Unknown. Notice of effective date

33,347 words·~152 min read·/register/2007/01/29/07-351

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-01-29.xml --- 72 18 Monday, January 29, 2007 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Food and Nutrition Service See Forest Service Army Army Department See Engineers Corps Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4014-4015 07-343 Commerce Commerce Department See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration CITA Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements NOTICES Textile and apparel categories:

Sub-Saharan African countries; import limitations, 3979-3980 07-350 Defense Defense Department See Engineers Corps See Navy Department Defense Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 3990-3991 07-385 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Registration revocations, restrictions, denials, reinstatements: Dariah, Gerald E., M.D., 4031-4032 E7-1320 Heldman, Stephen J., 4032-4035 E7-1326 Lewis, Rose Mary Jacinta, M.D., 4035-4042 E7-1318 Wild West Wholesale, 4042-4045 E7-1316 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-1343 3991-3993 E7-1344 E7-1354 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Postsecondary education— American Overseas Research Centers Program, 3993-3996 07-354 Strengthening Institutions Program, 3996-3997 E7-1352 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Rural Industrialization Loan and Grant Program; compliance certification requests, 4046 E7-1350 Energy Energy Department See Energy Information Administration See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Energy Energy Information Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 3997 E7-1319 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Meetings:

Estuary Habitat Restoration Council, 3980 07-349 EPA Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: State underground storage tank programs— Financial responsibility and installer certification grant guidelines, 4004-4007 E7-1341 Public record grant guidelines, 3997-4003 E7-1340 Meetings: Environmental Policy and Technology National Advisory Council, 4007-4008 E7-1335 Farm Farm Credit Administration RULES Privacy and security information regulations, etc.; amendments; effective date, 3925 E7-1328 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:

Airbus, 3925-3928 E7-1198 Boeing, 3930-3936, 3939-3942 E7-1203 E7-1211 E7-1212 Bombardier, 3928-3930 E7-1200 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co., 3936-3939 E7-1218 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Boeing, 3956-3958 E7-1321 FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4045-4046 E7-1358 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Standards of conduct: Natural gas pipeline transmission providers, 3958-3974 E7-1118 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies:

Change in bank control, 4008 E7-1293 Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, E7-1292 4008 E7-1332 Permissible nonbanking activities, 4009 E7-1331 FTC Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Prohibited trade practices: Hospira, Inc. and Mayne Pharma Limited, 4009-4011 E7-1291 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Comprehensive conservation plans; availability, etc.: Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, FL, 4017-4018 07-347 Endangered and threatened species: Maryland darter, etc.; 5-year review, 4018-4019 E7-1315 Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges, OR and WA; comprehensive conservation plan; public meetings, 4019-4020 E7-1395 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, CA; comprehensive conservation plan, 4020-4021 E7-1327 Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, OR; comprehensive conservation plan, 4021-4022 E7-1323 Food Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Child nutrition programs: Summer Food Service Program— Reimbursement rates, 3975-3976 07-346 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 3976-3977 E7-1311 E7-1312 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 07-355 4022-4023 07-377 Government Government Ethics Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4012-4013 E7-1317 Health Health and Human Services Department See Children and Families Administration NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Smallpox countermeasures; declaration regarding administration; extension, 4013-4014 07-348 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-1353 4015-4017 E7-1355 E7-1356 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4023-4024 E7-1294 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES National security industrial base regulations:

Defense priorities and allocations system regulation; technical corrections, 3943-3946 E7-1336 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Geological Survey See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service See National Park Service IRS Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-1297 4059-4065 E7-1299 E7-1300 E7-1301 E7-1302 E7-1303 E7-1304 E7-1305 E7-1306 E7-1307 International International Trade Administration NOTICES North American Free-Trade Agreements (NAFTA); binational panel reviews:

Stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from— Mexico, 3977-3978 E7-1298 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration See Federal Bureau of Investigation Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Resource Advisory Councils— Northwest California, 4024 E7-1296 Southeast Oregon, 4024 E7-1324 Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, 4025 E7-1322 Legal Legal Services Corporation RULES Client grievance procedures, 3946-3955 E7-1290 Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4025-4030 E7-1288 E7-1289 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings:

Humanities Panel, 4046-4047 E7-1308 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic resources, 3955 07-351 NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: National Estuarine Research Reserve System Social Science Fellowships, 3978-3979 E7-1314 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places; pending nominations, 4030-4031 E7-1295 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings;

Sunshine Act, 4047 E7-1339 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel, 3980 E7-1325 Privacy Act; systems of records, E7-1329 3981-3990 E7-1330 E7-1333 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 4048-4049 E7-1345 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp., 4048 E7-1346 Postal Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings;

Sunshine Act, 4049 07-405 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Securities: Proxy materials; internet availability, 4148-4173 07-327 PROPOSED RULES Securities: Proxy materials; universal Internet availability, 4176-4188 E7-1184 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Early Identification and Intervention Demonstrations Program, 4049-4059 E7-1347 State State Department NOTICES Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Convention:

Antarctic fishing conservation, management measures, and resolutions; U.S. obligations, 4068-4146 07-266 Textile Textile Agreements Implementation Committee See Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration RULES Economic regulations: Domestic baggage liability; minimum limit increase, 3942-3943 E7-1101 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings:

Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee, 4065 07-352 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II State Department, 4068-4146 07-266 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 4148-4173 07-327 Part IV Securities and Exchange Commission, 4176-4188 E7-1184 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 18 Monday, January 29, 2007 Rules and Regulations FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Parts 603, 605, 608, and 611 RIN 3052-AC34 Privacy Act Regulations;

Information; Collection of Claims Owed the United States; Organization; Privacy and Security Information; Effective Date AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. ACTION: Notice of effective date. SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration

(FCA)published a final rule under parts 603, 605, 608, and 611 on September 20, 2006 (71 FR 54899). This final rule updates and amends the regulations regarding privacy and security information and other matters. This action was taken to correct certain citations in the regulations and to conform the regulations to Executive order 13292. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule is 30 days from the date of publication in the **Federal Register** during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Based on the records of the sessions of Congress, the effective date of the regulations is January 23, 2007. Effective Date: The regulation amending 12 CFR parts 603, 605, 608, and 611, published on September 20, 2006 (71 FR 54899) is effective January 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Wilson, Policy Analyst, Office of Policy and Analysis, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,

(703)883-4498, TTY

(703)883-4434; or Bob Taylor, Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,

(703)883-4020, TTY

(703)883-4020. (12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(9) and (10)) Dated: January 23, 2007. Roland E. Smith, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. E7-1328 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26047; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-146-AD; Amendment 39-14906; AD 2007-02-19] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-605R Airplanes and Model A310-308, -324, and -325 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-605R airplanes and Model A310-308, -324, and -325 airplanes. This AD requires modifying the Bruce floor plan electrical emergency path marking system (FPEEPMS) and, for certain airplanes, modifying the automatic switching of the emergency lighting system. This AD results from a report that in the case of vertical separation of the fuselage forward of door 1, the FPEEPMS and the exit signs do not turn on. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadequate lighting and marking of the escape path, which could delay or impede the flightcrew and passengers when exiting the airplane during an emergency landing. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1622; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-605R airplanes and Model A310-308, -324, and -325 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 12, 2006 (71 FR 60089). That NPRM proposed to require modifying the Bruce floor plan electrical emergency path marking system (FPEEPMS) and, for certain airplanes, modifying the automatic switching of the emergency lighting system. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Change Incorporation of Certain Information The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the **Federal Register** needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals; traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA adds that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument and published in the DMS. We understand MARPA's comment concerning incorporation by reference. The Office of the Federal Register

(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment. Request To Add FAA Intent To Incorporate Certain Service Bulletins by Reference in the NPRM MARPA requests that, during the NPRM stage of AD rulemaking, the FAA state its intent to incorporate by reference

(IBR)any relevant service information. MARPA states that without such a statement in the NPRM, it is unclear whether the relevant service information will be incorporated by reference in the final rule. The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. When we reference certain service information in a proposed AD, the public can assume we intend to IBR that service information, as required by the Office of the **Federal Register** . No change to this final rule is necessary in regard to the commenter's request. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for the U.S. operator to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost Modification of FPEEPMS Between 44 and 47 $80 Between $2,570 and $2,690 Between $6,090 and $6,450 1 Between $6,090 and $6,450. Modification of automatic switching 14 80 Between $534 and $727 Between $1,654 and $1,847 1 Between $1,654 and $1,847. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-02-19 Airbus:** Amendment 39-14906. Docket No. FAA-2006-26047; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-146-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-605R airplanes and Model A310-308, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category; on which Airbus Modification 06810 or 06934 (Bruce floor proximity emergency escape path marking system (FPEEPMS)) has been installed in production; or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-33-6047 or A310-33-2045, both dated March 5, 2004, has been done. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that in the case of vertical separation of the fuselage forward of door 1, the FPEEPMS and the exit signs do not turn on. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadequate lighting and marking of the escape path, which could delay or impede the flightcrew and passengers when exiting the airplane during an emergency 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 16 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the Bruce FPEEPMS in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-33-6047, Revision 01, dated January 20, 2006 (for Model A300 B4-605R airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2045, Revision 01, dated January 20, 2006 (for Model A310-308, -324, and -325 airplanes); as applicable.

(g)For Model A310-308, -324, and -325 airplanes: Prior to or concurrently with the modification required in paragraph

(f)of this AD, modify the automatic switching of the emergency lighting system in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2025, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2001. Modifications Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

(h)Modifications accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-33-2025, dated March 1, 1993, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(j)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0077, dated April 3, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(k)You must use the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level Date A300-33-6047 01 January 20, 2006. A310-33-2025 01 April 17, 2001. A310-33-2045 01 January 20, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1198 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25904; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-077-AD; Amendment 39-14883; AD 2007-01-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, -200, and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, -200, and -300 series airplanes. That AD currently requires modification of the flight compartment door; repetitive inspections for wear of the flight compartment door hinges following modification; and repair or replacement of the hinges with new hinges if necessary. This new AD requires using revised procedures for modifying and inspecting the flight compartment door and reduces the applicability of the existing AD. This AD results from a determination that certain cockpit doors are no longer subject to the existing requirements. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the alternate release mechanism of the flight compartment door, which could delay or impede the evacuation of the flightcrew during an emergency. This failure also could result in the flightcrew not being able to assist passengers in the event of an emergency. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 5, 2007. On May 12, 1999 (64 FR 16803, April 7, 1999), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-52-39, Revision ‘C,’ dated September 1, 1997; and Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-52-39, Revision ‘D,’ dated February 27, 1998. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for service information identified in this 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: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 99-08-04, amendment 39-11109 (64 FR 16803, April 7, 1999). The existing AD applies to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, -200, and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56070). That NPRM proposed to continue to require modification of the flight compartment door; repetitive inspections for wear of the flight compartment door hinges following modification; and repair or replacement of the hinges with new hinges if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require using revised procedures for modifying and inspecting the flight compartment door and to reduce the applicability of the existing AD. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. Request To Publish Service Information/Incorporate by Reference in NPRM The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that ADs are based on service information that originates from the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer's service documents are privately authored instruments, generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. When a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an AD, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA notes that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated by reference. MARPA believes that public laws, by definition, should be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings for compliance. MARPA adds that the legal interpretation of a document is a question of law, not of fact; therefore, unless the service document is incorporated by reference, it cannot be considered. MARPA is concerned that failure to incorporate essential service information could result in a court decision invalidating the AD. MARPA points out that in another AD issued from a Directorate other than the Transport Airplane Directorate, the FAA advised that documents are not incorporated by reference into proposed actions; only in final actions. MARPA can point to hundreds, if not thousands, of final rules where the documents were not incorporated by reference-either intentionally or by oversight. MARPA can also provide hundreds of references where the incorporation by reference text has been included in the proposed rule; thus there does not seem to be a consistent policy from action to action and across all Directorates on how to handle this issue. MARPA also states that service documents incorporated by reference should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates those documents. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the **Federal Register** needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals. MARPA adds that, traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that, a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing, and/or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA notes that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument and published in DMS. In conclusion, MARPA notes that “looking at” a policy or procedure is not exactly the same as implementing it. Therefore, MARPA will continue to comment and request until such time as a decision has been implemented. We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register

(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for the accomplishment of the actions required by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. In regard to MARPA's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment. Clarification of Paragraph

(h)of This AD We have changed paragraph

(h)of this AD to clarify that the modification required by paragraph

(f)of this AD is included in the inspection requirements in paragraph (h). Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 167 airplanes of U.S. registry. The new actions of this AD add no additional economic burden. The current costs for this AD are repeated for the convenience of affected operators, as follows: The modification takes about 4 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The manufacturer states that it will supply required parts to the operators at no cost. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the modification is $53,440, or $320 per airplane. The inspection takes about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspection is $26,720, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-11109 (64 FR 16803, April 7, 1999) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-01-11 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Amendment 39-14883. Docket No. FAA-2006-25904; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-077-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 99-08-04. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, -200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with a flight compartment door installation having part number (P/N) 82510074-(*), 82510294-(*), 82510310-001, 8Z4597-001, H85250010-(*), 82510700-(*), or 82510704-(*); except P/Ns 82510704-502 and 82510704-503. Note 1: (*) denotes all dash numbers. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a determination that certain cockpit doors are no longer subject to the existing requirements. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the alternate release mechanism of the flight compartment door, which could delay or impede the evacuation of the flightcrew during an emergency. This failure also could result in the flightcrew not being able to assist passengers in the event of an emergency. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of Ad 99-08-04 With Revised Procedures Modification

(f)Except as required by paragraph

(g)of this AD: Within 90 days after May 12, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-08-04), modify the lower hinge assembly and main door latch (Modification 8/2337) of the flight compartment door, in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-52-39, Revision ‘D,’ dated February 27, 1998; or Revision ‘H,’ dated September 9, 2004. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision ‘H’ may be used for accomplishing the modification.

