process. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on March 9, 2007 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 7, 2007. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements 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). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, 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.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General 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** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 9, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule to update the Virginia regulations to include counties and local jurisdictions in the Northern Virginia PM2.5 nonattainment area 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 22, 2006. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph

(c)is amended by revising the entry for Chapter 20, Part II, Section 5-20-204 to read as follows: § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

(c)* * * EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation (9 VAC 5) Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] * * * * * * * Chapter 20 General Provisions * * * * * * * Part II Air Quality Programs * * * * * * * 5-20-204 Nonattainment Areas 5/4/05 1/8/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Paragraph 5-20-204A.3 is added. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-22552 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0843; FRL-8261-3] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action revises various definitions of terms used by the SCAQMD and rescinds duplicative requirements for landfills from the VCAPCD. We are approving and rescinding these local rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on March 9, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 7, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0843, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: *steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.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: Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4120, *allen.cynthia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action. A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules we are approving and rescinding with the date that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted SCAQMD 102 Definition of Terms 12/03/04 06/16/06 VCAPCD 74.17 Solid Waste Disposal Sites (Rule Rescission) 03/10/98 07/15/05 On July 21, 2006 (SCAQMD) and August 18, 2005 (VCAPCD), these rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of these rules? We approved versions of these rules into the SIP on the dates listed: SCAQMD Rule 102 on February 3, 2000 and VCAPCD Rule 74.17 on October 4, 1994. SCAQMD adopted a revision to the SIP approved version of Rule 102 on October 19, 2001 which was not submitted to us by CARB. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local agency's program to control these pollutants. South Coast Rule 102 has been revised to add the following definitions: Agricultural Permit Unit, Agricultural Source, Clean Air Solvent Certificate, Confined Animal Facility (CAF), Hazardous Air Pollutant, Orchard Heater, and Orchard Wind Machine. Ventura Rule 74.17 is being rescinded in its entirety because sources previously subject to this rule are now subject to Rule 74.17.1, which has been approved as part of the California State Plan for landfills and is federally enforceable. EPA's technical support documents

(TSD)have more information about these rules. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? SCAQMD Rule 102 provides definitions that support emission controls found in other local agency requirements. VCAPCD Rule 74.17 is being rescinded because the requirements for controlling VOC emissions from landfills are federally enforceable through another mechanism. In combination with the other requirements, rule revisions must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). EPA policy that we used to help evaluate enforceability requirements consistently includes the Bluebook (“Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook (“Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001). B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? We believe these revisions are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. Public Comment and Final Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule revisions because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this **Federal Register** , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule revisions. If we receive adverse comments by February 7, 2007, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on March 9, 2007. This will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.” B. Paperwork Reduction Act These rules do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. These rules will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. *Union Electric Co.,* v. *U.S. EPA* , 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. These rules will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. These rules are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they do not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use These rules are not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards”

(VCS)if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective February 7, 2007. K. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: December 11, 2006. Laura Yoshii, 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 F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(187)(i)(B)( *5* ) and (c)(345) to read as follows: § 52.220 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(187)* * *

(i)* * *

(B)* * * ( *5* ) Previously approved on October 4, 1994 in paragraph (c)(187)(i)(B)( *1* ) of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 74.17.

(345)New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on June 16, 2006, by the Governor's designee.

(i)Incorporation by reference.

(A)South Coast Air Quality Management District. ( *1* ) Rule 102, adopted on December 3, 2004. [FR Doc. E7-22 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 4 Monday, January 8, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE263; Notice No. 23-07-01-SC] Special Conditions: Aviation Technology Group, Incorporated, Javelin Model 100; Firewalls for Fuselage Mounted Engines and Fire Extinguishing for Aft Fuselage Mounted Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Aviation Technology Group, Incorporated, Javelin Model 100 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with aft mounted engine fire protection. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: We must receive your comments by February 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Mail two copies of your comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You may deliver two copies to the Small Airplane Directorate at the above address. Mark your comments: Docket No. CE263. You may inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie B. Taylor, Regulations & Policy Branch, ACE-111, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone

(816)329-4134; facsimile

(816)329-4090, e-mail at *leslie.b.taylor@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On February 25, 2005, Aviation Technology Group, Incorporated applied for a type certificate for their new Javelin Model 100. The Javelin Model 100, is a two-place acrobatic airplane with two fuselage mounted turbofan engines. Part 23 historically addressed fire protection on multiengine airplanes based on the assumption that the engines are sufficiently separated to essentially eliminate the possibility of an engine fire spreading to another engine. On traditional multiengine airplanes, this has been achieved by locating engines on the wings separated by the fuselage. This configuration ensures that an engine fire on one side does not migrate to the opposite engine. This configuration also protects the opposite engine from heat radiating from the engine fire. Prevention, identification, and containment are traditional means of fire protection. Prevention has been provided through minimizing the potential for ignition of flammable fluids and vapors. Identification has been provided by locating engines within the pilots' primary field of view and/or with the incorporation of fire detection systems. This has provided both rapid detection of a fire and confirmation when it was extinguished. Containment has been provided through the isolation of designated fire zones through flammable fluid shutoff valves and firewalls. This philosophy also ensures that components of the engine control system will function effectively to permit a safe shutdown of an engine. However, containment has only been demonstrated for 15 minutes. If a fire occurs in traditional Part 23 airplanes, the appropriate corrective action is to land as soon as possible. For a small, simple airplane originally envisioned by Part 23, it is possible to descend and land within 15 minutes. Thus, the occupants can safely exit the airplane before the firewall is breached. These simple airplanes normally have the engine located away from critical flight control systems and primary structure. This has ensured that, throughout a fire event, a pilot can continue safe flight, and it has made the prediction of fire effects relatively easy. Title 14 CFR, part 23, did not envision the type of configuration of the Javelin Model 100 airplane. The Javelin Model 100 incorporates two turbofan engines located side-by-side in compartments in the aft fuselage. These engines are not in the pilots' field of view. Located forward of the engines is a 280 gallon fuel tank and associated components. Behind and above the engines are the horizontal and vertical tails. Passing through or near the engines are primary structure and systems to support these critical flight controls. With the location in the aft fuselage, the ability to visually detect a fire is minimal. The effects of a fire emanating from an enclosed engine installation are more varied, adverse, and more difficult to predict than an engine fire envisioned for typical part 23 airplanes. Type Certification Basis Under 14 CFR 21.17, Aviation Technology Group, Incorporated must show that the Javelin Model 100 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-55 thereto. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations in 14 CFR part 23 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Javelin Model 100 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Javelin Model 100 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The Javelin Model 100 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The Javelin Model 100 incorporates two turbofan engines located side-by-side in compartments in the aft fuselage. These engines are not in the pilots' field of view. Located forward of the engines is a 280 gallon fuel tank and associated components. Behind and above the engines are the horizontal and vertical tails. Passing through or near the engines are primary structure and systems to support these critical flight controls. The effects of a fire in such a compartment are more varied and adverse than the typical engine fire in a simple Part 23 airplane. With the location in the aft fuselage, the ability to visually detect a fire is minimal. However, the ability to extinguish an engine fire becomes extremely critical with the Javelin engine location. The engines in the aft fuselage have the potential to affect the pitch and yaw primary flight controls and the fuselage and empennage structure. While the certification basis for the Model 100 requires that a fire detection system be installed due to the engine location, fire extinguishing is also considered a requirement. A sustained fire could result in loss of control of the airplane and damage to primary structure before an emergency landing could be made. Because of the location of critical structures and flight controls, a means to minimize the probability of re-ignition from occurring is necessary. One acceptable method to minimize re-ignition is to install a two-shot system. The effects of a fire emanating from an enclosed engine installation are more varied, adverse, and more difficult to predict than an engine fire envisioned for typical part 23 airplanes. Discussion The engines are side-by-side in the aft fuselage so there is a need to maintain isolation during a fire including heat transfer from the engine fire to the unaffected engine. There is also a need to prevent flammable vapors, flammable fluids, and flame from accumulating. Finally, there is a need to extinguish fires. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Javelin Model 100. Should Aviation Technology Group, Incorporated, apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Aviation Technology Group, Incorporated Javelin Model No. 100 airplanes. Fire Isolation and Extinguishing The fire protection system of the airplane must include features to isolate each fire zone from any other zone and the airplane to maintain isolation of the engines during a fire. Therefore, these special conditions mandate that the firewall required by § 23.1191 be extended to provide firewall isolation between either engine. These special conditions require that heat radiating from a fire originating in any fire zone must not affect components, airframe structure, systems, or flight controls in adjacent compartments in a way that endangers the airplane. Each fire zone should be ventilated to prevent the accumulation of flammable vapors. It must also be designed such that it will not allow entry of flammable fluids, vapors, or flames from other fire zones. It must be designed such that it does not create an additional fire hazard from the discharge of vapors or fluids. 1. *SC 23.1195* —Add the requirements of § 23.1195 while deleting “For commuter category,” adding the requirement to “minimize the probability of re-ignition,” and deleting +the statement “An individual ‘one-shot’ system may be used.” 23.1195, Fire Extinguishing Systems

(a)Fire extinguishing systems must be installed and compliance shown with the following:

(1)Except for combustor, turbine, and tailpipe sections of turbine-engine installations that contain lines or components carrying flammable fluids or gases for which a fire originating in these sections is shown to be controllable, a fire extinguisher system must serve each engine compartment;

(2)The fire extinguishing system, the quantity of extinguishing agent, the rate of discharge, and the discharge distribution must be adequate to extinguish fires and minimize the probability of re-ignition;

(3)The fire extinguishing system for a nacelle must be able to simultaneously protect each compartment of the nacelle for which protection is provided.

(b)If an auxiliary power unit is installed in any airplane certificated to this part, that auxiliary power unit compartment must be served by a fire extinguishing system meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 2. *SC 23.1197* —Add the requirements of § 23.1197 while deleting “For commuter category airplanes.” 23.1197, Fire Extinguishing Agents The following applies:

(a)Fire extinguishing agents must—

(1)Be capable of extinguishing flames emanating from any burning fluids or other combustible materials in the area protected by the fire extinguishing system; and

(2)Have thermal stability over the temperature range likely to be experienced in the compartment in which they are stored.