(g)For airplanes on which the modification required by paragraph

(f)of this AD was done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-52-39, dated August 30, 1996; or Revision ‘A,’ dated October 31, 1996: Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, do the modification required by paragraph

(f)of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-52-39, Revision ‘H,’ dated September 9, 2004. Inspection

(h)Within 800 flight hours after doing the modification required by paragraph

(f)or

(g)of this AD, as applicable: Inspect the hinge areas around the hinge pin holes of the flight compartment door for wear in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-52-39, Revision ‘D,’ dated February 27, 1998; or Revision ‘H,’ dated September 9, 2004. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision ‘H’ may be used for accomplishing the inspection.

(1)If no wear is detected, or if the wear is less than or equal to 0.020 inch in depth, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 flight hours.

(2)If any wear is detected and its dimension around the hinge pin holes is less than 0.050 inch and greater than 0.020 inch in depth, prior to further flight, perform the applicable corrective actions specified in the service bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 flight hours.

(3)If any wear is detected and its dimension around the hinge pin holes is greater than or equal to 0.050 inch in depth, prior to further flight, replace the worn hinges with new hinges in accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 flight hours. Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously

(i)Modifications and inspections done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-52-39, Revision ‘B,’ dated July 4, 1997; Revision ‘C,’ dated August 1, 1997; Revision ‘E,’ dated May 10, 1999; Revision ‘F,’ dated February 4, 2000; or Revision ‘G,’ dated May 17, 2001; are considered acceptable for compliance with the modification and inspections required by this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 99-08-04 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and

(i)of this AD.

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

(k)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-1996-20R4, dated August 10, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(l)You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-52-39, Revision ‘D,’ dated February 27, 1998; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-52-39, Revision ‘H,’ dated September 9, 2004; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-52-39, Revision ‘H,’ dated September 9, 2004, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)On May 12, 1999 (64 FR 16803, April 7, 1999), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-52-39, Revision ‘D,’ dated February 27, 1998.

(3)Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 26, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1200 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25205; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-071-AD; Amendment 39-14905; AD 2007-02-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. That AD currently requires an inspection of visually accessible areas for indications of overheating of the heater tape attached to the potable water fill and drain lines in the forward and aft cargo compartments, exposed foam insulation or missing or damaged protective tape around the potable water fill and drain lines, and debris or contaminants on or near the potable water fill and drain lines. That AD also requires corrective action, as necessary. This new AD requires repetitive inspections of the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, for discrepancies of the potable water supply and gray water drain lines; and applicable corrective actions if necessary. This AD also requires replacing the heater tapes on the potable water supply and gray water drain lines of the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, with new ribbon heaters, or deactivating and removing any defective heater tape and wrapping the drain line with foam insulation; either action ends the repetitive inspections. This AD results from a report of a fire in the aft cargo compartment. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of the heater tape on potable water fill and drain lines, which may ignite accumulated debris or contaminants on or near the potable water fill and drain lines, resulting in a fire in the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Eiford, 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)917-6465; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2002-11-11, amendment 39-12772 (67 FR 39265, June 7, 2002). The existing AD applies to certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on June 30, 2006 (71 FR 37507). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, for discrepancies of the potable water supply and gray water drain lines; and applicable corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require replacing the heater tapes on the potable water supply and gray water drain lines of the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, with new ribbon heaters, which would end the repetitive inspections. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. Request To Permit Alternative Method of Compliance Boeing requests that we permit an alternative method of compliance for the terminating action described in the NPRM. Boeing states that Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 2, dated February 23, 2006, describes procedures for deactivating and removing the heater tapes of certain gray water drain lines and wrapping the drain lines with foam insulation. Boeing therefore requests that we revise the summary and paragraph (h), Terminating Action, of the NPRM to state that the alternative action described here is acceptable as a terminating action for the requirements of the AD. We agree for the reasons stated. Accordingly, we have revised the summary of the AD, revised paragraph

(h)of the AD to include new paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2), and removed paragraph identifiers

(1)and

(2)from Table 2 of the AD. We have also revised the Costs of Compliance section of the AD to present the estimated costs for deactivation and removal of the heating tapes and installation of foam insulation. These actions neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Request To Clarify Costs of Compliance Boeing requests that we clarify the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM. Boeing states that the Estimated Costs table is not clear and asserts that the time estimated for performing the inspections should be “2 or 3” work hours. Boeing further asserts that Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038 specifies “between 4.75 and 11 work hours” to perform the heater tape replacements. Although Boeing made no specific request, we infer that Boeing wishes us to revise the Costs of Compliance section to more closely reflect the estimated costs specified in the service bulletin. We partially agree. We concur that the time estimated for performing the inspections should be 2 or 3 work hours, as shown in the Estimated Costs table. However, the statement that “between 4.75 and 11 work hours” are required to replace the heater tapes does not accurately reflect the service information we have reviewed. The service bulletin provides an estimate of between 4.75 and 11 work hours to gain access, perform inspections, replacements and tests, and close access. Typically, the costs specified in an AD are only the direct costs of the specific actions required by the AD. Therefore, the figures shown in the Estimated Costs table of this AD do not include the time to gain and close access or perform testing. Further, the remaining work hours specified to do the direct actions are divided into two parts: one part to perform the inspections and one part to replace the ribbon heater or to remove the heater and install foam insulation. We have made no changes to the AD in regard to these comments. Comment Regarding Applicability A private citizen states that the NPRM does not apply to Model 767 freighter airplanes. We agree. The AD does not apply to Model 767-300F or -400ER series airplanes (freighters), but only to Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, as stated in the NPRM. No change is needed to the AD in this regard. Request for Posting of Service Information The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA), requests that we revise our procedures for incorporation by reference

(IBR)of service information in ADs. MARPA states that, as an AD is a public regulatory instrument, it can not rely upon private writings. MARPA asserts that such IBR documents lose any proprietary, protected status they originally had and become public documents and, therefore, that they must be published in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA addresses the stated purpose of the **Federal Register** IBR method, brevity, which is intended to relieve the **Federal Register** of needlessly publishing documents already supplied to affected individuals: owners and operators of affected aircraft. MARPA asserts that “affected individuals” are no longer merely owners and operators, but, since most aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops, that a new class of affected individuals has emerged. This new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under 14 CFR 21.303 (PMA). Further, MARPA contends that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as most documents are kept in electronic files. MARPA therefore requests that IBR documents be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument and posted in the DMS docket for the applicable AD. We acknowledge MARPA's comments. The Office of the Federal Register

(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. In regard to MARPA's request to post service documents on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service documents on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment. Request for Standardized Directorate Policies MARPA requests standardized directorate policies, asserting that another directorate has already given a blanket parts manufacturer approval

(PMA)by stating in published rules that “FAA-approved equivalent parts” may be used. MARPA contends that, by not using similar language, we are not in compliance with Executive Order 12866 or proposed FAA order 8040.2. MARPA asserts that for us to not include similar blanket language at the earliest possible time could work to our disadvantage legally. We recognize the need for standardization on this issue and currently are in the process of reviewing issues that address PMAs at the national level. However, the Transport Airplane Directorate considers that to delay this particular AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, no change has been made to the final rule in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 455 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours 1 Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane 1 Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost 2 Inspections 2 or 3 $80 None $160 or $240, per inspection cycle 83 Between $13,280 and $19,920, per inspection cycle. Deactivation/installation of insulation 1 80 None $80 Up to 83 Up to $6,640. Replacement Between 1 and 3 80 $8,000 Between $8,080 and $8,240 83 Up to $683,920. 1 Depending on airplane configuration. 2 Depending on fleet configuration. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-12772 (67 FR 39265, June 7, 2002) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-02-18 Boeing:** Amendment 39-14905. Docket No. FAA-2006-25205; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-071-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2002-11-11. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 2, dated February 23, 2006. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD: An open cargo floor configuration, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, is a floor without panels installed between all roller trays in the cargo compartment. A closed cargo floor configuration, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, is a floor with panels installed between all roller trays in the cargo compartment. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of a fire in the aft cargo compartment. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of the heater tape on potable water fill and drain lines, which may ignite accumulated debris or contaminants on or near the potable water fill and drain lines, resulting in a fire in the airplane. Compliance

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

(f)Within 18 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later: Do the actions in Table 1 of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 2, dated February 23, 2006. Table 1.—Inspections Do a general visual inspection of the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, for— And, repeat at intervals not to exceed— Until the requirements of—

(1)Foreign object debris

(FOD)or contamination on, near, or around the potable water supply and gray water drain lines 600 flight hours Paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD are done.

(2)Indications of heat damage, exposed foam insulation, or missing or damaged protective tape of all heater tape on the potable water supply and gray water drain lines 1,800 flight hours Paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD are done. Corrective Actions

(g)If any discrepancy identified in Table 1 of this AD is found during any general visual inspection required by either paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, do the applicable corrective action by accomplishing all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 2, dated February 23, 2006. Terminating Action

(h)At the applicable compliance time specified in Table 2 of this AD: Perform the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 2, dated February 23, 2006. Accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD ends the requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD.

(1)Replace the heater tapes on the potable water supply and gray water drain lines of the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, with Adel Wiggins ribbon heaters.

(2)Deactivate and remove any defective heater tape(s) from the potable water supply and gray water drain line(s) of the forward and aft cargo compartments and wrap the drain line(s) with foam insulation. Table 2.—Compliance Time for Terminating Action For airplanes on which the heater tape— The compliance time is— Has not been replaced in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-30A0037, dated May 28, 2002; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0037, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2002; as of the effective date of this AD Within 42 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Has been replaced in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-30A0037, dated May 28, 2002; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0037, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2002; as of the effective date of this AD Within 42 months after replacing the heater tape, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Credit for Earlier Revisions of Service Bulletin

(i)For airplanes having variable number

(VN)VN471 and VN472: Actions done in the forward cargo compartment before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, dated December 16, 2004; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 1, dated September 29, 2005; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD for the forward cargo compartment only.

(j)For airplanes having VN VS704 through VS707 inclusive: Actions done in the forward cargo compartment before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 1, dated September 29, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD for the forward cargo compartment only.

(k)For airplanes other than those identified in paragraphs

(i)and

(j)of this AD: Actions done in the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, dated December 16, 2004; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 1, dated September 29, 2005; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(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.

(m)You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 2, dated February 23, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1211 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24410; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-261-AD; Amendment 39-14911; AD 2007-02-24] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Boeing Model 747 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the web of the station

(STA)2360 aft pressure bulkhead around the fastener heads in the critical fastener rows in the web lap joints, from the Y-chord to the inner ring; and repair if necessary. This AD also requires a modification, which terminates the repetitive inspections. This AD results from analysis by the manufacturer that the radial lap splices of the STA 2360 aft pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the bulkhead web at multiple sites along the radial lap splice, which could join together to form cracks of critical length, and result in rapid decompression and loss of control of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6437; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 747 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2006 (71 FR 18242). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the web of the station

(STA)2360 aft pressure bulkhead around the fastener heads in the critical fastener rows in the web lap joints, from the Y-chord to the inner ring; and repair if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require a modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Support for the NPRM Boeing supports the NPRM as written. Request To Postpone the AD Japan Airlines

(JAL)states that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2561, dated September 22, 2005 (which we referred to in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions), does not contain information for inspecting areas where a repair doubler has already been installed. JAL asks that we postpone issuing the AD until an inspection method for the repaired area is incorporated into the service bulletin. We disagree with the request to postpone the AD. The condition requiring repairs may be unique on each airplane. Therefore, approval of instructions for inspecting areas where a repair doubler has been installed may be obtained using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD. As an unsafe condition has been identified, it is not appropriate to delay issuing this AD for this reason. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Request To Add a Grace Period for Modification JAL also requests that we add an additional grace period to paragraph

(h)of the NPRM by adding the words “or 18 months after the issue of the modification service bulletin.” (The compliance time specified in that paragraph would then read: “Before the airplane accumulates 35,000 total flight cycles or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD or within 18 months after the issue of the modification service bulletin, whichever occurs later.”) The commenter states that the modification method is not yet available to operators. We disagree with the request to add an additional grace period. We have identified an unsafe condition that is associated with widespread fatigue damage (WFD). A modification within the compliance times specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD is necessary for the continued airworthiness of the airplane beyond 35,000 total flight cycles, and it is not appropriate to delay issuing this AD for these airplanes. Repetitive inspections alone will not ensure an acceptable level of safety for airplanes beyond 35,000 total flight cycles, considering the failure mechanism of WFD. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered these safety implications. In light of these items, we have determined that the grace period as written is appropriate. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Request To Clarify Paragraph

(f)Regarding Inspection of Radial Web Lap Joints The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, Northwest Airlines, requests that we clarify paragraph

(f)of the AD to specify that the radial web lap joints in areas common to the Y-ring outer chord are not included in the inspection area. Northwest Airlines explains that the non-destructive testing manual, referred to in Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2561, does not include an inspection of these areas. We agree with the request to clarify paragraph

(f)of the AD. The surface high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)inspection from the aft side of the bulkhead was not developed to detect cracks in the radial web lap joints in the area common to the Y-ring outer chord, which is on the aft side of the body station

(BS)2360 pressure bulkhead. Therefore, we have revised paragraph

(f)of the AD to state that it is not necessary to inspect the web lap joints in the areas common to the Y-ring outer chord. Request To Specify Alternative Method of Compliance

(AMOC)ATA, on behalf of one of its members, Northwest Airlines, states that the inspection in accordance with this AD should not be required in areas where production doublers and non-production doublers installed or inspected in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 747-53A2275 and/or 747-53A2482 cover the affected radial web lap joints. Northwest Airlines therefore requests that the inspections and corrective actions in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2275 (as mandated by AD 2000-15-08, amendment 39-11840 (65 FR 47255, August 2, 2000), and AD 90-06-06, amendment 39-6490 (55 FR 8374, March 7, 1990), be specified as AMOCs to the requirements of this AD. AD 2000-15-08 refers to various revisions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2275. AD 2004-16-09, amendment 39-13765 (69 FR 48133, August 9, 2004), refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002. AD 90-06-06, refers to Boeing document D6-35999, which refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53-2272, Revision 2, dated May 14, 1987, as a source of service information. We partially agree with the commenters. We agree that the inspections or modifications done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 747-53A2275 and 747-53A2482 may be acceptable as AMOCs for the inspections required by this AD. Those inspections or modifications mitigate unsafe conditions that are similar to those identified in this AD. We do not agree with specifying the inspections and corrective actions in accordance with those service bulletins as AMOCs for this AD. In this case, AMOCs must be substantiated and approved on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Clarification of Terminating Modification We have added a note after paragraph

(h)of the AD to state that as of the effective date of this AD, the manufacturer has not informed us of any intent to produce the required terminating modification; however, the regulations do not prevent others from doing so. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 949 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 153 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspections take about 11 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $134,640, or $880 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Because the manufacturer has not yet developed a modification that matches the actions specified by this AD, we cannot provide specific information regarding the required number of work hours or the cost of parts to do the required modification. In addition, modification costs will likely vary depending on the operator and the airplane configuration. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-02-24 Boeing:** Amendment 39-14911. Docket No. FAA-2006-24410; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-261-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from analysis by the manufacturer that the radial lap splices of the station

(STA)2360 aft pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the bulkhead web at multiple sites along the radial lap splice, which could join together to form cracks of critical length, and result in rapid decompression and loss of control of the airplane. Compliance

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

(f)Before the airplane accumulates 28,000 total flight cycles, or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a high-frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of the web of the STA 2360 aft pressure bulkhead around the fastener heads in the critical fastener rows in the web lap joints, from the Y-chord to the inner ring; in accordance with Part 2, “Access and Inspection,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2561, dated September 22, 2005. It is not necessary to inspect the web lap joints in the areas common to the Y-ring outer chord. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles until the modification in paragraph

(h)of this AD is done. Repair

(g)If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD: Before further flight, do the applicable action in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

(1)If the cracking is within certain limits specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2561, dated September 22, 2005 (referencing the structural repair manual), do the repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.

(2)If the cracking is more than certain limits specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2561, dated September 22, 2005, or if the alert service bulletin specifies to ask Boeing for repair data: Repair the cracking using a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD. Modification

(h)Before the airplane accumulates 35,000 total flight cycles or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Modify the aft pressure bulkhead using a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD. Doing this modification terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD. Note 1: As of the effective date of this AD, the manufacturer has not informed us of any intent to produce the required terminating modification; however, the regulations do not prevent others from doing so. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(j)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2561, dated September 22, 2005, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 19, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1212 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24777; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-19-AD; Amendment 39-14913; AD 2007-03-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Tay 611-8, Tay 620-15, Tay 650-15, and Tay 651-54 Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG

(RRD)Tay 611-8, Tay 620-15, Tay 650-15, and Tay 651-54 series turbofan engines, with certain low pressure

(LP)compressor modules installed. This AD requires an ultrasonic inspection

(UI)of LP compressor fan blades for cracks, within 30 days after the effective date of the AD on certain serial number

(SN)Tay 650-15 engines. This AD also requires initial and repetitive UIs of LP compressor fan blades on all engines. This AD also requires, for Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54 engines, UIs of LP compressor fan blades whenever the blade set is removed from one engine and installed on a different engine. This AD results from a report that a set of LP compressor fan blades failed before reaching the LP compressor fan blade full published life limit. We are issuing this AD to prevent LP compressor fan blades from failing due to blade root cracks, leading to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, D-15827 Dahlewitz, Germany; telephone 49

(0)33-7086-1768; fax 49

(0)33-7086-3356. You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone

(781)238-7747; fax

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to RRD Tay 611-8, Tay 620-15, Tay 650-15, and Tay 651-54 series turbofan engines, with certain low pressure

(LP)compressor modules installed. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on June 27, 2006 (71 FR 36493). That action proposed to require a UI of LP compressor fan blades for cracks, within 30 days after the effective date of the AD on certain serial number

(SN)Tay 650-15 engines. That action also proposed to require repetitive UIs of LP compressor fan blades on all engines. That action also proposed to require, for Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54 engines, UIs of LP compressor fan blades whenever the blade set is removed from one engine and installed on a different engine. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. RRD Request To Change Compliance Paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) RRD requests that we change the compliance schedule for Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54 engines in proposed AD paragraph (h)(1), from “at every shop visit for any reason or before reaching every 4,000 flight hours-since-last fan blade UI, whichever occurs first” to “at every engine shop visit for any reason or before reaching every 10,000 flight hours-since-last fan blade UI, whichever occurs first.” RRD also requests that we change the compliance schedule for Tay 620-15 engines in proposed AD paragraph (h)(2) from “before reaching every 8,000 flight hours but no later than every 10 years since-last-fan-blade UI, whichever occurs first” to “before reaching every 10,000 flight hours for airline operation, and before reaching 8,000 flight hours but no later than every 10 years since-last-fan-blade UI, whichever occurs first, for non-airline operation.” RRD bases these changes on their Engine Management Program. We agree with the intent of the requested changes to proposed AD paragraph (h)(1). We changed that paragraph, and added subparagraphs to clarify the initial inspection requirements in the AD. Regarding paragraph (h)(2), we do not agree with having different inspection schedules for airline and non-airline operations. However, we changed paragraph (h)(2) to paragraph (h)(2)(iii), to read “before reaching every 10,000 flight hours but no later than every 10 years since-last-fan-blade UI, whichever occurs first”. We feel that this drawdown schedule will take care of both low- and high-utilization of Tay 620-15 engines. Air Transport Association Request To Change Compliance Paragraph (h)(1) Air Transport Association

(ATA)requests that we change the compliance schedule in paragraph (h)(1) from “at every engine shop visit for any reason or before reaching every 4,000 flight hours-since-last fan blade UI, whichever occurs first” to “at every engine shop visit for any reason or before reaching every 12 years or 15,000 flight hours-since-last fan blade UI, whichever occurs first”. ATA states that this schedule is described in the Engine Management Program for Tay 651-54 engines installed in the Boeing 727 airplanes. We do not agree. The intent of proposed AD paragraph (h)(1) is to UI Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54 engines at all scheduled and unscheduled shop visits, using RRD SB No. TAY-72-1442, Revision 3, dated November 26, 2003. Also, the intent of the paragraph is to parallel the SB requirement of an initial UI within 3 months after the SB issue date. We did change paragraph

(h)and added subparagraphs as described under the first comment above. Request To Change Compliance Paragraph (h)(3) One commenter requests that we change the Tay 611-8 compliance schedule in proposed AD paragraph (h)(3). The commenter requests that we call out an initial UI inspection to be done at the next engine mid-life or overhaul inspection after the effective date of this AD. The commenter also requests that we call out repetitive UI inspections to be done before reaching every 8,000 flight hours but no later than every 10 years since-last-fan blade UI, whichever occurs first. These changes would prevent many airplanes from being immediately grounded, upon issuance of the AD. We agree with the commenter's intent. We changed and added paragraphs

(h)through (h)(2)(iii) to clarify the initial inspection requirements in the AD, and to incorporate the compliance schedule changes. Request To Add LP Compressor Fan Blade Part Numbers ATA requests that we include LP compressor fan blade part numbers in the AD. We agree and added the part numbers to the AD. Incorrect Supplemental Type Certificate

(STC)Number In paragraph

(c)of the proposed AD, STC number SA842SW is incorrect. That STC applies to a Cessna Model 414 airplane. We corrected the STC No. in paragraph

(c)of this AD to SA8472SW, which applies to a Boeing 727 airplane. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 1,000 RRD Tay 611-8, Tay 620-15, Tay 650-15, and Tay 651-54 series turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per engine to perform an inspection, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $95,000 per LP compressor fan disk and $140,000 per set of LP compressor fan blades. We estimate that 5 percent or 50 engines will require replacing the LP compressor fan disc and LP compressor fan blade set. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $11,750,000. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2007-03-02 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (formerly Rolls-Royce plc):** Amendment 39-14913. Docket No. FAA-2006-24777; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-19-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective March 5, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG

(RRD)Tay 611-8 and Tay 620-15 turbofan engines with low pressure

(LP)compressor module part number (P/N) MO1100AA or P/N MO1100AB installed, and Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54 turbofan engines with LP compressor module P/N MO1300AA or P/N MO1300AB installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Fokker F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, Boeing 727 airplanes modified in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate No. SA8472SW, and Gulfstream G-IV airplanes. The following P/N LP compressor fan blades are installed in these modules: Tay 611-8 LP compressor fan blade P/Ns Tay 620-15 LP compressor fan blade P/Ns Tay 650-15 LP compressor fan blade P/Ns Tay 651-54 LP compressor fan blade P/Ns JR30649 JR30649 JR31911 JR31911. JR31702 JR31702 JR31912 JR31912. JR31983 JR31983 JR35120 JR35120. JR33863 JR35121 JR35121. JR33864 JR33865 JR33866 Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that a set of LP compressor fan blades failed before reaching the LP compressor fan blade full published life limit. We are issuing this AD to prevent LP compressor fan blades from failing due to blade root cracks, leading to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. Compliance

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

(UI)of LP Compressor Fan Blades for Certain Tay 650-15 Engines That Have Not Yet Had UI of the LP Compressor Fan Blades

(f)For Tay 650-15 engines, serial numbers 17201, 17202, 17226, 17253, 17341, 17356, 17428, 17450, 17457, 17458, 17497, 17530, 17622, 17643, 17655, 17678, 17709, 17751, 17755, 17805, and 17806 that have not yet had UI of the LP compressor fan blades:

(1)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, perform UI of the LP compressor fan blades for cracks.

(2)Use Part 1 of RRD Service Bulletin

(SB)No. TAY-72-1591, dated May 8, 2003, to do the inspection. UI of LP Compressor Fan Blades Being Installed in a Different Engine; Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54 Engines

(g)For Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54 engines, whenever LP compressor fan blades are removed and are being installed in a different engine:

(1)Perform UI of the LP compressor fan blades for cracks.

(2)Use Part 1 of RRD SB No. TAY-72-1442, Revision 3, dated November 26, 2003, to do the inspection. UI of LP Compressor Fan Blades for All Tay Engines

(h)Perform UI of the LP compressor fan blades for cracks, using Part 2 of RRD SB No. TAY-72-1442, Revision 3, dated November 26, 2003, at the following:

(1)For Tay 650-15 and Tay 651-54 engines:

(i)Initial UI at next shop visit for any reason but no later than 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(ii)Repetitive UIs at every engine shop visit for any reason but before reaching every 10,000 flight hours-since-last fan blade UI, whichever occurs first.

(2)For Tay 611-8 and Tay 620-15 engines:

(i)Initial UI at next shop visit for engine mid-life inspection or overhaul, but no later than 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(ii)For Tay 611-8 engines, repetitive UIs before reaching every 8,000 flight hours but no later than every 10 years since-last-fan-blade UI, whichever occurs first.

(iii)For Tay 620-15 engines, repetitive UIs before reaching every 10,000 flight hours but no later than every 10 years since-last-fan-blade UI, whichever occurs first. LP Compressor Fan Blades That Are Cracked

(i)If any LP compressor fan blade is cracked, then remove the complete LP compressor fan blade set and the LP compressor fan disc from service. Alternative Methods of Compliance

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

(k)Luftfahrt-Bundesamt airworthiness directive D-1998-055R3, dated December 15, 2003, which was approved by EASA under approval No. 1869 on December 15, 2003, also addresses the subject of this AD.

(l)Contact Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone

(781)238-7747, fax

(781)238-7199; e-mail: *jason.yang@faa.gov* for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(m)You must use the Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG service information specified in Table 1 to perform the actions required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in Table 1 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, D-15827 Dahlewitz, Germany; telephone 49

(0)33-7086-1768; fax 49

(0)33-7086-3356 for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Table 1.—Incorporation by Reference Service Bulletin No. Page Revision Date TAY-72-1591, Total Pages: 8 All Original May 8, 2003. TAY-72-1442, Total Pages: 11 All 3 November 26, 2003. Appendix 1 of TAY-72-1442, Total Pages: 4 All 3 November 26, 2003. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 22, 2007. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1218 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25642; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-121-AD; Amendment 39-14912; AD 2007-03-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes. This AD requires inspecting certain power feeder wire bundles for damage, inspecting the support clamps for these wire bundles to determine whether the clamps are properly installed, and performing corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a report that a power feeder wire bundle chafed against the number six auxiliary slat track, causing electrical wires in the bundle to arc, which damaged both the auxiliary slat track and power feeder wires. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing that could be a possible ignition source for leaked flammable fluids, which could result in a fire. Arcing could also result in a loss of power from the generator connected to the power feeder wire bundle, and consequent loss of systems, which could reduce controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Sheridan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6441; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48493). That NPRM proposed to require inspecting certain power feeder wire bundles for damage, inspecting the support clamps for these wire bundles to determine whether the clamps are properly installed, and performing corrective actions if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Clarify Scope of Service Information Northwest Airlines

(NWA)states that the service bulletins referred to in the NPRM indicate that Boeing technical publication revisions are not required to support the referenced modification. NWA adds that, typically, wire bundle installations are not detailed in Boeing technical publications; wire bundles are installed and maintained in accordance with the Boeing standard wiring practices manual (SWPM). NWA notes that the addition of spacers and rivets to wire bundle support brackets is not supported by Boeing technical publications. NWA adds that this burdens operators with the cost of developing their own system of maintaining the required configuration for continued compliance with the AD. We infer that the commenter is asking for clarification of the scope of the referenced service information regarding related technical publications. Regarding the comment on adding spacers and rivets, the spacers should already have been installed, and the purpose of the rivets is to ensure that the clamp cannot be bolted into the incorrect hole; the rivets and spacers are not used to support the wire bundle bracket. After the rivets and spacers are installed there should be no further maintenance necessary; therefore, compliance with the actions specified in the service information meets the requirements of this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Request To Use Minimum Equipment List