(b)If any toxic extinguishing agent is used, provisions must be made to prevent harmful concentrations of fluid or fluid vapors (from leakage during normal operation of the airplane or as a result of discharging the fire extinguisher on the ground or in flight) from entering any personnel compartment, even though a defect may exist in the extinguishing system. This must be shown by test except for built-in carbon dioxide fuselage compartment fire extinguishing systems for which—

(1)Five pounds or less of carbon dioxide will be discharged under established fire control procedures into any fuselage compartment; or

(2)Protective breathing equipment is available for each flight crewmember on flight deck duty. 3. *SC 23.1199* —Add the requirements of § 23.1199 while deleting “For commuter category airplanes.” 23.1199, Extinguishing Agent Containers The following applies:

(a)Each extinguishing agent container must have a pressure relief to prevent bursting of the container by excessive internal pressures.

(b)The discharge end of each discharge line from a pressure relief connection must be located so that discharge of the fire-extinguishing agent would not damage the airplane. The line must also be located or protected to prevent clogging caused by ice or other foreign matter.

(c)A means must be provided for each fire extinguishing agent container to indicate that the container has discharged or that the charging pressure is below the established minimum necessary for proper functioning.

(d)The temperature of each container must be maintained, under intended operating conditions, to prevent the pressure in the container from—

(1)Falling below that necessary to provide an adequate rate of discharge; or

(2)Rising high enough to cause premature discharge.

(e)If a pyrotechnic capsule is used to discharge the fire extinguishing agent, each container must be installed so that temperature conditions will not cause hazardous deterioration of the pyrotechnic capsule. 4. *SC 23.1201* —Add the requirements of § 23.1201 while deleting “For commuter category airplanes.” 23.1201, Fire Extinguishing System Materials The following apply:

(a)No material in any fire extinguishing system may react chemically with any extinguishing agent so as to create a hazard.

(b)Each system component in an engine compartment must be fireproof. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on December 27, 2006. John Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-22647 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26725; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-161-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-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require modifying the main landing gear

(MLG)and nose landing gear

(NLG)handle assemblies for alternate release and the MLG retaining plate. This proposed AD would also require doing a related investigative action and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of broken or damaged MLG and NLG alternate release cables caused by rubbing and fraying at the cable-to-handle interface. We are proposing this AD to prevent breakage of the MLG and NLG alternate release cables, which, if the normal gear extension fails, could result in the inability to extend the MLG or NLG and consequent collapse of the landing gear during ground maneuvers or upon landing. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 7, 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: Ezra Sasson, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7320; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26725; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-161-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 has received reports of broken or damaged main landing gear

(MLG)and nose landing gear

(NLG)alternate release cables caused by rubbing and fraying at the cable-to-handle interface. If the normal gear extension fails, the failure of the alternate release system, if not corrected, could result in the inability to extend the MLG or NLG and consequent collapse of the landing gear during ground maneuvers or upon landing. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-32-146, Revision ‘D,’ dated February 7, 2003. The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the MLG and NLG handle assemblies and the MLG retaining plate, doing a related investigative action, and doing corrective action if necessary. The modification involves machining the sharp edges of the MLG and NLG handle assemblies and the MLG retaining plate. The related investigative action is inspecting the cable for damage. The corrective action is replacing any damaged cable with a new or serviceable cable. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. TCCA mandated the service bulletin and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-09, issued May 8, 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. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Modification 5 $80 $400 164 $65,600 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-2006-26725; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-161-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 7, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, and DHC-8-106 airplanes and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 579 inclusive. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of broken or damaged main landing gear

(MLG)and nose landing gear

(NLG)alternate release cables caused by rubbing and fraying at the cable-to-handle interface. We are issuing this AD to prevent breakage of the MLG and NLG alternate release cables, which, if the normal gear extension fails, could result in the inability to extend the MLG or NLG and consequent collapse of the landing gear during ground maneuvers or upon landing. 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. Modification

(f)Within 3,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the MLG and NLG handle assemblies for alternate release and the MLG retaining plate, do the related investigative action, and the corrective action if applicable, by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-146, Revision ‘D,' dated February 7, 2003. Do the corrective action, if applicable, before further flight. Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

(g)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-146, dated September 10, 1999; Revision ‘A,' dated January 17, 2001; Revision ‘B,' dated June 25, 2001; or Revision ‘C,' dated January 24, 2003; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD. Parts Installation

(h)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any part specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, on any airplane.

(1)MLG handle assembly, part number (P/N) 83260042.

(2)NLG handle assembly, P/N 83260020.

(3)MLG retaining plate, P/N 83260043. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(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.

(j)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-09, issued May 8, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 21, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-22534 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26726; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-205-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400F 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 Boeing Model 747-400F series airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing drains and drain tubes to eliminate water accumulation in the dripshield above the M826 Card File in the main equipment center. This proposed AD results from a report that water from the dripshield entered the card file and damaged a circuit card, causing the AFT CARGO FIRE MSG message to be illuminated and resulting in an air turn back. We are proposing this AD to prevent water from entering the card file and damaging a circuit card. Failure of one or more of the 15 fuel system circuit cards in the card file could cause loss of fuel management, which could cause unavailability of fuel. Failure of one or more of the 35 fire detection circuit cards could cause a false message of a fire, or no message of a fire when there is a fire. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 22, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6484; fax

(425)917-6590. 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-2006-26726; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-205-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report of the AFT CARGO FIRE MSG message illuminating in the cockpit of a Boeing Model 747-400F series airplane, resulting in an air turn back. An investigation revealed no signs of actual fire. Investigation found water dripping onto and around the dripshield located over the M826 Card File in the main equipment center at station 400. Due to the amount of water, the dripshield was not able to prevent water from entering the card file and damaging a circuit card. Circuit cards subject to damage in that location are fire detection, fuel system, and electrical system cards. This condition, if not corrected, could result in water entering the card file and damaging a circuit card. Failure of one or more of the 15 fuel system circuit cards in the card file could cause loss of fuel management, which could cause unavailability of fuel. Failure of one or more of the 35 fire detection circuit cards could cause a false message of a fire, or no message of a fire when there is a fire. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3370, Revision 1, dated April 27, 2006. The alert service bulletin describes procedures for installing two drains and drain tubes in the dripshield above the M826 Card File. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 86 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Installation 8 $80 $822 $1,462 21 $30,702 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): **Boeing** : Docket No. FAA-2006-26726; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-205-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 22, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3370, Revision 1, dated April 27, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that water from the dripshield entered the card file and damaged a circuit card, causing the AFT CARGO FIRE MSG message to be illuminated and resulting in an air turn back. We are issuing this AD to prevent water from entering the card file and damaging a circuit card. Failure of one or more of the 15 fuel system circuit cards in the card file could cause loss of fuel management, which could cause unavailability of fuel. Failure of one or more of the 35 fire detection circuit cards could cause a false message of a fire, or no message of a fire when there is a fire. 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. Installation

(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, install two drains and drain tubes in the dripshield above the M826 Card File over the nose wheel left side in the main equipment center at station 400, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3370, Revision 1, dated April 27, 2006. Installation According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

(g)Installing the drains and drain tubes is also acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3370, dated September 8, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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. Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 12, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-22535 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 2003-SW-37-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc. Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HS, 369HM, 500N, and OH-6A Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness directive

(AD)for MD Helicopters, Inc.

(MDHI)Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HS, 369HM, 500N, and OH-6A helicopters that would have required replacing or reworking certain forward

(fwd)and aft landing gear assemblies. That proposal was prompted by five reports of landing gear strut (strut) failures. This action revises that action by proposing to mandate both the creation of an access hole to facilitate inspections and a recurring inspection. The proposed AD also would exclude from the applicability certain helicopters modified with a certain Supplemental Type Certificate

(STC)and would provide a terminating action for the proposed requirements. This proposal also includes clarifying changes. The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to detect a crack that could result in the failure of a strut and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter during landing. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-SW-37-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also send comments electronically to the Rules Docket at the following address: *9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov* . Comments may be inspected at the Office of the Regional Counsel between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from MD Helicopters Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, Arizona 85215-9734, telephone 1-800-388-3378, fax 480-346-6813, or on the web at *http://www.mdhelicopters.com* . This information may be examined at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Cecil, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712-4137, telephone

(562)627-5228, fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this proposal must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2003-SW-37-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Discussion A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD for the specified MDHI model helicopters was published in the **Federal Register** on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47040). That proposal would have required removing all landing gear fairings; determining the number and location of rivets that attach the landing gear fairing support assembly to the landing gear strut; and if three rivets (fwd, aft and inboard) are present, replacing or reworking the landing gear assembly. If only the fwd and aft rivets are present, no rework would be required by the proposed AD. That proposal was prompted by five reports of strut failures. Operators of the helicopters with failed struts do not fall into any clear category of service. For example, one was a tour operator in Niagara Falls, New York and another was a police department operator in Calgary, Canada. In its original design, the fairing support was attached to the strut with three rivets (forward, aft, and outboard). In 1994, the manufacturer released a design change to attach the fairing support assembly with only forward and aft rivets because of the possibility of reduced service life of the strut if the third rivet was located on the inboard side of the strut. Some landing gear struts entered service with an additional rivet hole drilled on the inboard side of the strut. This additional rivet hole results in decreased fatigue strength of the strut and subsequent cracking. That condition, if not corrected, could result in cracking of the fwd and aft struts, failure of a strut, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter during landing. Since issuing that proposal, we received several comments from 2 commenters and agree that we should make some changes to our proposed AD. We have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment since we are making changes that expand the scope of the originally proposed rule. Due consideration was given to all of the comments received. One commenter, the manufacturer, states that we need to mandate the installation of the landing gear fairing inspection hole rather than specifically excluding it from the proposed requirements as we did in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The commenter also states that we should have the operators commence the periodic crack inspection per the maintenance manual. The commenter states that without these two critical additions the likelihood of a strut failure due to fatigue still exists. After further consideration, we agree that having an inspection hole in the fairing would be preferable to removing the fairings every 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or annually in order to do the inspection of the inboard rivet hole. We have also determined that our decision not to propose to mandate the repetitive crack inspection in the NPRM was an error. Therefore, we are now proposing to mandate the drilling of the access hole as well as the repetitive crack inspections of the inboard rivet. We have also added Notes in this proposal that include information for doing the inspections. The same commenter provided us with a marked-up proposal that contains suggested word changes or additional information, but did not provide justification for those changes. We have made only those changes that clarify or correct the proposal. One of those suggested changes was a request to change the wording we use to describe the intent of the proposed actions. The commenter writes that the intent of the proposed AD is to detect cracks of the fwd and aft struts, remove cracked struts from service prior to failure, and preclude subsequent extensive damage to the helicopter during landing. Although we agree that the proposal is intended primarily to detect cracks, we maintain that such cracking could lead to fatigue failure of the strut and loss of control of the helicopter during landing; therefore we have not made any changes to the proposal. Another requested change is that we change the number of work hours to determine the number of rivets from 7 to 2, that we include the fairing as a part that may need to be reworked, and that we reduce the cost impact of the proposed AD from $438,800 to $227,225. In the NPRM, we erroneously estimated that it would take 7 work hours to determine the number of rivets; we agree with the commenter's suggestion that 2 hours is more appropriate and have revised the proposal accordingly. Also, since we are now proposing to mandate these actions, we have added the work hours and costs associated with both drilling the inspection hole in the fairing and accomplishing the repetitive inspections. The commenter also requests that we add the address for obtaining service information. It is not appropriate to include the manufacturer's address within the regulatory text of the AD and we have not done so; however, we have included that address in the ADDRESSES section of this proposal and will add the address in the Incorporation by Reference paragraph of the Final Rule when it is issued. Also requested is that we more specifically identify the “three rivets” in the Discussion of the proposal and that part of the intent of the AD is to “clean up the inboard rivet hole (de-burr). We agree only to more specifically identify the “three rivets” and have modified the proposal accordingly. Finally, the commenter requests that we change the proposal to mandate only the recording of the initial inspection in the logbook but not any subsequent periodic landing gear inspections. We do not agree with this comment; all required inspections must be recorded. For the subsequent landing gear inspections proposed by this action, a Part 91 operator, for example, would be required by 39.7 to comply with the requirements of the AD, would be required by 43.11 to make entries in the maintenance records after any required inspection is performed, and would be required by 91.417 to keep maintenance records of required inspections. Therefore, we have not made the requested change. Another commenter, a manufacturer, suggests that operators who can verify that their helicopters have an Aerometals strut (P/N 369XH6001-41, -42, -51, -52) that was “installed” under STC No. SR00981LA should not have to take any further actions at the strut locations because those struts are only approved to have fairing supports attached with two rivets (forward and aft) and they have never been approved for a third, inboard rivet. The commenter states that excluding the struts that they manufactured will result in a substantial savings to operators because their landing gear fairings will not have to be removed from a strut to verify the number of rivets attaching the fairing support since their installation should be annotated in the maintenance records. We agree with the commenter and have excluded those struts from the applicability of this proposal. Because some of these changes expand the scope of the originally proposed rule, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment. The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 651 helicopters of U.S. registry. Determining the number of rivets and initially inspecting each affected “3-hole” strut and fairing would take approximately 2 work hours, installing a new strut would take approximately 1.5 work hours, and reworking a strut would take 1 work hour. Each repetitive inspection would take 1/4 work hour per strut (1 hour per helicopter for each of 4 struts). The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Required parts (new struts) would cost approximately $2,838 for each forward strut, $2,574 for each aft strut, and $97 for a modification kit to install an inspection hole. Assuming that each helicopter would get the initial inspection, that all 651 helicopters would be modified, that 325 helicopters would need two struts reworked, that 5 helicopters would require 2 new forward struts, and that 2 repetitive inspections would be required per year, the total estimated cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators would be about $353,047 ($248,887 for the initial inspections, modification, and parts, and $104,160 for the repetitive inspections). Regulatory Findings The regulations proposed herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that 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)if promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES . 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **MD Helicopters, Inc.:** Docket No. 2003-SW-37-AD. *Applicability:* Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HS, 369HM, 500N, and OH-6A helicopters, with any of the components listed in the Applicability Table installed, excluding any model with Aerometals strut (part number (P/N) 369XH6001-41, -42, -51, or -52) installed in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate

(STC)No. SR00981LA, certificated in any category: Applicability Table Component name Component part number (P/N) Mid Aft Fairing Assembly 369H6200-61, -62, standard gear. Aft Support Assembly 369H6200-23, -24 (-23 to be reinstalled on the right-hand side and -24 to be reinstalled on the left-hand side, all configurations). Aft Fairing Assembly 369H92113-91, -92, extended gear. Aft Filler Assembly 369H92113-131, -132, extended gear. Aft Fillet Assembly 369A6200-45, -46, standard gear. Aft Fillet Assembly 369H92113-111, -112, extended gear. Mid Fwd Fairing Assembly 369H6200-41, -42, standard gear. Fwd Fairing Assembly 369H92113-81, -82, extended gear. Fwd Support Assembly 369H6200-23, -24 (-23 becomes right-hand side and -24 becomes left-hand side). Fwd Filler Assembly 369H92113-121, -122, extended gear. Fwd Fillet Assembly 369A6200-57, -58, standard gear. Fwd Fillet Assembly 369H92113-101, -102, extended gear. *Compliance:* Required as indicated. To detect a crack that could result in the failure of a strut and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter during landing, accomplish the following:

(a)Within 4 months, unless accomplished previously, remove all landing gear fairings (fairings) and inspect each landing gear fairing support assembly (support assembly) to determine the number and location of the rivets attaching the support assembly to the landing gear strut assembly (strut assembly).

(1)If three rivets (forward, aft and inboard) are used to attach the support assembly to the strut assembly,

(i)For each FORWARD landing gear assembly, remove the landing gear fillet assembly (fillet assembly), the three rivets, and the support assembly, and clean and dye-penetrant inspect the area in and around the 0.125 (3.18mm) diameter hole in the inboard surface of the strut assembly.

(A)If the strut assembly is cracked, replace the cracked strut assembly with an airworthy strut assembly and install the other landing gear components in accordance with steps

(6)through

(11)of paragraph C of the Accomplishment Instructions of MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369H-244, SB369E-094, SB500N-022, SB369D-200, and SB369F-078, dated April 7, 2000 (SB).

(B)If the strut assembly is *not* cracked, rework the landing gear assembly and install the other landing gear components in accordance with steps

(5)through

(11)of paragraph C of the Accomplishment Instructions of the SB.

(ii)For each AFT landing gear assembly, remove the fillet assembly, the three rivets, and the support assembly, and clean and dye-penetrant inspect the area in and around the 0.125 (3.18mm) diameter hole in the inboard surface of the strut assembly.

(A)If the strut assembly is cracked, replace the cracked strut assembly with an airworthy strut assembly and install the other landing gear components in accordance with steps

(6)through

(13)of paragraph B of the Accomplishment Instructions of the SB.

(B)If the strut assembly is not cracked, rework the landing gear assembly and install the other landing gear components in accordance with steps

(5)through

(13)of Paragraph B of the Accomplishment Instructions of the SB.

(2)If only two rivets (forward and aft) are used to attach the support assembly to the strut assembly and a third rivet hole has not been drilled in the strut, neither the inspection of the strut assembly nor the rework of those landing gear assemblies is required by this AD.

(b)At intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or during each annual inspection, whichever occurs first, for any strut assembly that has a third rivet hole, remove the fairing inspection button plug and clean and inspect the area in and around the rivet hole for cracks using a bright light and 1 10x or higher magnifying glass.

(1)If any FORWARD strut assembly is cracked, replace the cracked strut with an airworthy strut assembly.

(2)If any AFT strut assembly is cracked, replace the cracked strut with an airworthy strut assembly.

(c)Installing a strut assembly that has only 2 rivet holes is terminating action for the requirements of this AD. Note 1: For the Model 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, and 500N helicopters, the Handbook of Maintenance Instruction, Servicing and Maintenance, HMI, CSP-HMI-2, Chapter 32, Section 32-10-00, “Landing Gear Strut Inspection” pertains to the subject of this AD. Note 2: For the Model 369(A) (OH-6A), 369H, 369HE, 369HS, and 369HM helicopters, the Basic Handbook of Maintenance Instructions CSP-H-2, Section 6, “Landing Gear” pertains to the subject of this AD.

(d)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 26, 2006. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-41 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26771; Directorate Identifier 2005-SW-07-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, TH-28, 280, 280C, 280F, 280FX, 480, and 480B Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for Enstrom Helicopter Corporation (Enstrom) Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, TH-28, 280, 280C, 280F, 280FX, 480, and 480B helicopters. The AD would require determining the installation dates for each main rotor push-pull control rod (push-pull rod), inspecting the push-pull rods for corrosion, replacing any push-pull rod which has corrosion that is severe enough to cause pitting, or has visible moisture inside the rod, and repairing each push-pull rod that has corrosion but no pitting. This proposal is prompted by one reported incident in which the helicopter pilot encountered severe in flight vibration due to the failure of a push-pull rod, requiring an emergency landing. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect corrosion and prevent failure of a push-pull rod, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 9, 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; or • *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. You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD from The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation, Twin County Airport, P.O. Box 490, Menominee, Michigan 49858. You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Malekpour, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Ave., Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, telephone

(847)294-7837, fax

(847)294-7834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the caption ADDRESSES . Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26771, Directorate Identifier 2005-SW-07-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 rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent or signed the comment. 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 docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the Docket Management System

(DMS)Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located at the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building in Room PL-401 at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Discussion This document proposes adopting a new AD for Enstrom Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, TH-28, 280, 280C, 280F, 280FX, 480, and 480B helicopters. The proposed AD would require reviewing the helicopter maintenance records and determining the installation dates for the push-pull rods. If the dates cannot be determined from the maintenance records, using the “Date MFD”, which is located on the helicopter data plate, would be used as the installation date for the push-pull rods. The proposed AD would also require a visual inspection for corrosion on the exterior and interior of the three push-pull rods, part number (P/N) 28-16253-all dash numbers (for Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters) or P/N 4140532-all dash numbers (for Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters), using the compliance times stated in the following table. Replacing any push-pull rod that has corrosion that is severe enough to cause pitting or has moisture inside the rod, and repairing any push-pull rod that has corrosion but no pitting, would be required before further flight. Repairing a push-pull rod consists of cleaning the push-pull rod, applying a protective coating, and sealing the push-pull rod before reinstalling it on a helicopter. Helicopter models Push-pull rod service life Compliance times Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters Push-pull rod that has been installed for 20 or more years Inspect within 10 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or at next annual inspection, whichever occurs first. Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters Push-pull rod that has been installed for 10 or more years, but less than 20 years Inspect within 50 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first. Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters Push-pull rod that has been installed for less than 10 years Inspect before the service life of the push-pull rod reaches 10 years since initial installation. Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters Push-pull rod that has been installed for 10 or more years Inspect within 50 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first. Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters Push-pull rod that has been installed for less than 10 years Inspect before the service life of the push-pull rod reaches 10 years since initial installation. This proposal is prompted by one reported incident in which severe in-flight vibrations required an emergency landing. Upon landing, the tail rotor, tail rotor gearbox, and horizontal stabilizer separated from the helicopter. A subsequent investigation revealed a rupture of the lower end of one of the three push-pull rods. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect corrosion on a push-pull rod and prevent failure of a push-pull rod, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. We have reviewed the following service information: • Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Directive Bulletin No. 0096, dated September 10, 2003, which describes visually inspecting the push-pull rods for corrosion and internal moisture, provides for repairing light corrosion, and is applicable to Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters. • Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Directive Bulletin No. T-019, dated September 10, 2003, which describes visually inspecting the push-pull rods for corrosion and internal moisture, provides for repairing light corrosion, and is applicable to Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters. • Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Information Letter