(MEL)in Lieu of Repair NWA asks that paragraph

(g)of the NPRM be changed to allow flight using the MEL of the system rather than require repair prior to further flight. NWA states that the compliance time specified in paragraph

(g)of the NPRM, and the referenced service bulletins, requires that the wire bundles be repaired as necessary per Boeing SWPM, Chapter 20-10-13, before further flight. NWA adds that the integrated drive generator

(IDG)MEL and deviation dispatch guide (DDG), which disconnects the IDG, could be safely applied if the conditions found required significant repairs. NWA notes that operators could use the limited MEL time for repair planning and scheduling. We do not agree with the commenter. Disabling an essential system and then dispatching under the MEL is not an acceptable alternative method of compliance. The MEL is provided for unexpected failures of systems, and is not a substitute for proper planning to ensure timely compliance with ADs. Request To Publish Service Information/Incorporate by Reference in NPRM The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that ADs are based on service information that originates from the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer's service documents are privately authored instruments, generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA states that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an AD, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA notes that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated by reference. MARPA believes that public laws, by definition, should be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings for compliance. MARPA adds that the legal interpretation of a document is a question of law, not of fact; therefore, unless the service document is incorporated by reference it cannot be considered. MARPA is concerned that failure to incorporate essential service information could result in a court decision invalidating the AD. MARPA also states that service documents incorporated by reference should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates those documents. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the **Federal Register** needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals. MARPA adds that, traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing, and/or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA notes that distribution to owners may, when the owner is a financing or leasing institution, not actually reach the people responsible for accomplishing the AD. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument and published in DMS. We understand the commenter's concern. The Office of the **Federal Register**

(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This AD incorporates by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, as noted by the commenter, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. In regard to MARPA's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the AD is necessary in response to this comment. Request To Change Costs of Compliance Section NWA asks that we change the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM. NWA states that the NPRM specifies that the proposed actions would require 2 work hours per airplane. NWA adds that this is inconsistent with the work hours given in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 2, dated April 20, 2006 (referred to in the NPRM as one source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions). The service bulletin specifies 8 work hours for Group 1 airplanes and 7.5 work hours for Group 2 airplanes. We do not agree to increase the work hours required to do the inspections. The costs of compliance that are discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. In this case, the only actions required by the AD for all airplanes are the inspections. The costs of compliance also typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 902 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 631 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $100,960, or $160 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-03-01 Boeing:** Amendment 39-14912. Docket No. FAA-2006-25642; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-121-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective March 5, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Applicability Airplane model Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin Revision level Date 757-200, -200PF, -200CB series 757-24-0105 2 April 20, 2006. 757-300 series 757-24-0106 2 April 20, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that a power feeder wire bundle chafed against the number six auxiliary slat track, causing electrical wires in the bundle to arc, which damaged both the auxiliary slat track and power feeder wires. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing that could be a possible ignition source for leaked flammable fluids, which could result in a fire. Arcing could also result in a loss of power from the generator connected to the power feeder wire bundle, and consequent loss of systems, which could reduce controllability of the airplane. Compliance

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

(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as applicable:

(1)For Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes: Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 2, dated April 20, 2006; and

(2)For Model 757-300 series airplanes: Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 2, dated April 20, 2006. One-Time Inspections and Corrective Actions

(g)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a general visual inspection for damage (including but not limited to chafing) of power feeder wire bundles W3312 and W3412 at front spar station 148.90 in the left and right wings, and a general visual inspection of the support clamps for those power feeder wire bundles to determine whether the clamps are properly installed, and, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions. Do these actions by doing all of the applicable actions in the applicable service bulletin. Actions Accomplished Previously

(h)Inspections and corrective actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service information listed in Table 2 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by this AD. Table 2.—Other Acceptable Service Bulletin Revisions Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin Revision level Date 757-24-0105 Original September 30, 2004. 757-24-0105 1 June 23, 2005. 757-24-0106 Original September 30, 2004. 757-24-0106 1 June 23, 2005. Special Flight Permit

(i)Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished, provided that the generator served by the power feeder wire bundles specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD is disconnected. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(k)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 2, dated April 20, 2006; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 2, dated April 20, 2006; as applicable; to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 18, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1203 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 254 RIN 2105-AD62 [Docket OST-2007-27020] Domestic Baggage Liability AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary (OST). ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of 14 CFR 254.6, this final rule revises the minimum limit on domestic baggage liability applicable to air carriers to reflect inflation since July 2004, the year of the most recent revision to the liability limit. Section 254.6 requires that the Department periodically revise the limit to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The rule adjusts the minimum limit of liability from the current amount of $2,800, set by the Department in 2004, to $3,000, to take into account the changes in consumer prices since the prior revision. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on February 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Lowry, Senior Attorney, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (C-70), Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590;

(202)366-9351. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Supplementary Information 14 CFR Part 254 establishes minimum baggage liability limits applicable to domestic air service, currently $2,800 per passenger (See 69 FR 56693, September 22, 2004). Provisions of 14 CFR 254.6 require that the Department periodically review the minimum limit of liability prescribed in Part 254 in light of changes in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers and directs the Department to revise the limit of liability to reflect changes in the price index that have occurred in the interim. Section 254.6 prescribes the use of a specific formula to calculate the revised minimum liability amount when making these periodic adjustments. Applying the formula to price index changes occurring between July 2004 and July 2006, the appropriate inflation adjustment is $2,500 x 203.5/168.3, or $3022.87. The provision requires us to round the adjustment to the nearest $100, or to $3,000. II. Waiver of Rulemaking Procedural Requirements With this final rule, we are waiving the usual notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553). The APA allows agencies to dispense with such procedures on finding of good cause when they are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(3)(B) good cause exists for dispensing with the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures for this rule. This rulemaking is required by regulation, based on a formula, and provides for no discretion. Accordingly, we believe comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, and we are issuing this revision as a final rule. Although this final rule will become effective in 30 days, the Department will defer enforcement of the notice provision in the revised rule, as it pertains to written notice of the new limit, for a reasonable time period to allow carriers to replace or correct their current paper ticket stock and envelopes so as to provide proper written notice of the increased minimum liability limit without imposing an undue burden. Carriers are, however, subject to enforcement action from the effective date of this final rule if they otherwise fail to provide proper notice of the $3,000 liability limit or fail to apply the new limit, as appropriate. III. Regulatory Impact Statement Executive Order 12866 This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with the existing policies and procedures and is considered not significant under both Executive Order 12866 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Based on the limited data available to the Department, the increase in the minimum baggage liability limit from $2,800 to $3,000 per passenger may result in U.S. carriers paying total additional reimbursements to consumers of approximately $2.6 million per year. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply to this rulemaking because we are not required to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. However, we note that this revision of 14 CFR Part 254 provides for a minimal increase in the amount of the minimum baggage liability limit that air carriers may incur in cases of lost or damaged baggage. It will pose minor additional costs only in those instances in which carriers lose or damage baggage, or delay delivering baggage to the traveler, and it affects only carriers operating large aircraft or those carriers operating small aircraft interlining with such carriers. As a result, many operations of small entities, such as small air taxis and commuter air carriers, are not covered by the rule. Moreover, any additional costs for small entities associated with the rule should be minimal and may be covered by insurance. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 254 Air carriers, Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection. Accordingly, the Department of Transportation revises 14 CFR Part 254, *Domestic Baggage Liability,* to read as follows: PART 254—DOMESTIC BAGGAGE LIABILITY 1. The authority citation for part 254 continues to read: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40113, 41501, 41501, 41504, 41510, 41702 and 41707. 2. Section 254.4 is revised to read as set forth below: § 254.4 Carrier liability. On any flight segment using large aircraft, or on any flight segment that is included on the same ticket as another flight segment that uses large aircraft, an air carrier shall not limit its liability for provable direct or consequential damages resulting from the disappearance of, damage to, or delay in delivery of a passenger's personal property, including baggage, in its custody to an amount less than $3,000 for each passenger. 3. Section 254.5 is revised to read as set forth below: § 254.5 Notice requirement. In any flight segment using large aircraft, or on any flight segment that is included on the same ticket as another flight segment that uses large aircraft, an air carrier shall provide to passengers, by conspicuous written material included on or with its ticket, either:

(a)Notice of any monetary limitation on its baggage liability to passengers; or

(b)The following notice: “Federal rules require any limit on an airline's baggage liability to be at least $3,000 per passenger.” Andrew B. Steinberg, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-1101 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 700, 730, 734, 740, 748, 758 and 762 [Docket No. 061212330-6330-01] RIN 0694-AD88 Technical Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations and to the Defense Priorities and Allocations System

(DPAS)Regulation AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), in Subchapter C, to remove an outdated reference to another agency's schedule that is no longer used by that other agency; to remove an outdated reference to another department's regulations and replace it with the department name and regulatory reference that is currently in use; to correct two references in the EAR that inadvertently directed the public to the wrong sections of the EAR for further information; and to correct contact information listed in the EAR for one

(1)telephone number; one

(1)fax number; one

(1)e-mail address; and two

(2)addresses to this rule adds an e-mail address, fax number, and address to clarify for the public where *de minimis* reports should be sent, when required by the EAR. BIS is also correcting a typographical error in a final rule published in the **Federal Register** on July 13, 2006 (71 FR 39526) that made administrative and technical corrections to the Defense Priorities and Allocations System

(DPAS)Regulation (15 CFR part 700). DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective: January 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Although this is a final rule, comments are welcome and should be sent to *publiccomments@bis.doc.gov* , fax

(202)482-3355, or to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room H2705, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Please refer to regulatory identification number

(RIN)0694-AD88 in all comments, and in the subject line of email comments. Comments on the collection of information should be sent to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to

(202)395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Export Administration Regulation related questions contact Timothy Mooney, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone:

(202)482-2440. For Defense Priorities and Allocations System

(DPAS)Regulation related questions contact Liam McMenamin, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Telephone:

(202)482-2233. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule makes the following technical corrections to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): In § 734.2 (Important EAR terms and principles), this rule removes an outdated reference to schedule “E” issued by the Bureau of Census in paragraph (b)(8), because schedule “E” has not existed since 1989. Schedule “C” remains in existence and will continue to be listed in paragraph (b)(8) to provide a reference for the public for the Classification of Country and Territory Designations for U.S. Export Statistics, issued by the Bureau of the Census. In Supplement No. 2 to Part 734 (Calculation of Values for *De minimis* Rules), this rule revises paragraph (b)(5) and adds new paragraphs (b)(5)(i), (b)(5)(ii) and (b)(5)(iii) to add an e-mail address, fax number, and address, respectively, to clarify for the public where *de minimis* reports should be sent when required by the EAR and the methods of delivery available. In § 740.12 (Gift Parcels and Humanitarian Donations (GFT)), this rule corrects an outdated EAR reference in the “note to paragraph (a)”, that directed the public to § 748.9(e) of the EAR for licensing of multiple gift parcels. The correct EAR reference, which this rule adds to the note to paragraph (a), is § 748.8(d). To further assist the public, this rule also adds to the note to paragraph

(a)a reference, to Supplement No. 2 to Part 748 paragraph (d), for additional information regarding gift parcels. In § 740.14 (Baggage (BAG)), this rule removes an outdated reference in paragraph (e)(2) to the “Department of Treasury Regulations (27 CFR 178.115(d)),” because these regulations were renumbered from Part 178 to Part 478 when the law enforcement functions of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

(ATF)under the Department of the Treasury were transferred to the Department of Justice, effective January 24, 2003. To conform with these changes, this rule removes the reference to “the Department of Treasury's Regulations (27 CFR 178.115(d))”, and adds the updated reference to “Department of Justice Regulations (27 CFR 478.115(d))”. In § 748.2 (Obtaining Forms; Mailing Addresses), this rule corrects the contact information listed, in the unassigned paragraph of paragraph (a), for the Bureau of Industry and Security in San Jose, California. The updated contact information for this office is “Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 96 North 3rd Street, Suite 250, San Jose, CA 95112 ; Tel:

(408)291-4212; Fax:

(408)291-4320”. To conform with this change made in § 748.2(a), this rule also corrects § 730.8 (How to proceed and where to get help), in paragraph (c), by correcting that same reference to the Bureau of Industry and Security in San Jose, California. Also in § 748.2, this rule corrects the zip code listed for the Bureau of Industry and Security in the second sentence of paragraph

(c)by removing the zip code “20044” and adding the correct zip code “20230”. In § 758.5 (Conformity of Documents and Unloading of Items), this rule corrects the e-mail address listed in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) for the Regulatory Policy Division. The correct e-mail address, which this rule adds to that paragraph, is “ *rpd2@bis.doc.gov* ”. In § 762.6 (Period of Retention), this rule corrects an outdated EAR reference in paragraph

(b)that, prior to publication of this rule, had directed the public to § 765.5(c)(4)(ii) for records pertaining to voluntary disclosures. The correct EAR reference, which this rule adds to that sentence, is § 764.5(c)(4)(ii). This rule also makes the following correction to the Defense Priorities and Allocations System

(DPAS)Regulation: In Schedule I to Part 700—Approved Programs and Delegate Agencies, there is a typographical error in the form of the word “and” in the N5 Approved Program description. This rule corrects the N5 Approved Program description to read “Domestic counter-terrorism, including law enforcement.” Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 3, 2006, (71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)) (IEEPA). Rulemaking Requirements This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. This rule contains a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). This collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of these collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, by e-mail at *david_roskter@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to

(202)395-7285; and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132. 4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it is unnecessary. The revisions made by this rule are administrative in nature and do not affect the rights and obligations of the public. Because these revisions are not substantive changes to the EAR and to the DPAS, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Timothy Mooney, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 700 Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Government contracts, National defense, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials. 15 CFR Part 730 Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials. 15 CFR Part 734 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Inventions and patents, Research, Science and technology. 15 CFR Part 740 and 758 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 748 Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 762 Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Confidential business information, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, parts 730, 734, 740, 748, 758 and 762 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-799) and part 700 of the Defense Priorities and Allocations System

(DPAS)Regulation (15 CFR part 700) are amended as follows: PART 700—[CORRECTED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 700 continues to read as follows: Authority: Titles I and VII of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, *et seq.* ), Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195, *et seq.* ), Executive Order 12919, 59 FR 29525, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp. 901, and Executive Order 13286, 68 FR 10619, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp. 166; section 18 of the Selective Service Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 468), 10 U.S.C. 2538, 50 U.S.C. 82, and Executive Order 12742, 56 FR 1079, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. 309; and Executive Order 12656, 53 FR 226, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp. 585. Schedule I to Part 700 [Amended] 2. In Schedule I to Part 700—Approved Programs and Delegate Agencies, under the “Approved program” column, correct “Domestic and counter-terrorism, including law enforcement” to read “Domestic counter-terrorism, including law enforcement”. PART 730—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 730 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note, Pub. L. 108-175; 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46 U.S.C. app. 466c; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec. 221, Pub. L. 107-56; E.O. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR, 1976 Comp., p. 114; E.O. 12002, 42 FR 35623, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 133; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12214, 45 FR 29783, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 12981, 60 FR 62981, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 419; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p.208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, May 13, 2004; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of October 27, 2006, 71 FR 64109 (October 31, 2006). 4. Section 730.8 is amended by revising the undesignated paragraph at the end of paragraph

(c)for the “U.S. Export Assistance Center” to read as follows: § 730.8 How to proceed and where to get help.

(c)* * * Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 96 North 3rd Street, Suite 250, San Jose, CA 95112, Tel:

(408)291-4212, Fax:

(408)291-4320. PART 734—[AMENDED] 5. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 734 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of October 27, 2006, 71 FR 64109 (October 31, 2006). 6. Section 734.2 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows: § 734.2 Important EAR terms and principles.

(b)* * *

(8)* * * These destinations are listed in Schedule C, Classification Codes and Descriptions for U.S. Export Statistics, issued by the Bureau of the Census. 7. Supplement No. 2 to part 734 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows: Supplement No. 2 to Part 734—Calculation of Values for De Minimis Rules

(b)* * *

(5)*Report and wait* . If you have not been contacted by BIS concerning your report within thirty days after filing the report with BIS, you may rely upon the calculations in your report and the *de minimis* exclusions for software and technology for so long as you are not contacted by BIS. BIS may contact you concerning your report to inquire of you further or to indicate that BIS does not accept the assumptions or rationale for your calculations. If you receive such a contact or communication from BIS, you may not rely upon the *de minimis* exclusions for software and technology in § 734.4 of this part until BIS has indicated whether or not you may do so in the future. You must include in your report the name, title, address, telephone number, and facsimile number of the person BIS may contact concerning your report. Please submit your report to:

(i)E-mail: *rpd2@bis.doc.gov* ;

(ii)Fax:

(202)482-3355; or

(iii)Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Policy Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230. PART 740—[AMENDED] 8. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 740 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). 9. Section 740.12 is amended by revising the last sentence of Note to paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 740.12 Gift Parcels and Humanitarian Donations (GFT).

(a)* * * Note to paragraph

(a)of this section: * * * (See § 748.8(d) and Supplement No. 2 to Part 748 paragraph

(d)of the EAR for licensing of multiple gift parcels). 10. Section 740.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows: § 740.14 Baggage (BAG).

(e)* * *

(2)A nonresident alien leaving the United States may export or reexport under this License Exception only such shotguns and shotgun shells as he or she brought into the United States under the provisions of the Department of Justice Regulations (27 CFR 478.115(d)). PART 748—[AMENDED] 11. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 748 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). 12. Section 748.2 is amended: a. By revising the undesignated paragraph at the end of paragraph

(a)for the “U.S. Export Assistance Center”; and b. By revising paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 748.2 Obtaining forms; mailing addresses.

(a)* * * Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 96 North 3rd Street, Suite 250, San Jose, CA 95112, Tel:

(408)291-4212, Fax:

(408)291-4320.

(b)* * *

(c)All applications should be mailed to the following address, unless otherwise specified: Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. If you wish to submit your application using an overnight courier, use the following address: Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230, Attn: “Application Enclosed”. BIS will not accept applications sent C.O.D. PART 758—[AMENDED] 13. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 758 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). 14. Section 758.5 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to read as follows: § 758.5 Conformity of documents and unloading of items.

(e)* * *

(2)* * *

(ii)*Contact information* . U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Exporter Services, Room 2705, 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; phone number 202-482-0436; facsimile number 202-482-3322; and E-Mail address: *rpd2@bis.doc.gov* . PART 762—[AMENDED] 15. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 762 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006). 16. Section 762.6 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 762.6 Period of retention.

(b)* * * This prohibition applies to records pertaining to voluntary disclosures made to BIS in accordance with § 764.5(c)(4)(ii) and other records even if such records have been retained for a period of time exceeding that required by paragraph

(a)of this section. Dated: January 23, 2007. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E7-1336 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 45 CFR Part 1621 Client Grievance Procedures AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Legal Services Corporation's regulation on client grievance procedures. These changes are intended to improve the utility of the regulation for grantees and their clients and applicants for service in the current operating environment. In particular, the changes clarify what procedures are available to clients and applicants, emphasize the importance of the grievance procedure for clients and applicants and add clarity and flexibility in the application of the requirements for hotline and other programs serving large and widely dispersed geographic areas. DATES: This final rule becomes effective on February 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mattie Cohan, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street, NW., Washington DC 20007; 202-295-1624 (ph); 202-337-6519 (fax); *mcohan@lsc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Legal Services Corporation's