(SIL)No. T-019, dated December 9, 2003, applicable to Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters, which describes visually inspecting each push-pull rod for a crack, nick, scratch, dent, corrosion, damaged threads, bending, and contact wear. We are not proposing to require the inspections specified in the SIL. • Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Information Letter No. 0156, dated December 9, 2005, applicable to Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters, which describes visually inspecting each push-pull rod for a crack, nick, scratch, dent, corrosion, damaged threads, bending, and contact wear. We are not proposing to require the inspections specified in the SIL. This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs. Therefore, the proposed AD would require determining the installation date for the push-pull rods and inspecting each of the three push-pull rods for corrosion. If corrosion that is severe enough to cause pitting is found, or if moisture is visible on the inside of a push-pull rod, the AD would require replacing the push-pull rod. If there is corrosion without pitting on a push-pull rod, that push-pull rod may be repaired. Repairing a push-pull rod consists of cleaning the push-pull rod, applying a protective coating, and sealing the push-pull rod before remarking it and reinstalling it on a helicopter. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the specified portions of the Enstrom service directive bulletins described previously. We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 378 helicopters of U.S. registry, and that the required actions would take the following numbers of work hours to accomplish on each helicopter at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour: • 8 work hours to remove, disassemble, and inspect the 3 push-pull rods; • 9 work hours to repair corrosion without pitting, remark each push-pull rod, and reassemble each push-pull rod; and • 3 work hours to reinstall 3 push-pull rods on the helicopter. Required parts would cost approximately $900 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators would be $945,000 ($2,500 per helicopter), assuming 3 push-pull rods are replaced on each helicopter. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, 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 draft economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the DMS to examine the draft economic evaluation. 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **Enstrom Helicopter Company:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26771; Directorate Identifier 2005-SW-07-AD. *Applicability:* Model F-28A, F-28C, and F-28F helicopters, excluding serial number (S/N) 816 and subsequent; Model 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters, excluding S/N 2100 and subsequent; and Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters, excluding S/N 5058 and subsequent, certificated in any category. *Compliance:* Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. To detect corrosion and prevent failure of a main rotor push-pull control rod (push-pull rod), and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:

(a)Within 10 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, review the helicopter maintenance records and determine the date that each push-pull rod, part number (P/N) 28-16253-all dash numbers (for Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters) and P/N 4140532-all dash numbers (for Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters), was installed. If the date cannot be determined from the maintenance records, use the “Date MFD”, which is located on the helicopter data plate, as the installation date for the push-pull rod.

(b)For Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters, using the compliance times stated in Table 1 of this AD, visually inspect the exterior and interior of each of the three push-pull rods for corrosion severe enough to cause pitting or any moisture, paying special attention to the area of the lower fitting, in accordance with section 5.1., INSPECTION, in Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Directive Bulletin No. 0096, dated September 10, 2003 (SDB 0096). Table 1 Helicopter models Push-pull rod service life Compliance times Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters Push-pull rod that has been installed for 20 or more years Inspect within 10 hours time-in-service

(1)Before further flight, if corrosion without pitting is found on a push-pull rod, then repair, reassemble, remark, and reinstall it in accordance with section 5.2., REPAIR/REASSEMBLY, in SDB 0096.

(2)Before further flight, if corrosion is found that is severe enough to cause pitting, or if any moisture is visible on the inside of a push-pull rod, replace it with an airworthy push-pull rod. Note 1: Determining continued serviceability of the push-pull rods by inspecting the exterior only of each push-pull rod is described in Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Information Letter No. 0156, dated December 9, 2003.

(c)For Model TH-28, 480 and 480B helicopters, using the compliance times stated in Table 2 of this AD, visually inspect the exterior and interior of each of the three push-pull rods for corrosion severe enough to cause pitting or any moisture, paying special attention to the area of the lower fitting, in accordance with section 5.1., INSPECTION, in Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Directive Bulletin No. T-019, dated September 10, 2003 (SDB T-019). Table 2 Helicopter models Push-pull rod service life Compliance times Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters Push-pull rod that has been installed for 10 or more years Inspect within 50 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first. Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters Push-pull rod that has been installed for less than 10 years Inspect before the service life of the push-pull rod reaches 10 years since initial installation.

(1)Before further flight, if corrosion without pitting is found on a push-pull rod, then repair, reassemble, remark, and reinstall it in accordance with section 5.2., REPAIR/REASSEMBLY, in SDB T-019.

(2)Before further flight, if corrosion is found that is severe enough to cause pitting, or if any moisture is visible on the inside of a push-pull rod, replace it with an airworthy push-pull rod. Note 2: Determining continued serviceability of the push-pull rods by inspecting the exterior only of each push-pull rod is described in Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Information Letter No. T-019, dated December 9, 2003.

(d)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 26, 2006. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-43 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26693; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-90-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Reims Aviation S.A. F406 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: This AD is issued following a nose landing gear collapse during takeoff roll. Several expertises proved that the locking device of the Nose Landing Gear

(NLG)actuator rod was on several F406 airplanes not conforming with the installation approved by the manufacturer. There were two different landing gear actuator designs installed on the F406 airplanes. The actuators used different locking devices to retain the spherical rod-end to the actuator rod. Use of the incorrect locking device could allow the spherical rod-end to disconnect from the actuator rod. 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 February 7, 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: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone

(816)329-4144; fax

(NLG)actuator rod was on several F406 airplanes not conforming with the installation approved by the manufacturer. As Main Landing Gear

(MLG)actuator rod locking devices are similar to the NLG ones, then MLG actuator locking devices shall also be inspected. This AD requires inspection of the NLG and MLG locking devices and as requested their replacement to comply with the manufacturer's approved design. There were two different landing gear actuator designs installed on the F406 airplanes. The actuators used different locking devices to retain the spherical rod-end to the actuator rod. Use of the incorrect locking device could allow the spherical rod-end to disconnect from the actuator rod and consequently the landing gear could collapse. This AD requires you to do a one time inspection of the landing gear actuators and, if an incorrect locking device is found, replace it with the correct locking device. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Reims Aviation S.A. has issued REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-56, dated April 12, 2005. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $20 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 $2,940, or $420 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: **Reims Aviation S.A.:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26693; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-90-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by February 7, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to F406 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: This AD is issued following a nose landing gear collapse during takeoff roll. Several expertises proved that the locking device of the Nose Landing Gear

(NLG)actuator rod was on several F406 airplanes not conforming with the installation approved by the manufacturer. As Main Landing Gear

(e)Unless already done, do the following actions:

(1)Within 3 months or 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first:

(i)*For airplanes with Teijin Seiki Nose Landing Gear

(NLG)P/N 9910139-9:* inspect the NLG for conformity with the key lock system installation description in Figure 1 of the REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-56, dated April 12, 2005;

(ii)*For airplanes with Cessna NLG P/N 9910139-9:* inspect the NLG for conformity with the key lock system installation description in Figure 2 of the REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-56, dated April 12, 2005;

(iii)*For airplanes with Teijin Seiki Main Landing Gear

(MLG)P/N 9910136-8:* inspect the MLG for conformity with the key lock system installation description in Figure 3 of the REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-56, dated April 12, 2005;

(iv)*For airplanes with Cessna MLG P/N 9910136-8:* inspect the MLG for conformity with the key lock system installation description in Figure 4 of the REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-56, dated April 12, 2005;

(2)*For all airplanes:* prior to further flight after any inspection from (e)(1) of this AD where the key lock system does not conform to the appropriate installation description, install a key lock system that conforms to the appropriate installation description. 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: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4144; fax:

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

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

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

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

(g)Refer to MCAI Direction Générale de L'Aviation Civile AD No. F-2005-065, dated April 27, 2005, and REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-56, dated April 12, 2005, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 29, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-50 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26495; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-80-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU Previously Held by Apex Aircraft and Avions Pierre Robin) Model R2160 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: development of the New Zealand produced Alpha 160A aircraft identified an issue with the fuel shut-off valve, where it may not be possible to switch the valve ON once the valve has been placed in the OFF position. This is due to friction in the shut-off system. The fuel shut-off valve, which is normally ON, is a safety feature to allow the pilot to stop fuel flow to the engine in an emergency situation such as a forced landing without power. The fuel shut-off control is guarded and requires a deliberate action by the pilot to operate. Not withstanding this, a hazardous situation is possible if the fuel shut-off valve is inadvertently switched OFF in flight and the pilot is not able to switch it back ON. 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 February 7, 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-2006-26495; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-80-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 of New Zealand, which is the airworthiness authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/R2000/39 dated August 31, 2006, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that: development of the New Zealand produced Alpha 160A aircraft identified an issue with the fuel shut-off valve, where it may not be possible to switch the valve ON once the valve has been placed in the OFF position. This is due to friction in the shut-off system. The fuel shut-off valve, which is normally ON, is a safety feature to allow the pilot to stop fuel flow to the engine in an emergency situation such as a forced landing without power. The fuel shut-off control is guarded and requires a deliberate action by the pilot to operate. Not withstanding this, a hazardous situation is possible if the fuel shut-off valve is inadvertently switched OFF in flight and the pilot is not able to switch it back ON. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Alpha Aviation has issued Service Bulletin AA-SB-28-002, dated June 28, 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 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $300 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 $5,400, or $540 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: **Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A-48EU Previously Held by Apex Aircraft and Avions Pierre Robin):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26495; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-80-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by February 7, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model R2160 airplanes, serial numbers 001 through 191, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states that: development of the New Zealand produced Alpha 160A aircraft identified an issue with the fuel shut-off valve, where it may not be possible to switch the valve ON once the valve has been placed in the OFF position. This is due to friction in the shut-off system. The fuel shut-off valve, which is normally ON, is a safety feature to allow the pilot to stop fuel flow to the engine in an emergency situation such as a forced landing without power. The fuel shut-off control is guarded and requires a deliberate action by the pilot to operate. Not withstanding this, a hazardous situation is possible if the fuel shut-off valve is inadvertently switched OFF in flight and the pilot is not able to switch it back ON. Actions and Compliance

(e)Unless already done, do the following actions:

(1)To prevent the shut-off valve from remaining partially closed when the selector is turned to the ON position, due to the possibility of excess friction in the fuel shut-off valve causing deflection of the push pull cable, accomplish the inspection and rework instructions in Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin

(SB)No. AA-SB-28-2002, dated June 28, 2006, within 25 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after the effective date of this AD.