(LSC)regulation on client grievance procedures, 45 CFR Part 1621, adopted in 1977 and not amended since that time, requires that LSC grant recipients establish grievance procedures pursuant to which clients and applicants for service can pursue complaints with recipients related to the denial of legal assistance or dissatisfaction with the legal assistance provided. The regulation is intended to help “insure that legal services programs are accountable to those whom they are expected to serve.” 42 FR 37551 (July 22, 1977). As noted above, Part 1621 has not been amended since its original adoption nearly 30 years ago. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)was published in 1994 which would have instituted some more specific requirements for the grievance process and clarified the situations in which access to the grievance process is appropriate. However, due to significant legislative activity in 1995 and 1996, no final action was ever taken on the 1994 NPRM and the original regulation has remained in effect. As part of a staff effort in 2001 and 2002 to conduct a general review of LSC's regulations, the Regulations Review Task Force found that a number of the issues identified in the 1994 NPRM remained extant. The Task Force recommended in its Final Report (January 2002) that Part 1621 be considered a higher priority item for rulemaking. Representatives of the grantee community agreed at that time that rulemaking to revise and update Part 1621 was appropriate. The Board of Directors accepted the report and placed Part 1621 on its priority rulemaking list. No action was taken on this item prior to the appointment of the current Board of Directors. After the appointment of the current Board of Directors, LSC Management recommended to the Board that a rulemaking to consider revision of Part 1621 was still appropriate. The Board of Directors agreed and on October 29, 2005, the Board of Directors directed that LSC initiate a rulemaking to consider revisions to LSC's regulation on client grievance procedures, 45 CFR Part 1621. The Board further directed that LSC convene a Rulemaking Workshop and report back to the Operations & Regulations Committee prior to the development of any Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). LSC convened a Rulemaking Workshop on January 18, 2006, and provided a report to the Committee at its meeting on January 27, 2006. As a result of that Workshop and report, the Board directed that LSC convene a second Rulemaking Workshop and report back to the Operations & Regulations Committee prior to the development of any NPRM. LSC convened a second Rulemaking Workshop on March 23, 2006 and provided a report to the Committee at its meeting on April 28, 2006. As a result of the second Workshop and report, the Board directed that a Draft NPRM be prepared. The Committee considered the Draft NPRM at its meeting of July 28, 2006 and the Board approved this NPRM for publication and comment at its meeting of July 29, 2006. LSC published the NPRM on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48501). LSC received five timely comments on the NPRM. A draft final rule was prepared by Management for presentation to the Committee at its October 27, 2006, meeting. Prior to that meeting, however, LSC received a request from the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) that LSC postpone consideration of the draft final rule and reopen the comment period to allow the client community additional time to respond to the proposed changes in the rule. In response to that request, action on the draft final rule was deferred and the NPRM was republished for comment on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65064). LSC received three timely additional comments, one from the client caucus of an LSC grantee, one from the client committee of a non-LSC grantee legal services provider, and one from the Center for Law and Social Policy on behalf of NLADA, replacing CLASP/NLADA's previously submitted comments. LSC also received two late filed comments, one from an individual past client of a recipient and one from the Chairperson of the NLADA Client Policy Group. 1 After consideration of the additional comments, Management presented a revised draft final rule to the Committee at its meeting of January 19, 2007. The Committee recommended adoption of the draft final rule to the Board of Directors and the Board adopted the changes to Part 1621, as set forth herein, at its meeting of January 20, 2007. 1 The comments from the Chairperson of the NLADA Client Policy Group although dated December 21, 2006 (prior to the close of the comment period) were not submitted properly in accordance with the directions set forth in the NPRM and were, consequently, received late. The late filed comments were nonetheless considered in the development of this final rule. Summary of the Rulemaking Workshops LSC convened the first Part 1621 Rulemaking Workshop on January 18, 2006. The following persons participated in the Workshop: Gloria Beaver, South Carolina Centers for Equal Justice (now known as South Carolina Legal Services) Board of Directors (client representative); Steve Bernstein, Project Director, Legal Services of New York—Brooklyn; Colleen Cotter, Executive Director, The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland; Irene Morales, Executive Director, Inland Counties Legal Services; Linda Perle, Senior Counsel, Center for Law and Social Policy; Melissa Pershing, Executive Director, Legal Services Alabama; Don Saunders, Director, Civil Legal Services, National Legal Aid and Defender Association; Rosita Stanley, Chairperson, National Legal Aid and Defenders Association Client Policy Group (client representative); Chuck Wynder, Acting Vice President, National Legal Aid and Defenders Association; Steven Xanthopoulous, Executive Director, West Tennessee Legal Services; Helaine Barnett, LSC President (welcoming remarks only); Karen Sarjeant, LSC Vice President for Programs and Compliance; Charles Jeffress, LSC Chief Administrative Officer; Mattie Condray, Senior Assistant General Counsel, LSC Office of Legal Affairs; Bert Thomas, Program Counsel, LSC Office of Compliance and Enforcement; Michael Genz, Director, LSC Office of Program Performance; Mark Freedman, Assistant General Counsel, LSC Office of Legal Affairs; and Karena Dees, Staff Attorney, LSC Office of Inspector General. The discussion was wide-ranging and open. The participants first discussed the importance of and reason for having a client grievance process. There was general agreement that the client grievance process is important to give a voice to people seeking assistance from legal services programs and to afford them dignity. The client grievance process also helps to keep programs accountable to their clients and community. It was generally agreed that the current regulation captures this purpose well. However, it was noted that the client grievance process also can be an important part of a positive client/applicant relations program and serve as a source of information for programs and boards in assessing service and setting priorities. This potential is not currently reflected in the regulation. The participants noted that the vast majority of complaints received involve complaints regarding the denial of service, rather than complaints over the manner or quality of service provided. The vast majority of complaints over the manner and quality of service provided are resolved at the staff level (including with the involvement of the Executive Director); complaints which need to come before the governing body's grievance committee(s) are few and far between. It was noted that many recipients have the experience of receiving multiple complaints over time from the same small number of individuals. In the course of the discussion, the group discussed a variety of other issues related to the client grievance process. The group also considered the fact that some of the issues raised, although important, may not be easily or most appropriately addressed in the text of the regulation. Some of these issues are summarized as follows: • Whether programs can be more “proactive” in making clients and applicants aware of their rights under the client grievance procedure, but do so in a positive manner that does not create a negative atmosphere at the formation of the attorney-client relationship. It was noted that while informing clients of their rights can be empowering, suggesting at the outset that they may not like the service they receive is not conducive to a positive experience. • The appropriate role of the governing body in the client grievance/client relations process; • Challenges presented in providing proper notice of the client grievance procedure to applicants and clients who are served only over the telephone and/or email/internet interface; • Application of the process to Limited English Proficiency clients and applicants; • Whether and to what extent it is appropriate for the composition of a grievance committee to deviate from the approximate proportions of lawyers and clients on the governing body, e.g., by a higher proportion of clients than the governing body has generally; • Challenges presented by a requirement for an in-person hearing and what other options may be appropriate; • Whether the limitation of the grievance process related to denials of service to the three enumerated reasons for denial in the current rule is too limited given the wide range of reasons a program may deny someone service; • Whether the grievance process should include cases handled by non-staff such as PAI attorneys, volunteers, attorneys on assignment to the grantee (often as part of a law firm pro bono program); Finally, the group was in general agreement that additional opportunity for comment and fact finding would prove useful to both LSC and the legal services community before LSC committed to moving ahead with the development of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. LSC convened its second Part 1621 Rulemaking Workshop March 23, 2006. The following persons participated in the second Workshop: Claudia Colindres Johnson, Hotline Director, Bay Area Legal Aid (CA); Terrence Dicks, Client Representative, Georgia Legal Services; Breckie Hayes-Snow, Supervising Attorney, Legal Advice and Referral Center (NH); Norman Janes, Executive Director, Statewide Legal Services of Connecticut; Harry Johnson, Client Representative, NLADA Client Policy Group; Joan Kleinberg, Managing Attorney, CLEAR, Northwest Justice Project (WA); George Lee, Client Representative, Kentucky Clients Council; Richard McMahon, Executive Director, New Center for Legal Advocacy (MA); Linda Perle, Senior Counsel, Center for Law and Social Policy; Peggy Santos, Client Representative, Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation; Don Saunders, Director, Civil Legal Services, National Legal Aid and Defender Association; Rosita Stanley, Chairperson, NLADA Client Policy Group; Helaine Barnett, LSC President (welcoming remarks only); Karen Sarjeant, LSC Vice President for Programs and Compliance; Charles Jeffress, LSC Chief Administrative Officer; Mattie Condray, Senior Assistant General Counsel, LSC Office of Legal Affairs; Bertrand Thomas, Program Counsel, LSC Office of Compliance and Enforcement; Cheryl Nolan, Program Counsel, LSC Office of Program Performance; and Mark Freedman, Assistant General Counsel, LSC Office of Legal Affairs. The motivation for convening a second Workshop was to elicit further information about how hotlines approach the issue of providing notice to clients and applicants and how they process grievances given that in-person contact with such programs is extremely rare, and how clients and applicants experience the grievance process and what the process means for them. This, accordingly, was the primary focus of the discussion at the second Workshop, although there was also some discussion of additional issues, such as client confidentiality and potential application of the grievance process to private attorneys providing services pursuant to a grantee's PAI program. The following issues and themes emerged from the discussion: • The programs felt that a strength of the regulation is its flexibility. Programs have different delivery systems, even among hotlines, and different approaches. They cautioned against adopting specific practices in the regulation itself. Rather, they felt that programs should be free to adopt practices that best meet their delivery model and communities. • Hotlines have different approaches to providing notice to callers. Some programs include it in their automated script while others do not mention the grievance process. There is some concern about making the initial contact seem negative by bringing up the grievance process. There is also a concern about callers being denied service without knowing about their grievance rights. Many participants felt that the regulation should not require notice in the automated hotline script. • The regulation could emphasize the importance of the notice but leave it to the programs to figure out the best way to provide it in different situations. • Client and applicant dignity is very important. Most concerns are addressed when the applicant feels that they were heard and taken seriously, even if they are denied service. • All of the programs reported that intake staff will deal with dissatisfied callers by offering to let them talk to a supervisor, sometimes the executive director. They are given the choice of talking to someone or filing a written complaint. They almost always want to talk to someone. Talking with someone higher up almost always resolves the issue and usually entails an explanation of the decision not to provide service. • Decisions to deny service sometimes involve consideration of the priorities of other entities such as pro bono programs that take referrals. Some programs handle intake for themselves and for other organizations. The criteria for intake for different entities are not always the same. A program may have to handle complaints about denials of service that involve a different program's priorities. • In many situations there is nothing more that the program can do, especially when a denial of service decision was correct. There was a concern about creating lots of procedures that would give a grievant false hope. It is important that the applicant get an “honest no” in a timely fashion. • The oral and written statements to a grievance committee do not require an in person hearing. These can be conveyed by conference call, which may be better in some circumstances. In some cases though, clients or applicants have neither transportation nor access to a phone. Programs may have difficulty providing grievance procedures in those situations. • Hotlines have a number of callers who never speak to a member of the hotline staff. They include hang ups, disconnected calls, people who got information through the automated system, and people who could not wait long enough. These calls may include frustrated applicants who never got to the denial of service stage. • Websites could provide client grievance information, but that also raises questions about how to make grievance information available only to people with complaints about that program. There is a danger of a generally available form becoming a conduit for a flood of complaints unrelated to a program and its services. • The grievance process itself should not be intimidating. Often the applicants and clients are already very frustrated and upset before contacting the program. • There was discussion of what process, if any, a client had for addressing quality concerns with a PAI attorney or a pro bono referral. One program reported informally mediating these disputes. Another program reported surveying clients at the end of PAI cases and following up on any negative comments. One program reported that its separate pro bono program has its own grievance procedures. There was a concern that private attorneys would not volunteer if they felt that they would be subject to a program's grievance process and grievance committee. There was some discussion acknowledging a distinction between paid and unpaid PAI attorneys, but noting that clients do not see a difference. Section-by-Section Analysis After considering the discussions from the Workshops and all of the comments received in response to the NPRM, LSC has determined that the regulation is generally working as intended and that some of the issues raised in the course of the Workshops, while of significant importance, are not issues which can easily be addressed by changes in the regulation itself. Accordingly, LSC is adopting only modest changes to the text of the regulation. LSC believes, however, that these changes will improve the regulation and benefit grantees, clients and applicants for legal assistance. These changes are discussed in greater detail below. At the outset, we note one comment in which the commenter requested that LSC confirm its understanding of the terms “applicant” and “deny” (or “denial”) as those terms are used throughout this regulation. LSC intends no change to the meaning of the terms “denial” and “deny” as they are used in the current client grievance procedures rule. LSC intends that “applicant” has the same meaning as it does in Part 1611, Financial Eligibility, except that for the purposes of this Part, “applicant” shall also include groups which apply for legal assistance. Section 1621.1—Purpose LSC proposed to amend this section to clarify that the grievance procedures required by this section are intended for the use and benefit of applicants for legal assistance and for clients of recipients and not for the use or benefit of third parties. LSC received one comment specifically supporting and no comments specifically opposing this amendment. Accordingly, LSC adopts this change as proposed. In addition, LSC proposed to delete the reference to “an effective remedy” because the grievance process is just that, a process and not a guarantee of any specific outcome or “remedy” for the complainant. LSC received three comments specifically supporting and three comments specifically opposing this change. 2 The comments opposing the proposed change (all of which are from client representative groups) stated that removal of the reference to an effective remedy undermines the purpose of the rule and suggests that so long as the recipient provides a grievance process, the outcome to the client in cases in which the client has a meritorious complaint is immaterial. Each of these comments suggested that LSC retain the current language of the rule. LSC is sensitive to the concerns of the client community that the rule not imply that the complainant's satisfaction with the ultimate outcome of the process is entirely immaterial. LSC agrees that a goal of an effective grievance procedure should be to foster a mutually satisfactory outcome in as many cases as possible. Indeed, this concern underlies LSC's decision to add language to the rule (in sections 1621.3 and 1621.4) that a recipient's grievance procedures must be designed to foster effective communication between the complainant and the recipient. However, LSC disagrees that deletion of the reference to a “remedy” either undermines the purpose of the rule or implies that the applicant's/client's satisfaction as to the outcome of the grievance is immaterial. 2 One of the comments opposing this change was from the Chairperson of the NLADA Client Policy Group which included as attachments a petition signed by various client representatives opposing the proposed changes to the purpose section of the regualtion and 14 individual comments similarly opposing the changes to the purpose section. Although it is not entirely clear from the Chairperson's comments, it appears that these individual comments formed the basis for the Chairperson's comments. As such, they have been considered as part of the Chairperson's comments. It should also be noted that one of the 14 individual comments addressed proposed changes to sections 1621.3 and 1621.4. These remarks are addressed separately in the respective discussions of those sections, below. As one commenter notes, the current rule is not understood to require applicants or clients with non-meritorious complaints to be awarded the remedy they seek. To the extent that the current language of the regulation is understood not to mean what it says, it is appropriate to amend it to more clearly reflect what the language is, in fact, intended to mean. Moreover, on the basis of the comments made during the Rulemaking Workshops and other comments, although it appears that nearly all grievances are resolved to at least some level of satisfaction on the part of the applicant/client, the rule is not intended to and cannot guarantee that the grievance process provide a particular resolution to the applicant's/client's satisfaction in all cases. There are and will continue to be instances in which, even after the grievance process, an applicant or client does not receive the specific “remedy” he or she wants. For example, an applicant may not be accepted as a client or a client may not get the recipient to agree to appeal his/her unsuccessful case, notwithstanding that this is the “remedy” the applicant/client wants. In such cases, the best the regulation can do is ensure that complainants have access to a fair and reasonable complaint process. In light of the above, LSC is adopting a revised statement of purpose which LSC believes addresses both LSC's and the client community's concerns. Specifically, LSC is adding an additional sentence to this section providing: This part is further intended to help ensure that the grievance procedures adopted by recipients will result, to the extent possible, in the provision of an effective remedy in the resolution of complaints. LSC believes that the addition of this language meets the commenters' concerns that grievance procedures should be designed and implemented with the intention of resolving complaints to at least some level of satisfaction of the complainant in as many cases as possible. Indeed, LSC believes that this is already the intention and practice of recipients. As such, adding this clarifying language to the regulation bolsters the notion of accountability to applicants and clients which animates Part 1621, while acknowledging that no specific outcome can be guaranteed in any particular instance. LSC considered including a statement in this section clarifying that the client grievance procedure is not intended to and does not create any entitlement on the part of applicants to legal assistance. LSC specifically invited comment on this issue in the NPRM. One commenter agreed with LSC's determination that the addition of such a statement would not ultimately be a useful addition to the regulation because it seems unlikely that many applicants for legal assistance will have read the regulation prior to applying for legal assistance. Another commenter expressed some concern that an express statement that there is no entitlement to service could be used by a recipient as a basis to deny grievances in instances in which the recipient failed to follow its own case acceptance or other policies. Another commenter suggested that including such a statement would undermine the purpose of the rule and would be dispiriting to disappointed clients. However, LSC also received two comments suggesting that LSC should include language in this section making it clear that the existence of a grievance procedure does not mean that an applicant is entitled to service. These commenters argue that such a statement would be helpful in that, even if applicants do not read the grievance procedures rule, recipients would have something concrete to refer to in talking with applicants unhappy with being denied legal assistance. LSC acknowledges that there are good arguments to be made in favor of both positions (inclusion of a non-entitlement statement and non-inclusion of such a statement). On balance, LSC continues to believe that adding such a statement to the regulation is unnecessary. To the extent that it may be helpful to have something to cite to when talking to a complaining applicant as a way of explaining why he or she is being denied service, reference can be made to this discussion in the preamble of the regulation and to LSC's financial eligibility regulation at 45 CFR Part 1611 (which does explicitly state that a determination of financial eligibility does not create any entitlement to legal assistance). Another issue which came up during the Workshops was the ancillary use by recipients of the client grievance procedures as a feedback mechanism to help recipients identify issues such as the need for priorities changes (i.e., because there are increasing numbers of applicants seeking legal assistance for problems not otherwise part of the recipient's priorities), foreign language assistance, staff training, etc. Although LSC believes that information collected through the client grievance procedures can and should, as a best practice, be used in this manner, such ancillary use is incidental and not the purpose of the client grievance procedures *per se.* LSC believes that adding a reference to such ancillary use to the purpose statement of the regulation would be inappropriate and would dilute the focus of the regulation from its purpose of providing applicants and clients with an effective avenue for pursuing complaints. LSC invited comment on this issue and received one comment agreeing with LSC's position. Accordingly, LSC is not adding any language to the regulation on this issue. LSC received one additional comment on this section. This commenter suggested that LSC add a statement to the regulation that the client grievance procedure process does not take the place of a complaint filed with the appropriate state or local bar association and that the bar association “expects the client to make a good faith effort to resolve the matter * * * [by] going through the client grievance process.” As an initial matter, LSC is not in a position to speak for any bar association about what its complaint process requirements are or should be. As such, adding language to Part 1621 about what bar associations may or may not expect of clients filing complaints is beyond LSC's authority. The commenter's first point, regarding the fact that grievance procedures are not a substitute for whatever complaint procedure may be available under state or local rules of professional responsibility, is well taken. LSC agrees with the commenter about this basic fact. LSC believes, however, that this discussion in the preamble is sufficient to make this point and that addition to the regulation of a statement to this effect is not necessary. Section 1621.2—Grievance Committee LSC did not propose any changes to this section. There was discussion in one of the Workshops about whether and to what extent it is appropriate for the composition of a grievance committee to deviate from the approximate proportions of lawyers and clients on the governing body, e.g. by a higher proportion of clients than the governing body has generally. It was not clear from the discussion, however, what such a change would accomplish and there was no clear feeling that the current requirement was resulting in ineffective or inappropriate grievance committees. Accordingly, LSC considers the current wording of the regulation, which requires the proportion of clients and lawyer members of the grievance committee to approximate that of the governing body, to be sufficiently flexible for recipients to respond to local conditions. LSC received one comment opposing and two comments expressly supporting LSC's approach to this issue. LSC continues to believe any change to this section to be unwarranted. The comments supporting LSC's position on this issue did, however, suggest that LSC add a discussion to the preamble to note that although there is a role for each recipient's governing body in the grievance process, it is also important to recognize the limited role of the governing body in the day-to-day operations of the recipient. Further, it is incumbent on all parties to recognize that governing body members have fiduciary duties to their organization and must be careful, when engaging in any grievance committee activities, to safeguard these duties and avoid any potential conflicts of interest. LSC agrees that these are important considerations, and, accordingly, sets them forth herein. LSC is confident that governing body members currently serving on grievance committees are generally balancing their various duties and responsibilities appropriately. Inclusion of this discussion in the preamble should not be taken as an indication that either LSC or the commenters are concerned that current grantee/governing body practices are raising problems involving micromanagement of recipients' day-to-day operations. The matter of potential conflicts of interest between a Board member's duty to the grievance process and his/her duty to the organization was the subject of the one comment LSC received opposing the proposed retention without amendment of this section. That commenter suggested that LSC create a Grievance Committee within LSC to process all client complaints. This, the commenter argues, would alleviate any potential conflicts because it would remove recipient Board members from the complaint resolution process. This commenter further argues that such a change would be appropriate because client members of governing bodies who are not attorneys do not have the proper “legal training to sit in judgment of legal procedures.” Eliminating recipient grievance committees would eliminate any potential conflict of interest issues. However, as noted above, LSC is confident that governing body members currently serving on grievance committees are generally balancing their various duties and responsibilities appropriately. Thus, LSC does not see this issue as significant enough to justify the solution proposed. More importantly, LSC believes that even with the inherent balancing of interests of which recipients and their Board members must be mindful, this is a matter appropriately committed to the separate and local control of each recipient. Having LSC perform the functions of the respective governing body grievance committees would be an undue encroachment by LSC on the independence of recipients. Moreover, for LSC to exercise such authority would require an unjustified reallocation of LSC's resources so that LSC staff could become well versed in each recipients' particular grievance procedures and local situation. Section 1621.3—Complaints by Applicants About Denial of Legal Assistance LSC proposed to reorganize the regulation to move the current section dealing with complaints about denial of service to applicants before the section on complaints by clients about the manner or quality of legal assistance provided. This change was proposed for two reasons. First, the vast majority of complaints that recipients receive are from applicants who have been denied legal assistance for one reason or another. As such, it seems appropriate for this section to appear first in the regulation. Second, and more importantly, the current regulation (and the regulation as being proposed herein) requires recipients to adopt a simpler procedure for the handling of these complaints. There was some concern that some level of confusion is created by having the more detailed procedures required by the section on complaints about the manner or quality of legal assistance appear first in the regulation. Put another way, there was concern that the current organization of the regulation obscures the fact that recipients are permitted to adopt a different procedure for processing the denial of complaints of legal assistance by applicants. LSC received two comments specifically supporting the proposed reorganization. LSC continues to believe the proposed reorganization will clarify this matter and make the regulation easier for recipients and LSC to use. Accordingly, LSC adopts the change in organization as proposed. In addition to the proposed reorganization discussed above, LSC proposed modest substantive changes to the regulation. First, LSC proposed to add language to the title of this section and the text of the regulation to clarify that this section refers to complaints by applicants about the denial of legal assistance. Consistent with the proposed changes in the purpose section, LSC believes these changes will help clarify that the grievance procedure is available to applicants and not to third parties wishing to complain about denial of service to applicants who are not themselves complaining. LSC notes that for applicants who are underage or mentally incompetent, the applicant him or herself is not likely to be directly applying for legal assistance and LSC does not intend this change to impede the ability of any person (parent, guardian or other representative) to act on that applicant's behalf. Rather, LSC intends the proposed clarification to apply to situations in which a neighbor, friend, relative or other third party would seek to complain in a situation in which the applicant is otherwise capable of complaining personally. LSC received two comments expressly supporting these changes and no comments opposing them. Accordingly, LSC adopts these changes as proposed. Second, LSC proposed to delete the language which limits complaints about the denial of legal assistance to situations in which the denial was related to the financial ineligibility of the applicant, the fact that legal assistance sought is prohibited by the LSC Act or regulations or lies outside the recipient's priorities. Applicants are denied for these and other reasons, such as lack of resources, application of the recipient's case acceptance guidelines, the merit of the applicant's legal claim, etc. By removing these limitations, the regulation will apply in all situations of a denial of legal assistance. From the applicant's point of view it is immaterial why the denial has occurred and LSC can discern no good reason to afford some applicants, but not others, an avenue for review of decisions to deny legal assistance. Moreover, the recipients participating in the workshops noted that they do not make any distinction between applicants on this basis and make their grievance procedure available to any applicant denied service, regardless of the reason. LSC received two comments expressly supporting this change and no comments opposing it. LSC continues to believe that the proposed change will, therefore, not create any new burdens on recipients, yet will implement the policy in a more appropriate manner. Accordingly, LSC adopts this change as proposed. Third, LSC proposed to clarify that the phrase “adequate notice” as it is used in this section is adequate notice of the complaint procedures. The current regulation is vague on this point, although in context the logical inference is that it must refer to notice of the content of the complaint procedures. LSC continues to believe clarifying the language on this point would be useful. LSC further proposed to add the words “as practicable” after “adequate notice.” This change was intended to help recipients who do not have in-person contact with many applicants and who, therefore, cannot rely on posted notice of the complaint procedures in the office. Such recipients use a variety of methods of providing notice, from posting on Web sites, to inclusion of notice in phone menus, to having intake workers and attorneys speaking with applicants provide the information orally. All of these methods can be sufficient and appropriate to local circumstances. The proposed phrasing was intended to ensure that recipients have sufficient flexibility to determine exactly how and when notice of the complaint procedures are provided to applicants, while retaining the requirement that the notice be “adequate” to achieve the purpose that applicants know their rights in a timely and substantively meaningful way so as to exercise them if desired. LSC received several comments addressing the proposed changes concerning “adequate notice.” Three commenters suggested that the clarification proposed by LSC was not adequate. One of these commenters suggested that the phrase “as practicable” should instead be “to the extent practicable,” while another commenter suggested that the language LSC proposed in section 1621.4 is clearer and that similar language could be used in section 1621.3. LSC does not agree that the phrase “to the extent practicable” is substantively preferable to “as practicable.” LSC believes that “to the extent practicable” suggests that that if a recipient decides it is not practicable, the recipient is not required to provide notice at all, whereas LSC believes that that the phrase “as practicable” suggests that adequate notice will always be provided, but recognizes the significant leeway recipients need in determining the particular time and manner in which that notice is to be provided. However, LSC does agree that the language it proposed in section 1621.4 is clearer than the language in proposed 1621.3. Accordingly, LSC is adopting language that provides that the procedure must provide “a practical method for the recipient to provide applicants with adequate notice of the complaint procedures and how to make a complaint. * * *” LSC is also changing the word “practicable” to “practical” in the following clause of that sentence to maintain consistency in language. Thus, the clause will read that the recipient's procedure for review of complaints by applicants about the denial of legal assistance “shall provide for applicants to have an opportunity to confer with the Executive Director, or the Executive Director's designee, and, to the extent practical, with a representative of the governing body.” Finally, LSC proposed to add a statement that the required procedure must be designed to foster effective communications between recipients and complaining applicants. It was clear in the Workshops that this is very important to both applicants and recipients. Indeed, it is one of the main reasons for having a complaint procedure. Accordingly, LSC believes it is important for the regulation to reflect this. Because LSC is confident that the vast majority of recipient grievance procedures are already designed to foster effective communications, LSC continues to believe that the proposed addition to the regulation should not create any undue burden on recipients. LSC received two comments specifically addressing this change. One commenter suggested that this statement should not be mandatory because the requirement necessitates a subjective judgment as to what is effective. Although LSC agrees that regulations should generally set forth clear, objective standards, there are situations in which some level of discretion and judgment are appropriately incorporated into a rule. An example of this is the “adequate” notice requirement discussed above. One could argue that “adequate” is a subjective term, yet LSC believes that there is no appropriate “one size fits all” approach and that recipients may provide notice in a variety of ways, any of which is adequate to inform the applicant as to the existence of a complaint procedure and what they are such that the applicant can meaningfully exert his or her rights under that procedure. Similarly, LSC believes that requiring the procedures to be designed to foster effective communication signals the seriousness with which LSC takes this element of the complaint procedure process (based on the importance which both applicant and recipients place on it), yet provides for a necessary level of recipient discretion in achieving the desired results. Accordingly, LSC declines to substitute the word “should” for “must” as suggested. LSC does believe a change in this paragraph, however, is warranted. Another commenter suggested the use of the word “shall” for “must” to be consistent with the use of the word “shall” throughout the remainder of the regulation. LSC agrees that “shall” is more appropriate in this context and adopts this suggestion. LSC considered proposing to add a statement that the required procedure must be designed to treat complaining applicants with dignity, as this was another recurring refrain LSC heard throughout the Workshops. Because treating applicants with dignity is such a basic duty, LSC preliminarily determined that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to make it a specific regulatory requirement in this context and invited comment on this issue. LSC received one comment specifically supporting LSC's determination in this respect and none in opposition. Accordingly, LSC is not adopting any specific regulatory requirement on this issue. LSC also received a comment suggesting that the proposed language of section 1621.3, “inappropriately involves the governing body in day-to-day case acceptance decisions because of the proposed addition of the phrase “at a minimum.’ ” LSC disagrees that the inclusion of the phrase “at a minimum” either negates the language in the previous sentence of the provision that the procedure be “simple” or, of necessity, elevates the involvement of any governing body in a recipient's day-to-day case acceptance decisionmaking. Rather, as proposed, the regulation sets forth the minimum elements the procedure must have to be compliant with the regulation while inclusion of the phrase “at a minimum” provides recipients with discretion to have procedures which incorporate the required minimum elements, but also provides for additional elements, if so desired. LSC does not intend and does not believe the language will require most recipients to make significant changes in how their governing bodies' grievance committees are incorporated into the grievance procedure. As LSC noted in the preamble to the NPRM: “LSC intends that existing complaint procedures for applicants who are denied legal assistance which would meet the proposed revised requirements may continue to be used and would be considered to be sufficient to meet their obligations under this section.” 71 FR at 48505 (August 21, 2006). This commenter also argues that, as proposed, section 1621.3 requires each recipient to have a procedure in place to review all decisions to deny legal assistance to applicants and not just those decisions which become subject to a complaint and that this represents a substantive change to the regulation. There is nothing in the current regulation, however, which expressly limits the procedure to a review of a decision to deny legal assistance which has become the subject of a complaint. The current regulation provides only that each recipient “shall establish a simple procedure for review of a decision that a person is financially ineligible, or that assistance is prohibited by the Act or Corporation Regulations, or by priorities established by the recipient pursuant to section [sic] 1620.” As such, LSC does not agree that the proposed revised language (that a recipient “shall establish a simple procedure for review of decisions to deny legal assistance to applicants”) implies any more or less than the current language does about whether the review is applicable to all decisions or only those which become a subject of a complaint. Moreover, to the extent that any decision to deny an applicant legal assistance is potentially subject to a complaint, all decisions must be subject to review. Nonetheless, neither the current regulation nor the proposed revisions are intended to require recipients to create a procedure for internal review of decisions to deny legal assistance outside of and apart from the client grievance procedure. LSC believes that the language of section 1621.3 can be clarified on this point. Accordingly, LSC is changing the language of proposed section 1621.3 to read “[a] recipient shall establish a simple procedure for review of complaints by applicants about decisions to deny legal assistance to the applicant.” This language is also more consistent with the similar language in section 1621.4. Finally, LSC received one comment (in the attachments to the Chairperson of the NLADA's Client Policy Group comments) suggesting that the current language of the regulation is clear and that the changes proposed make the language legalistic. This commenter suggests retaining the original language. LSC disagrees that the proposed language is less clear that the existing language. Rather, LSC believes the language being adopted, as discussed above, is clearer than the language it is replacing (as well as clearer than the existing language). Moreover, the language being adopted includes some substantive changes which LSC believes improves the utility of the regulation for recipients, applicants and clients. Accordingly, LSC declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion. Section 1621.4—Complaints by Clients About Manner or Quality of Legal Assistance As noted above, LSC proposed to reorganize the regulation to move the current section dealing with complaints about legal assistance provided to clients after the section on complaints by applicants about denial of legal assistance. For a discussion of the reasons for this proposed change, see the discussion at section 1621.3, above. LSC received two comments specifically supporting the proposed reorganization. LSC continues to believe the proposed reorganization will clarify this matter and make the regulation easier for recipients and LSC to use. Accordingly, LSC adopts the change in organization as proposed. LSC also proposed some minor substantive changes. First, LSC proposed to add language to the title of this section and the text of the regulation to clarify that this section refers to complaints by clients about the manner or quality of legal assistance provided. LSC received two comments expressly supporting these changes and no comments opposing them. Consistent with the proposed changes in the purpose section, LSC continues to believe these changes will help clarify that the grievance procedure is available to clients and not to third parties wishing to complain about the legal assistance provided to clients who are not themselves complaining. Accordingly, LSC adopts these changes as proposed. As with the similar proposed changes to the section on applicants, LSC notes that for clients who are underage or mentally incompetent, the client is not likely to be directly applying and LSC does not intend this change to impede the ability of the person (parent, guardian or other representative) to act on that client's behalf. Rather, LSC intends the proposed clarification to apply to situations in which a neighbor, friend, relative or other third party would seek to complain in a situation in which the client is otherwise capable of complaining personally. LSC also proposed some revision of the language setting forth the minimum requirements for the required grievance procedures. Except as noted below, these changes are not intended to create any substantive change to the regulation but, rather, to provide more structural clarity to the regulation. One such proposed change is the addition of a statement that the procedures be designed to foster effective communications between recipients and complaining clients. LSC received one comment suggesting that this statement should not be mandatory because the requirement necessitates a subjective judgment as to what is “effective.” The rationale for the proposed change and LSC's response to this comment are the same as for the parallel proposed change in proposed section 1621.3. As with proposed section 1621.3, LSC considered also proposing to add a statement that the required procedure must be designed to treat complaining clients with dignity, but chose not to for the same reasons articulated in that proposed section. As noted above, LSC received one comment expressly supporting LSC's position on this issue. LSC also proposed to amend the time specified in the rule regarding when the client must be informed of the complaint procedures available to clients. Currently, clients must be informed “at the time of the initial visit.” This is typically accomplished in one of several different ways, such as through the posting of the complaint procedures in the office, by providing an information sheet to clients or by including information about the grievance procedure in the retainer agreement. However, the phrase “at the time of the initial visit” tends to imply an in-person initial contact—a situation which in increasingly uncommon for many recipients and clients. Also, a client may not actually be accepted as a client at the time of the initial contact (whether in person or not). LSC believes that what is important is that the person being accepted as a client be informed of the available complaint procedure at that time because that is when the information appears to be most useful and meaningful for the client. Accordingly, LSC proposed that clients be informed of the grievance procedures available to them to complain about the manner or quality of the legal assistance they receive “at the time the person is accepted as a client or as soon thereafter as practicable.” LSC did not propose to dictate how that notice must be provided. LSC continues to believe that this change will assist recipients and clients in situations in which the client does not have an in-person initial visit and will afford recipients the flexibility to provide notice in a manner and time appropriate to local circumstances. LSC received three comments addressing this proposed change. All of these comments generally supported the proposed change as helpful and appropriate, but one suggested substituting the word “practical” for “possible” as it appears in proposed section 1621.4(b)(1). However, the word “possible” is not used in that subsection. Rather, LSC used the word “practicable” in that proposed subsection. LSC believes that the language as proposed already meets the intent of the comments, but LSC does not believe the use of the word “practical” instead of “practicable” is likely to cause problems in understanding or applying the rule. This change would also be consistent with the use of the word “practical” in section 1621.3 (discussed above). Accordingly, LSC adopts the suggested change. LSC received two additional comments on this section. The first commenter suggested that the terms “adequate notice” and “as practicable” were too vague and instead urged LSC to adopt a requirement that recipients be required to provide a written form setting forth the grievance procedures to clients (either in person, or by mail or fax) at the time the client is accepted for service. As noted in the discussion of the term “adequate notice” in section 1621.3, above, recipients use a variety of methods of providing notice of grievance procedures to clients, from posting of the procedures in the office or on websites, to having written procedures available for distribution and/or included in retainer agreements, to the provision of the notice orally through recorded phone menus or by having intake workers and attorneys speaking directly with clients. All of these methods can be sufficient to achieve the purpose that clients know their rights in a timely and substantively meaningful way so as to exercise them if desired, while still being appropriate to local circumstances. Moreover, there are situations in which issues of practicality arise in the provision of notice. For example, providing a written notice by mail to a client who is seeking legal assistance in a case involving domestic violence may put the client's safety in jeopardy and in other cases emergency conditions may prevail dictating some delay in the provision of notice. For these reasons, LSC believes that adopting the commenters' suggestion would unnecessarily impinge on recipients' flexibility to determine exactly how and when notice of the complaint procedures are provided to clients. Accordingly, LSC declines to adopt this suggestion. The second commenter asked for guidance on application of the requirements as they relate to telephone advice. Specifically, the commenter noted that they typically provide the grievance notice to clients who never come into the office in person in conjunction with a letter summarizing the advice given/actions taken. The commenter asks whether this is acceptable in cases in which the closing letter does not go out for several weeks, rather than within a few days. It is not possible for LSC to provide a definitive answer to this very general question in the preamble to the regulation because of the case-by-case variables which could determine what is “practical” for a given recipient in a given situation. In such situations recipients might LSC would consider, among other things, whether it is foreseeable that for a given client it will likely be several weeks before a closing letter is going to be sent out, whether there is another avenue by which the client can be reasonably informed of the grievance procedure other than the closing letter, the number of cases in which this is actually a problem. As LSC stated in the preamble to the NPRM, it intends that a recipient's existing complaint procedures for clients who are dissatisfied with the manner or quality of legal assistance provided, which would meet the proposed revised requirements may continue to be used and would be considered to be sufficient to meet their obligations under this section. 71 FR at 48505 (August 21, 2006). The last change LSC proposed to this section was to include an explicit requirement that the grievance procedures provide some method of reviewing complaints by clients about the manner or quality of service provided by private attorneys pursuant to the recipient's private attorney involvement