(2)If the fuel shut-off valve cable is bent, replace the cable per SB No. AA-SB-28-2002, before further flight.

(3)If the force required to operate the fuel shut-off valve exceeds the limits specified in SB No. AA-SB-28-002, dated June 28, 2006, rework or replace the valve as required, per SB No. AA-SB-28-002, dated June 28, 2006, before further flight. 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.

(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 Airworthiness Authority of New Zealand AD DCA/R2000/39, dated August 31, 2006, and Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin AA-SB-28-002, dated June 28, 2006 for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 28, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-48 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26491; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-76-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU Previously Held by Apex Aircraft and Avions Pierre Robin) Model R2160 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: To prevent fuel system leaks inspect the bronze/brass hollow threaded fuel line fittings for type and leaks, per Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin

(SB)No. 86. Replace leaking Type 1 fuel line fittings with Type 2 fittings, per SB No. 86, before further flight. 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 February 7, 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:*

(816)329-4146; fax:

(SB)No. 86. Replace leaking Type 1 fuel line fittings with Type 2 fittings, per SB No. 86, before further flight. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Avions Pierre Robin (current type certificate responsibility with Alpha Aviation Design Limited) has issued Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 86, dated July 30, 1980. 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 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour 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 $1,800, or $180 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: **Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU Previously Held by Apex Aircraft and Avions Pierre Robin):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26491; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-76-AD Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by February 7, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model R2160 airplanes, serial numbers 001 through 191, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states Type 1 fuel line fitting can leak causing a fire hazard. Actions and Compliance

(e)Unless already done, do the following actions:

(1)Within the next 25 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, inspect the bronze/brass hollow threaded fuel line fittings for type and leaks, per Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 86 dated July, 1980, and

(2)Replace leaking Type 1 fuel line fittings with Type 2 fittings, per Avions Pierre Robin Service SB No. 86 dated July, 1980, before further flight. 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:

(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.

(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 Airworthiness Authority of New Zealand AD DCA/R2000/12, dated June 29, 2006, and Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin 86, dated July 30, 1980, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 28, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-49 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26598; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-87-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Models EMB-110P1 and EMB-110P2 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: It has been found cases of corrosion at regions of Wings-to-Fuselage attachments, Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, Rib 1 Half-wing and Passenger Seat Tracks. Such corrosion may lead to subsequent fatigue cracking of the parts affected, reducing the aircraft structural integrity, which may in turn lead to structural failure and/or loss of some control surface. 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 February 7, 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, 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-2006-26598; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-87-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 National Agency of Civil Aviation (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued AD No.: 2006-10-01, dated October 25, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found cases of corrosion at regions of Wings-to-Fuselage attachments, Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, Rib 1 Half-wing and Passenger Seat Tracks. Such corrosion may lead to subsequent fatigue cracking of the parts affected, reducing the aircraft structural integrity, which may in turn lead to structural failure and/or loss of some control surface. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The MCAI requires: Inspection for corrosion at regions of Wings-to Fuselage attachments, Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, Rib 1 Half-wing and Passenger Seat Tracks; and if applicable, removal of the detected corrosion. Relevant Service Information Embraer—Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A. (EMBRAER) has issued Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, dated May 10, 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 42 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 942 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,165,120 or $75,360 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: **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26598; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-87-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by February 7, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Models EMB-110P1 and EMB-P2 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: It has been found cases of corrosion at regions of Wings-to-Fuselage attachments, Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, Rib 1 Half-wing and Passenger Seat Tracks. Such corrosion may lead to subsequent fatigue cracking of the parts affected, reducing the aircraft structural integrity, which may in turn lead to structural failure and/or loss of some control surface. Actions and Compliance

(e)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Within the next 30 days or 100 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, carry out a general visual inspection

(GVI)for corrosion at the regions of the Wings-to-fuselage attachments, Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, Rib 1 Half-wing, and Passenger Seat Tracks, according to Parts I, II, and III of the Embraer—Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, dated May 10, 2006.

(i)All structures found corroded or cracked as a result of the inspections conducted above, must be addressed prior to further flight in accordance with detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, dated May 10, 2006.

(ii)Previous accomplishment of the EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-A007, dated March 6, 2006, or the implementation of the tasks above, required by section VI of the Maintenance Planning Guides TP 110P2/145, PM 110/652, or PM 110/165, are considered acceptable methods of compliance with the requirements of (e)(1) of this AD.

(2)Within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, accomplish Part IV of the EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, dated May 10, 2006. All structures found corroded or cracked as a result of the inspections conducted above, must be addressed prior to further flight in accordance with detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, dated May 10, 2006.

(3)Within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish Part V of the EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, dated May 10, 2006. All structures found corroded or cracked as a result of the inspections conducted above, must be addressed prior to further flight in accordance with detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, dated May 10, 2006. Note 1: For the purpose of this AD a GVI 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 enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or drop-light; 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.” FAA AD Differences Note 2: 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 National Agency of Civil Aviation

(ANAC)AD No.: 2006-10-01, dated October 25, 2006, EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, dated May 10, 2006, and EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-A007, dated March 6, 2006 for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 28, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-51 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 270 [File No. S7-03-04] RIN 3235-AJ62 Investment Company Governance AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Notice of comment deadline. On December 21, 2006, the Commission published a document in the **Federal Register** reopening the comment period on its June 2006 request for comment regarding amendments to investment company governance provisions (“Request for Additional Comment”) (Investment Company Release No. 27600 (Dec. 15, 2006) [71 FR 76618 (Dec. 21, 2006) (FR Doc. No. E6-21903)]). The purpose of the additional comment period is to permit public comment on two papers prepared by the Office of Economic Analysis on this topic. The Request for Additional Comment stated that comments must be received on or before 60 days after publication of the second of the two staff economic papers in the public comment file. The second of these papers was published in the public comment file on December 29, 2006, and both papers are available on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s70304/oeamemo122906-powerstudy.pdf* ; *http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s70304/oeamemo122906-litreview.pdf* ). Comments must be received on or before March 2, 2007. Dated: December 29, 2006. Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration 19 CFR Part 351 [Docket No. 061121303-6301-01] RIN 0625-AA73 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures; Proposed Rule AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Proposed Rule; request for Comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) proposes to amend its regulations in antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) proceedings governing information submitted to the Department and administrative protective orders in order to improve the Department's procedures and provide clarification to some aspects of the Department's regulations. Specifically, the Department proposes to amend its regulations as follows: To reflect a transfer in the function of receiving submissions filed in AD/CVD proceedings from the Central Records Unit to the Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) Unit, and to change the name of the APO Unit to APO/Dockets Unit; to reflect a transfer in the function of maintaining public service lists from the Central Records Unit to the APO/Dockets Unit; to update the definition of “Customs Service” to reflect the reorganization of the Executive Branch; to clarify that documents filed with the Department will only be time stamped when appropriate, for example, when an interested party submits a request for treatment as a voluntary respondent; to clarify when an APO will be placed on the record with respect to new shipper reviews, applications for scope rulings and changed circumstances reviews; to clarify when a party must serve business proprietary information already on the administrative record to new authorized applicants to the APO; to require a formal letter of appearance to request placement on the service list of any segment of an AD/CVD proceeding; and to clarify when a party is to be considered an “interested party” for the purposes of the APO. Finally, the Department proposes amending its short form application for an APO (Form ITA-367). DATES: To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received no later than February 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Attention: APO Regulations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Sebastian at