(PAI)program under 45 CFR Part 1614. The regulation has previously been silent on this matter and LSC has not required recipients to apply the client grievance procedure to private attorneys. However, from the clients' standpoint it is immaterial whether legal assistance happens to be provided directly by the recipient or by a private attorney pursuant to the PAI program. In both cases, the client remains a client of the recipient and should be afforded some avenue to complain about legal assistance provided. At the same time, subjecting private attorneys to the same grievance procedure that applies to the recipient would likely be administratively burdensome and likely impede recipients' ability to recruit private attorneys for the PAI program. In addition, some PAI programs, such as ones administered by bar associations, already have their own complaint procedures. Also, recipients are required by the section 1614.3(d)(3) of the PAI regulation to provide effective oversight of their private attorneys. Providing some process for review of complaints about their service is reasonably considered part of that responsibility. LSC received two comments addressing this proposal. One commenter supported this proposal, but suggested that the preamble make clear that recipients should be aware of their state bar's grievance procedures and should be prepared to refer clients to the state bar's grievance procedures (or possibly to independent counsel) when such referral would be appropriate. We agree that this is an important consideration and so note it herein. The other commenter suggested that this provision might prove difficult for recipients in private attorney recruitment efforts and urged LSC to refrain from adopting such a provision without first soliciting input from the ABA and state and local bar associations. The comment does not address with any specificity how recruitment efforts might be impeded in light of the fact noted in the preamble to the NPRM (and restated above) that recipients are already required to provide some process for review of complaints as part of their responsibility under the PAI regulation to provide effective oversight of their participating private attorneys. Moreover, LSC believes that the issues in the rulemaking have been widely noticed and discussed since the inception of the rulemaking. More specifically, the NPRM was not only published in the **Federal Register** for public comment but it was also posted on the LSC Web site, and the public meetings at which the Rulemaking Workshops and the Draft NPRM were discussed were also publicly noticed. Should the any bar association have desired to comment, there has been ample opportunity for those organizations to do so. As such, LSC sees no reason to delay action on this particular provision. In light of the above, LSC continues to believe that it is appropriate that this regulation contain a requirement that recipients establish a procedure to review complaints by clients about the manner or quality of service of PAI attorneys. After further consideration, however, LSC believes that there is a better way to state this requirement than as proposed in the NPRM. Accordingly, LSC section 1621.4(c) provides that: Complaints received from clients about the manner or quality of legal assistance that has been rendered by a private attorney pursuant to the recipient's private attorney involvement program under 45 CFR Part 1614 shall be processed in a manner consistent with its responsibilities under 45 CFR § 1614.3(d)(3) and with applicable state or local rules of professional responsibility. LSC believes this language does not create a substantive change in the policy proposed in the NPRM but, instead, states that policy in a clearer, more appropriate manner. Accordingly, LSC adopts the PAI-related provision as described herein. LSC reiterates, that is it not requiring recipients to afford the same procedure as provided to clients being provided service directly by the recipient. LSC also reiterates that it intends that existing formal and informal methods for review of complaints about PAI attorneys currently meeting recipients' obligations under Part 1614 continue to be used and would be considered to be sufficient to meet their obligations under this section. LSC received three other comments addressing proposed section 1621.4. Two of these comments ask LSC to clarify that the requirement in proposed section 1621.4(d) that recipients maintain files of complaints and their disposition applies only to complaints by clients about the manner or quality of legal assistance provided and not to complaints by applicants about the denial of legal assistance. LSC believes that it is clear that this requirement applies only to that section and not to any other section in the regulation. Recipients are not required to maintain files on complaints by applicants about denial of legal assistance. LSC does not believe that any modification of the regulation is necessary and anticipates that this discussion will remove any possible ambiguity. One of these commenters further suggested that either the rule or preamble should make clear that files are required only for complaints that are not resolved informally by staff, the Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee and that the requirement should, instead, apply only to complaints that have been considered by the Board's grievance committee. The current requirement found in section 1621.3(c) is not limited in the manner suggested by the commenter. Rather, the current language provides that in cases of complaints by clients about the manner of quality of legal assistance provided “a file containing every complaint and a statement of its disposition shall be preserved for examination by the Corporation” (emphasis added). The proposed provision is exactly the same as the current one (except for substitution of “LSC” for “Corporation”). For LSC to adopt the position urged by the commenter in the preamble would result in a preambular statement directly at odds with the clear language of the regulation. For LSC to change the regulation would result in a significant substantive change for which no rationale has been articulated. LSC declines to adopt this suggestion. Finally, LSC received one comment (in the attachments to the Chairperson of the NLADA's Client Policy Group comments) suggesting that the current language of the regulation is clear and that the changes proposed make the language legalistic. This commenter suggests retaining the original language. LSC disagrees that the proposed language is less clear than the existing language. Rather, LSC believes the language being adopted, as discussed above, is clearer than the language it is replacing (as well as clearer than the existing language). Moreover, the language being adopted includes some substantive changes which LSC believes improves the utility of the regulation for recipients, applicants and clients. Accordingly, LSC declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion. List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1621 Grants programs—law, Legal services. For reasons set forth above, and under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 2996g(e), LSC revises 45 CFR part 1621 as follows: PART 1621—CLIENT GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES Sec. 1621.1 Purpose. 1621.2 Grievance committee. 1621.3 Complaints by applicants about denial legal assistance. 1621.4 Complaints by clients about manner or quality of legal assistance. Authority: Sec. 1006(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(1); sec. 1006(b)(3), 42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(3); sec. 1007(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 2996f(a) (1). § 1621.1 Purpose. This Part is intended to help ensure that recipients provide the highest quality legal assistance to clients as required by the LSC Act and are accountable to clients and applicants for legal assistance by requiring recipients to establish grievance procedures to process complaints by applicants about the denial of legal assistance and clients about the manner or quality of legal assistance provided. This Part is further intended to help ensure that the grievance procedures adopted by recipients will result, to the extent possible, in the provision of an effective remedy in the resolution of complaints. § 1621.2 Grievance Committee. The governing body of a recipient shall establish a grievance committee or committees, composed of lawyer and client members of the governing body, in approximately the same proportion in which they are on the governing body. § 1621.3 Complaints by applicants about denial of legal assistance. A recipient shall establish a simple procedure for review of complaints by applicants about decisions to deny legal assistance to the applicant. The procedure shall, at a minimum, provide: A practical method for the recipient to provide applicants with adequate notice of the complaint procedures and how to make a complaint; and an opportunity for applicants to confer with the Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee, and, to the extent practical, with a representative of the governing body. The procedure shall be designed to foster effective communications between the recipient and complaining applicants. § 1621.4 Complaints by clients about manner or quality of legal assistance.