(202)482-3354 or William Kovatch at

(202)482-5052. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Pursuant to section 777(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) (19 U.S.C. 1677f(c)(1)(A)), the Department must make available to interested parties, under an APO, all business proprietary information submitted to it during the course of an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding. Section 777(c)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes the Department to issue regulations governing the APO process. The Department's current regulations are codified at 19 CFR Part 351. The Department last amended its APO regulations in 1998 ( *see* 63 FR 24391). The Department is always interested in reviewing its APO procedures and improving them through its regulations. Since the adoption of regulations in 1998, the Department has gained insight into how its APO procedures work in practice. The Department believes that it is appropriate to propose improvements to those procedures and provide clarification to them where necessary. Such clarifications include not only amendments to the regulations, but also amendments to the short form application for APO access (Form ITA-367). In addition, since the publication of the 1998 APO regulations, the Department has transferred the function of receiving submissions from parties in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings from Import Administration's Central Records Unit to the APO Unit. The Department therefore is amending the regulations to reflect this change. Explanation of Particular Provisions Section 351.102(b). Definitions. Definition of “Customs Service” and “Interested party.” Section 351.102(b) defines terms that appear in the Act but are not defined in the Act, defines terms that appear in the Department's regulations but do not appear in the Act, and elaborates on the meaning of certain terms that are defined in the Act. Currently, this section of the regulations contains a list of terms in alphabetical order. The terms themselves are not sequentially numbered. For administrative purposes, the Department proposes setting forth the terms defined in section 351.102(b) in sequentially numbered paragraphs. Specifically, as discussed below, numbering the terms will allow the Department to administer the APO function in a more precise manner. Sequentially numbering the terms defined in section 351.102(b) creates no additional requirements on parties appearing before the Department. Section 351.102(b) currently defines “Customs Service” as “the United States Customs Service of the United States Department of the Treasury.” Since the publication of the regulations, the Customs Service has been transferred to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and renamed U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Department therefore proposes amending this definition of “Customs Service” to reflect this change. Section 351.102(b) currently does not contain a definition for the term “interested party.” This has created some confusion and difficulty in processing APO applications. Form ITA-367, the APO application, requires the applicant to disclose the interested party status of the party the applicant represents. The current version of the form allows the applicant to check “petitioner,” “respondent,” or “other.” If the applicant checks “other,” the form requires the applicant to identify the section of the Department's regulations that defines the party's interested party status. The Department's experience with this version of Form ITA-367 is that the provision of the broad category “other” has led to some confusion. First, as stated above, the term “interested party” is not currently defined by the regulations. In addition, the Department, and other parties to the proceeding, have had difficulty in determining whether a party identifying itself as “other” qualifies as an importer of subject merchandise or one of the other categories of interested parties as defined by statute. This has led to difficulties in confirming the status of a party as an interested party as defined by the Act. The Department proposes amending section 351.102(b), by including the definition of “interested party.” This definition does not differ from the definition of “interested party” as stated in section 771(9) of the Act, except that an importer of subject merchandise is defined in a different subparagraph from a manufacturer, producer and exporter of the subject merchandise. Defining “importer” in its own subparagraph is necessary to permit Department officials to readily identify when an applicant for APO access is an importer. Should this amendment be adopted, applicants would be required to indicate on Form ITA-367 the precise subparagraph of section 351.102(b) that applies to the party the applicant represents. Sections 351.103(a), 351.103(b), 351.103(c), 351.103(d), and 351.303(b). Location and Functions of the Central Records Unit and the APO Unit, Filing Documents, and Service Lists Sections 351.103(a), 351.103(b), 351.103(c), and 351.103(d) discuss the functions of Import Administration's Central Records Unit and APO Unit. Since the publication of the regulations, the Department has transferred the function of receiving submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings ( *i.e.* , the docket function) from the Central Record Unit to the APO Unit. The Department proposes amending these sections to reflect this change, and to change the name of the APO Unit to the APO/Dockets Unit. Currently, section 351.103(b) provides that a document is not considered to be officially received by the Department unless it is stamped with the date and time of receipt. Upon review, the Department no longer believes that it is necessary to time-stamp every document submitted. In most instances, to be considered filed in a timely manner, a document need only be submitted by the close of business on the due date. Date stamping a document in such instance would be sufficient to establish that the document was submitted in a timely fashion. There are, however, a few instances where it is necessary to time-stamp a document to establish timeliness. In some instances, the Department may establish a time other than the close of business as the deadline for the submission. In other instances, such as when the Department exercises its discretion to accept voluntary respondents, it is necessary to establish the order in which the Department receives requests to be treated as a voluntary respondent. The Department proposes amending the regulations to remove the general requirement that all documents be time-stamped, and clarify that a document will only be time-stamped where necessary. Department officials and the APO/Dockets Unit will continue to coordinate with each other to determine whether it is necessary for a document to be time-stamped, and to communicate such necessity with interested parties. This proposed changed will not affect the filing requirements on outside parties, and only addresses internal Department procedure. The Department also proposes amending the regulations to require an interested party to file a letter of appearance to request placement on the service lists of any segment of a proceeding. The letter of appearance should be a filing, separate from other filings, identifying the name of the interested party, how that party qualifies as an interested party, and the name of the firm representing that interested party if appropriate. If the interested party is a coalition or association as defined in sections 771(9)(A), ( *E* ), ( *F* ) or

(G)of the Act, the letter of appearance must identify all members of the coalition or association. Because the letter of appearance includes factual information ( *i.e.* , the name of the interested party, how the party qualifies as an interested party), the certification requirements of section 351.303(g) would apply. Requiring the letter of appearance to be a separate document will help ensure that Department officials update the public service list when a party begins participating in an administrative proceeding. Currently, many parties already file a letter of appearance when they are participating in an administrative proceeding before the Department. Therefore, the burden on the public would be minimal. Section 351.303(b) of the Department's regulations provide instructions on how to address and submit documents to the Secretary for consideration in an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding. Currently, the regulations require that submissions be addressed to the Central Records Unit and provides the room number. As stated above, the function of receiving submissions has been transferred to the APO/Dockets Unit. Accordingly, the Department proposes amending section 351.303(b) to reflect the transfer in function to the APO/Dockets Unit. Section 351.204(d). Requests for Treatment as a Voluntary Respondent As provided in section 351.204(d) of the Department's regulations, if the Department limits the number of exporters or producers individually examined under section 777A(c)(2) or section 777A(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department will examine voluntary respondents in accordance with section 782(a) of the Act. In order to be able to clearly identify voluntary respondents, and discern the order in which requests for voluntary respondent treatment have been submitted, the Department proposes to require an interested party seeking voluntary respondent treatment to indicate its request clearly on the first page of the first submission. This will alert the APO/Dockets Unit to the fact that the submission should be time stamped. This requirement of placing the words “Request for Voluntary Respondent Treatment” in the title of the first page of the first submission will not create any undue burden on interested parties. Section 351.305(a). Placing APOs on the Record in New Shipper Reviews, Applications for Scope Rulings, and Changed Circumstances Reviews Under section 351.305(a) of the current regulations, the Department places an APO on the record of a segment of a proceeding within two days of the filing of a new petition or an initiation of an investigation on the Department's own initiative and within five days after the initiation of any segment other than an investigation. The Department proposes clarifying that the reference to “days” in this section of the regulations refers to business days. With respect to new shipper reviews, an exporter or producer must first submit a request with certain certifications and documentation detailed in section 351.214(b)(2) of the Department's regulations. The Department decides whether to initiate a new shipper review by evaluating the certifications and other documentation submitted along with the request. At times, this evaluation includes the analysis of business proprietary information. Interested parties may wish to comment on this information before the Department decides whether to initiate the new shipper review. However, interested parties may only gain access to the business proprietary information under an APO. Under the current regulations, the Department does not issue an APO until after the new shipper review has been initiated. Therefore, to allow interested parties to have access to business proprietary information relevant to the potential initiation of a new shipper review, the Department proposes to amend its regulations by indicating that an APO will be placed on the record within five business days of the filing of a request for a new shipper review. Similarly, section 351.225(c) of the Department's regulations permits an interested party to request a ruling as to whether a particular product is within the scope of an order or a suspended investigation. If the Secretary can make this determination based solely on the information contained in the application and the description of the merchandise contained in the original petition, the initial investigation, and the prior determinations of the Secretary and the International Trade Commission, then the Secretary will issue a final ruling without requesting further information. During this evaluation, the Secretary may be required to analyze business proprietary information submitted by the applicant, and interested parties may wish to comment on this information. However, like new shipper reviews, under the current regulations the Department issues the APO after the initiation of a scope inquiry. Under section 351.225(e), the Secretary will only initiate a scope inquiry if more information is required than that submitted with the application. To permit parties to have access to business proprietary information and comment on that information before the initiation of a scope inquiry, the Department proposes to amend its regulations by indicating that an APO will be placed on the record within five business days of the filing of an application for a scope ruling. Finally, section 351.216(b) states that the Department will determine whether to initiate a changed circumstances review within forty-five days after the date on which a request is filed. The Department may also self-initiate a changed circumstances review. The request for the initiation of a changed circumstances review may contain business proprietary information. Under the current regulations, the Department issues an APO only after initiating a changed circumstances review. Because interested parties may wish to have access to the business proprietary information and to comment on this information before the initiation of a changed circumstances review, we propose amending section 351.305(a) to place an APO on the record within five business days of the filing of a changed circumstances request or the self-initiation of a changed circumstances review by the Department. Section 351.305(b). Service Requirement of Documents Already on the Administrative Record to New Authorized Applicants Prior to the adoption of the current regulations in 1998, when a party had already submitted business proprietary information to the Department and a new party applied for access to business proprietary information subject to APO, the Department required the first party to serve that information on the new party within two days of the Secretary's granting of access. The Department inadvertently deleted this requirement from the regulations adopted in 1998. We propose amending section 351.305(b) to restore the requirement that business proprietary information already on the administrative record be served on a party filing a timely application for access to business proprietary information under the APO within two business days of the approval of that application. The Department does not anticipate that this proposed requirement will increase any burden or cause undue hardship. In practice, parties have been serving information on a new party within two business days of that party's approval as an authorized applicant despite the absence of any regulatory requirement. In addition, the current regulations state that in order to minimize any disruption caused by late applications, a party should file its APO application before the first response to a questionnaire has been submitted. Section 351.305(b)(3) of the current regulations indicates that all parties who have already submitted business proprietary information to the administrative record must serve that information on the new authorized applicant within five days of the approval of the application. This five- day time period was meant to apply when the application was filed after the submission of the first questionnaire response, as opposed to the two-day time period proposed above, which is meant to apply to parties who apply for APO access before the submission of the first questionnaire response. The Department proposes amending this regulation to clarify that the five-day time period only applies when the authorized applicant has filed its application for APO access after the submission of the first response to a questionnaire. As stated, many parties already adhere to this practice. The regulations already contain a service requirement. This proposal merely addresses the timing of that service. Section 351.305(d). Additional Documentation Required for Importers As discussed above, the Department and other interested parties have had difficulty in identifying whether a party who identifies itself as “other” on Form ITA-367 is an importer of the subject merchandise. Given the sensitive nature of the business proprietary information submitted to the Department, it is imperative that the Department be able to confirm that a party applying for APO access is indeed an “interested party” as defined by the Act. The Department proposes to require parties claiming to be importers of the subject merchandise to submit documentary evidence confirming their status as importers. The Department's preferred evidence is a copy of the Customs Form 7501 demonstrating that the party imported subject merchandise during the relevant period of investigation or period of review. The Department recognizes that some segments do not necessarily involve a specific time period, such as a changed circumstances review or a scope inquiry. In such circumstances, where a representative of an importer of subject merchandise desires to apply for APO access, the importer need only show that it imported subject merchandise at some time since the beginning of the original period of investigation. Thus, the Department intends that in changed circumstances reviews and scope inquiries, it will only require that the importer submit documentary evidence, such as a Customs Form 7501, demonstrating that the party imported subject merchandise at any time since the beginning of the original period of investigation. In other instances, such as where a party requests a scope ruling on a particular product it intends to import, a Customs Form 7501 may not be available. In such circumstances, the interested party may satisfy the proposed requirement by submitting any other credible documentary evidence demonstrating its intention to import the product subject to the scope inquiry. Form ITA-367, Short Form Application for APO Form ITA-367 requires the applicant to identify the specific segment of the proceeding covered by the APO. Applicants in a new shipper review currently check the box next to “other,” identifying the segment and citing the **Federal Register** notice wherein the Department initiated the proceeding. The Department can initiate separate new shipper reviews on the same day, however, covering the same merchandise and the same period of review but a different exporter or producer. For this reason, typically, new shipper reviews are identified based on the name of the exporter or producer being reviewed. In order to provide further clarity, the Department proposes amending Form ITA-367 to provide for an option to check “new shipper review” and specifically identify the name of the exporter/producer that is covered by the new shipper review. With respect to scope inquiries, there may be several scope inquiries during the existence of an order. Therefore, in order to provide further clarity, the Department proposes amending Form ITA-367 to specifically identify the product that is covered by the scope review. In the case of changed circumstances reviews, such a review may not necessarily be tied to a specific period of review. Thus, in order to provide further clarity, the Department proposes amending Form ITA-367 to provide for an option to check “changed circumstances review” and require the applicant to identify the date on which the request for a changed circumstances review was filed. To allow the Department to identify when an interested party applying for APO access is an importer, the Department proposes amending Form ITA-367 to require the applicant to identify the specific subsection of the Department's regulations that define its status as an interested party. This proposed amendment to Form ITA-367 correlates to the proposed changes to the regulations as set forth in this notice. Section 351.305(c) states that the Secretary will provide, by the most expeditious means available, the APO service list to parties to the proceeding on the day the service list is issued or amended. The application is also being expanded to identify the “Lead Applicant,” and to request an e-mail address for the receipt of service lists in order to ensure timely notice of the issuance or amendment of the service list. The Department would like to take this opportunity to remind those who practice before it, that the entire Form ITA-367 must be submitted to the Department in order to gain access to business proprietary information under the APO. If any portion of the form is not applicable, the applicant should so indicate on the form itself, and submit the entire application form to the Department. Form ITA-367 is available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo/index.html* and may be reproduced using the applicant's word processor. The format of the application under items 8 and 9 must be exactly as provided in the printed form, with no deviation. The exact format under items 8 and 9 may be repeated to include additional applicants, as required ( *e.g.* , (2), (3), (4), etc.). Each applicant must sign and date the application in their own hand. The Department would also like to remind authorized applicants that an acknowledgment for support staff is a requirement under item 2 of the APO. Failure by a firm to maintain an acknowledgment for support staff for each segment of each proceeding when APO access has been granted would be a violation of the APOs. Support staff do not apply separately for APO access, but they are required to sign the acknowledgment maintained by the firm. Comments—Deadline, Format, Number of Copies The deadline for the submission of comments is February 28, 2007. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. Parties wishing to comment should submit a signed original and two copies of each set of comments, including reasons for any recommendations. To help simplify the processing and distribution of comments, the Department requests that a submission in electronic form accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be on CD-ROM in either WordPerfect format or a format that the WordPerfect program can convert into WordPerfect. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in connection with this request for comment. Comments received on CD-ROM will be made available to the public on the Web at the following address: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* . In addition, upon request, the Department will make comments filed in electronic form available to the public on CD-ROMs (at cost) with specific instructions for accessing compressed data (if necessary). Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Web, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, IA Webmaster, at

(202)482-0866 or via e-mail at *webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.* Classification E.O. 12866 It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Chief Counsel for Regulation at the Department certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration that this rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department proposes to amend its regulations in antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) proceedings governing information submitted to the Department and administrative protective orders in order to improve the Department's procedures and provide clarification to some aspects of the Department's regulations. Specifically, the Department proposes to amend its regulations as follows:

(1)To reflect a transfer in the function of receiving submissions filed in AD/CVD proceedings from the Central Records Unit to the Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) Unit, and to change the name of the APO Unit to APO/Dockets Unit;

(2)to reflect a transfer in the function of maintaining public service lists from the Central Records Unit to the APO/Dockets Unit;

(3)to update the definition of “Customs Service” to reflect the reorganization of the Executive Branch;

(4)to clarify that documents filed with the Department will only be time stamped when appropriate, for example, when an interested party submits a request for treatment as a voluntary respondent;

(5)to clarify when an APO will be placed on the record with respect to new shipper reviews, applications for scope rulings and changed circumstances reviews;

(6)to clarify when a party must serve business proprietary information already on the administrative record to new authorized applicants to the APO;

(7)to require a formal letter of appearance to request being placed on the service list of any segment of an AD/CVD proceeding; and

(8)to clarify when a party is to be considered an “interested party” for the purposes of the APO. Finally, the Department proposes amending its short form application for an APO (Form ITA-367). The Department is unable to estimate the number of small entities that will be affected by this rule, as the Department does not collect this information. However, there is the possibility that this rule would impact some number of small entities. Although the number of small entities that may be impacted is unknown, this rule would not impose a significant economic impact. If implemented, this rule is not expected to impose a significant economic impact on the affected entities. Most of the amendments are procedural in nature and would not impose any new requirements or result in a significant compliance cost. The proposed requirement to submit a formal letter of appearance to request being placed on the service list of any segment of an AD/CVD proceeding; the proposed amendment to require an importer to submit documentary evidence of its status as an importer; and the proposed amendment to its short form application for an APO (Form ITA-367) may result in a slight increase in recordkeeping and reporting burden hours. ITA anticipates that these requirements would result in $80 or 4 additional burden hours per respondent. Although this proposed rule may impact a substantive number of small entities, the cost to these entities would be minimal. For this reason, the Chief Counsel for Regulation at the Department of Commerce certified that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain a collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). E.O. 12612 This proposed rule does not contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351 Administrative practice and procedure, Antidumping, Business and industry, Cheese, Confidential business information, Countervailing duties, Freedom of information, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 27, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration. For the reasons stated, it is proposed that 19 CFR Ch. III be amended as follows: PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES 1. The authority citation for part 351 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 note; 19 U.S.C. 1303 note; 19 U.S.C. 1671 *et seq.* ; and 19 U.S.C. 3538. 2. Section 351.102 is revised as follows: § 351.102 Definitions.

(a)*Introduction.* The Act contains many technical terms applicable to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. In the case of terms that are not defined in this section or other sections of this part, readers should refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. This section:

(1)Defines terms that appear in the Act but are not defined in the Act;

(2)Defines terms that appear in this Part but do not appear in the Act; and

(3)Elaborates on the meaning of certain terms that are defined in the Act.

(b)*Definitions.*

(1)*Act.* “Act” means the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

(2)*Administrative review.* “Administrative review” means a review under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

(3)*Affiliated persons; affiliated parties.* “Affiliated persons” and “affiliated parties” have the same meaning as in section 771(33) of the Act. In determining whether control over another person exists, within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act, the Secretary will consider the following factors, among others: corporate or family groupings; franchise or joint venture agreements; debt financing; and close supplier relationships. The Secretary will not find that control exists on the basis of these factors unless the relationship has the potential to impact decisions concerning the production, pricing, or cost of the subject merchandise or foreign like product. The Secretary will consider the temporal aspect of a relationship in determining whether control exists; normally, temporary circumstances will not suffice as evidence of control.

(4)*Aggregate basis.* “Aggregate basis” means the calculation of a country-wide subsidy rate based principally on information provided by the foreign government.

(5)*Anniversary month.* “Anniversary month” means the calendar month in which the anniversary of the date of publication of an order or suspension of investigation occurs.

(6)*APO.* “APO” means an administrative protective order described in section 777(c)(1) of the Act.

(7)*Applicant.* “Applicant” means a representative of an interested party that has applied for access to business proprietary information under an administrative protective order.

(8)*Article 4/Article 7 review.* “Article 4/Article 7 review” means a review under section 751(g)(2) of the Act.

(9)*Article 8 violation review.* “Article 8 violation review” means a review under section 751(g)(1) of the Act.

(10)*Authorized applicant.* “Authorized applicant” means an applicant that the Secretary has authorized to receive business proprietary information under an APO under section 777(c)(1) of the Act.

(11)*Changed circumstances review.* “Changed circumstances review” means a review under section 751(b) of the Act.

(12)*Consumed in the production process.* Inputs “consumed in the production process” are inputs physically incorporated, energy, fuels and oil used in the production process and catalysts which are consumed in the course of their use to obtain the product.

(13)*Cumulative indirect tax.* “Cumulative indirect tax” means a multi-staged tax levied where there is no mechanism for subsequent crediting of the tax if the goods or services subject to tax at one stage of production are used in a succeeding stage of production.

(14)*Customs Service.* “Customs Service” means the United States Customs and Border Protection of the United States Department of Homeland Security.

(15)*Department.* “Department” means the United States Department of Commerce.

(16)*Direct tax.* “Direct tax” means a tax on wages, profits, interests, rents, royalties, and all other forms of income, a tax on the ownership of real property, or a social welfare charge.

(17)*Domestic interested party.* “Domestic interested party” means an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or

(G)of section 771(9) of the Act.

(18)*Expedited antidumping review.* “Expedited antidumping review” means a review under section 736(c) of the Act.

(19)*Expedited sunset review.* “Expedited sunset review” means an expedited sunset review conducted by the Department where respondent interested parties provide inadequate responses to a notice of initiation under section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and § 351.218(e)(1)(ii).

(20)*Export insurance.* “Export insurance” includes, but is not limited to, insurance against increases in the cost of exported products, nonpayment by the customer, inflation, or exchange rate risks.

(21)*Factual information.* “Factual information” means:

(i)Initial and supplemental questionnaire responses;

(ii)Data or statements of fact in support of allegations;

(iii)Other data or statements of facts; and

(iv)Documentary evidence.

(22)*Fair value.* “Fair value” is a term used during an antidumping investigation, and is an estimate of normal value.

(23)*Firm.* For purposes of subpart E (Identification and Measurement of Countervailable Subsidies), “firm” is used to refer to the recipient of an alleged countervailable subsidy, including any individual, company, partnership, corporation, joint venture, association, organization, or other entity.

(24)*Full sunset review.* “Full sunset review” means a full sunset review conducted by the Department under section 751(c)(5) of the Act where both domestic interested parties and respondent interested parties provide adequate response to a notice of initiation under section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and § 351.218(e)(1)(i) and 351.218(e)(1)(ii).

(25)*Government-provided.* “Government-provided” is a shorthand expression for an act or practice that is alleged to be a countervailable subsidy. The use of the term “government-provided” is not intended to preclude the possibility that a government may provide a countervailable subsidy indirectly in a manner described in section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Act (indirect financial contribution).