(a)A recipient shall establish procedures for the review of complaints by clients about the manner or quality of legal assistance that has been rendered by the recipient to the client.

(b)The procedures shall be designed to foster effective communications between the recipient and the complaining client and, at a minimum, provide:

(1)A method for providing a client, at the time the person is accepted as a client or as soon thereafter as is practical, with adequate notice of the complaint procedures and how to make a complaint;

(2)For prompt consideration of each complaint by the Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee,

(3)An opportunity for the complainant, if the Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee is unable to resolve the matter, to submit an oral or written statement to a grievance committee established by the governing body as required by § 1621.2 of this Part. The procedures shall also: provide that the opportunity to submit an oral statement may be accomplished in person, by teleconference, or through some other reasonable alternative; permit a complainant to be accompanied by another person who may speak on that complainant's behalf; and provide that, upon request of the complainant, the recipient shall transcribe a brief written statement, dictated by the complainant for inclusion in the recipient's complaint file.

(c)Complaints received from clients about the manner or quality of legal assistance that has been rendered by a private attorney pursuant to the recipient's private attorney involvement program under 45 CFR Part 1614 shall be processed in a manner consistent with its responsibilities under 45 CFR § 1614.3(d)(3) and with applicable state or local rules of professional responsibility.

(d)A file containing every complaint and a statement of its disposition shall be preserved for examination by LSC. The file shall include any written statement submitted by the complainant or transcribed by the recipient from a complainant's oral statement. Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President and General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-1290 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 001005281-0369-02; I.D. 010507C] Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Closure AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial run-around gillnet fishery for king mackerel in the exclusive economic zone

(EEZ)in the southern Florida west coast subzone. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource. DATES: The closure is effective 6 a.m., local time, January 25, 2007, through 6 a.m., January 22, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727-824-5305, fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail: *Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero, cobia, little tunny, and, in the Gulf of Mexico only, dolphin and bluefish) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. Based on the Councils' recommended total allowable catch and the allocation ratios in the FMP, on April 30, 2001 (66 FR 17368, March 30, 2001), NMFS implemented a commercial quota of 2.25 million lb (1.02 million kg) for the eastern zone (Florida) of the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel. That quota is further divided into separate quotas for the Florida east coast subzone and the northern and southern Florida west coast subzones. On April 27, 2000, NMFS implemented the final rule (65 FR 16336, March 28, 2000) that divided the Florida west coast subzone of the eastern zone into northern and southern subzones, and established their separate quotas. The quota implemented for the southern Florida west coast subzone is 1,040,625 lb (472,020 kg). That quota is further divided into two equal quotas of 520,312 lb (236,010 kg) for vessels in each of two groups fishing with run-around gillnets and hook-and-line gear (50 CFR 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)( *2* )( *i* )). Under 50 CFR 622.43(a)(3), NMFS is required to close any segment of the king mackerel commercial fishery when its quota has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification at the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota of 520,312 lb (236,010 kg) for Gulf group king mackerel for vessels using run-around gillnet gear in the southern Florida west coast subzone was reached on January 24, 2007. Accordingly, the commercial fishery for king mackerel for such vessels in the southern Florida west coast subzone is closed at 6 a.m., local time, January 25, 2007, through 6 a.m., January 22, 2008, the beginning of the next fishing season, i.e., the day after the 2008 Martin Luther King Jr. Federal holiday. The Florida west coast subzone is that part of the eastern zone south and west of 25°20.4′ N. lat. (a line directly east from the Miami-Dade County, FL, boundary). The Florida west coast subzone is further divided into northern and southern subzones. The southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone which from November 1 through March 31 extends south and west from 25°20.4′ N. lat. to 26°19.8′ N. lat.(a line directly west from the Lee/Collier County, FL, boundary), i.e., the area off Collier and Monroe Counties. From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone which is between 26°19.8′ N. lat. and 25°48′ N. lat.(a line directly west from the Monroe/Collier County, FL, boundary), i.e., the area off Collier County. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself already has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action in order to protect the fishery since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment will require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota. For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30 day delay in effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: January 24, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-351 Filed 1-24-07; 1:59 pm]

Connectionstraces to 37

Traces to 37 documents