(26)*Import charge.* “Import charge” means a tariff, duty, or other fiscal charge that is levied on imports, other than an indirect tax.

(27)*Importer.* “Importer” means the person by whom, or for whose account, subject merchandise is imported.

(28)*Indirect tax.* “Indirect tax” means a sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory, or equipment tax, a border tax, or any other tax other than a direct tax or an import charge.

(29)*Interested party.* For the purpose of submitting an application for APO access (Form ITA-367), “Interested Party” means:

(i)A foreign manufacturer, producer, or exporter of subject merchandise,

(ii)the United States importer of subject merchandise,

(iii)a trade or business association a majority of the members of which are producers, exporters, or importers of subject merchandise,

(iv)the government of a country in which subject merchandise is produced or manufactured or from which such merchandise is exported,

(v)a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like product,

(vi)a certified union or recognized union or group of workers which is representative of an industry engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale in the United States of a domestic like product,

(vii)a trade or business association a majority of whose members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like product in the United States,

(viii)an association, a majority of whose members is composed of interested parties described in subparagraph (C), (D), or

(E)of section 771(9) of the Act with respect to a domestic like product, and

(ix)a coalition or trade association as described in section 771(9)(G) of the Act.

(30)*Investigation.* Under the Act and this Part, there is a distinction between an antidumping or countervailing duty investigation and a proceeding. An “investigation” is that segment of a proceeding that begins on the date of publication of notice of initiation of investigation and ends on the date of publication of the earliest of:

(i)Notice of termination of investigation,

(ii)Notice of rescission of investigation,

(iii)Notice of a negative determination that has the effect of terminating the proceeding, or

(iv)An order.

(31)*Loan.* “Loan” means a loan or other form of debt financing, such as a bond.

(32)*Long-term loan.* “Long-term loan” means a loan, the terms of repayment for which are greater than one year.

(33)*New shipper review.* “New shipper review” means a review under section 751(a)(2) of the Act.

(34)*Order.* An “order” is an order issued by the Secretary under section 303, section 706, or section 736 of the Act or a finding under the Antidumping Act, 1921.

(35)*Ordinary course of trade.* “Ordinary course of trade” has the same meaning as in section 771(15) of the Act. The Secretary may consider sales or transactions to be outside the ordinary course of trade if the Secretary determines, based on an evaluation of all of the circumstances particular to the sales in question, that such sales or transactions have characteristics that are extraordinary for the market in question. Examples of sales that the Secretary might consider as being outside the ordinary course of trade are sales or transactions involving off-quality merchandise or merchandise produced according to unusual product specifications, merchandise sold at aberrational prices or with abnormally high profits, merchandise sold pursuant to unusual terms of sale, or merchandise sold to an affiliated party at a non-arm's length price.

(36)*Party to the proceeding.* “Party to the proceeding” means any interested party that actively participates, through written submissions of factual information or written argument, in a segment of a proceeding. Participation in a prior segment of a proceeding will not confer on any interested party “party to the proceeding” status in a subsequent segment.

(37)*Person.* “Person” includes any interested party as well as any other individual, enterprise, or entity, as appropriate.

(38)*Price adjustment.* “Price adjustment” means any change in the price charged for subject merchandise or the foreign like product, such as discounts, rebates and post-sale price adjustments, that are reflected in the purchaser's net outlay.

(39)*Prior-stage indirect tax.* “Prior-stage indirect tax” means an indirect tax levied on goods or services used directly or indirectly in making a product.

(40)*Proceeding.* A “proceeding” begins on the date of the filing of a petition under section 702(b) or section 732(b) of the Act or the publication of a notice of initiation in a self-initiated investigation under section 702(a) or section 732(a) of the Act, and ends on the date of publication of the earliest notice of:

(i)Dismissal of petition,

(ii)Rescission of initiation,

(iii)Termination of investigation,

(iv)A negative determination that has the effect of terminating the proceeding,

(v)Revocation of an order, or

(vi)Termination of a suspended investigation.

(41)*Rates.* “Rates” means the individual weighted-average dumping margins, the individual countervailable subsidy rates, the country-wide subsidy rate, or the all-others rate, as applicable.

(42)*Respondent interested party.* “Respondent interested party” means an interested party described in subparagraph

(A)or

(B)of section 771(9) of the Act.

(43)*Sale.* A “sale” includes a contract to sell and a lease that is equivalent to a sale.

(44)*Secretary.* “Secretary” means the Secretary of Commerce or a designee. The Secretary has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration the authority to make determinations under title VII of the Act and this Part.

(45)*Section 753 review.* “Section 753 review” means a review under section 753 of the Act.

(46)*Section 762 review.* “Section 762 review” means a review under section 762 of the Act.

(47)*Segment of proceeding.*

(i)*In general.* An antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding consists of one or more segments. “Segment of a proceeding” or “segment of the proceeding” refers to a portion of the proceeding that is reviewable under section 516A of the Act.

(ii)*Examples.* An antidumping or countervailing duty investigation or a review of an order or suspended investigation, or a scope inquiry under § 351.225, each would constitute a segment of a proceeding.

(48)*Short-term loan.* “Short-term loan” means a loan, the terms of repayment for which are one year or less.

(49)*Sunset review.* “Sunset review” means a review under section 751(c) of the Act.

(50)*Suspension of liquidation.* “Suspension of liquidation” refers to a suspension of liquidation ordered by the Secretary under the authority of title VII of the Act, the provisions of this Part, or section 516a(g)(5)(C) of the Act, or by a court of the United States in a lawsuit involving action taken, or not taken, by the Secretary under title VII of the Act or the provisions of this Part.

(51)*Third country.* For purposes of subpart D, “third country” means a country other than the exporting country and the United States. Under section 773(a) of the Act and subpart D, in certain circumstances the Secretary may determine normal value on the basis of sales to a third country.

(52)*URAA.* “URAA” means the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. 3. Section 351.103 is revised as follows: § 351.103 Central Records Unit and Administrative Protective Order and Dockets Unit.

(a)Import Administration's Central Records Unit maintains a Public File Room in Room B-099, U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The office hours of the Public File Room are between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. Among other things, the Central Records Unit is responsible for maintaining an official and public record for each antidumping and countervailing duty proceeding (see § 351.104), and the Subsidies Library (see section 775(2) and section 777(a)(1) of the Act).

(b)Import Administration's Administrative Protective Order and Dockets Unit (APO/Dockets Unit) is located in Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The office hours of the APO/Dockets Unit are between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. Among other things, the APO/Dockets Unit is responsible for receiving submissions from interested parties, issuing administrative protective orders (APOs), maintaining the APO service list and the public service list as provided for in paragraph

(d)of this section, releasing business proprietary information under APO, and conducting APO violation investigations. The APO/Dockets Unit also is the contact point for questions and concerns regarding claims for business proprietary treatment of information and proper public versions of submissions under § 351.105 and § 351.304.

(c)*Filing of documents with the Department.* While persons are free to provide Department officials with courtesy copies of documents, no document will be considered as having been received by the Secretary unless it is submitted to the Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit in Room 1870 and is stamped with the date, and where necessary the time, of receipt.

(d)*Service list.* The APO/Dockets Unit will maintain and make available a public service list for each segment of a proceeding. The service list for an application for a scope ruling is described in § 351.225(n).

(1)To be included on the public service list for a particular segment, each interested party must file a letter of appearance. The letter of appearance must identify the name of the interested party, how that party qualifies as an interested party, and the name of the firm, if any, representing the interested party in this segment of the proceeding. The letter of appearance must be filed separately from any other document filed with the Department. If the interested party is a coalition or association as defined in subparagraph (A), (E),

(F)or

(G)of section 771(9) of the Act, the letter of appearance must identify all of the members of the coalition or association.

(2)Each interested party that asks to be included on the public service list for a segment of a proceeding must designate a person to receive service of documents filed in that segment. 4. Amend § 351.204 by adding paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: § 351.204 Time periods and persons examined; voluntary respondents; exclusions.

(d)* * *

(4)*Requests for voluntary respondent treatment.* An interested party seeking treatment as a voluntary respondent must so indicate by including as a title on the first page of the first submission, “Request for Voluntary Respondent Treatment.” 5. Revise paragraph

(b)of section 351.303 as follows: § 351.303 Filing, format, translation, service, and certification of documents.

(b)*Where to file; time of filing.* Persons must address and submit all documents to the Secretary of Commerce, Attention: Import Administration, APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days (see § 351.103(b)). If the applicable time limit expires on a non-business day, the Secretary will accept documents that are filed on the next business day. 6. Section 351.305 is amended by revising paragraphs

(a)introductory text and (b)(3) and by adding paragraphs (b)(4) and

(d)to read as follows: § 351.305 Access to business proprietary information.

(a)*The administrative protective order.* The Secretary will place an administrative protective order on the record within two business days after the day on which a petition is filed or an investigation is self-initiated, within five business days after the day on which a request for a new shipper review is properly filed in accordance with § 351.214 and § 351.303 or an application for a scope ruling is properly filed in accordance with § 351.225 and § 351.303, within five business days after the day on which a request for a changed circumstances review is properly filed in accordance with § 351.216 and § 351.303 or a changed circumstances review is self-initiated, or five business days after initiating any other segment of a proceeding. The administrative protective order will require the authorized applicant to:

(b)* * *

(3)With respect to proprietary information submitted to the Secretary on or before the date on which the Secretary grants access to a qualified applicant, except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, within two business days the submitting party shall serve the party which has been granted access, in accordance with paragraph

(c)of this section.

(4)To minimize the disruption caused by late applications, an application should be filed before the first questionnaire response has been submitted. Where justified, however, applications may be filed up to the date on which the case briefs are due, but any applicant filing after the first questionnaire response is submitted will be liable for costs associated with the additional production and service of business proprietary information already on the record. Parties have five business days to serve their business proprietary information already on the record to a party who has filed an application after the submission of the first questionnaire response and is authorized to receive such information after such information has been placed on the record.

(d)*Additional filing requirements for importers.* If an applicant represents a party claiming to be an interested party by virtue of being an importer, then the applicant shall submit, along with the Form ITA-367, documentary evidence demonstrating that the party imports merchandise either subject to the antidumping or countervailing duty order, or subject to a scope inquiry. Note: The following form will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P EP08JA07.000 EP08JA07.001 EP08JA07.002 EP08JA07.003 EP08JA07.004 EP08JA07.005 [FR Doc. 06-9969 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 27

Traces to 27 documents

CFR