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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-01-31 · PROPOSED RULES · Unknown

Unknown. Interim final rule and request for comment

21,273 words·~97 min read·/register/2007/01/31/07-408

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-2007-01-31.xml --- 72 20 Wednesday, January 31, 2007 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Forest Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4477 E7-1478 Air Force Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, 4492-4493 E7-1492 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Exportation and importation of animals and animal products:
Classical swine fever; disease change status— Nayarit, Mexico, 4463-4467 E7-1530 Viruses, serums, toxins, and analogous products: Avian lymphoid leukosis virus; detection, 4467-4470 E7-1528 Live vaccines; standard requirements, 4470-4472 E7-1531 NOTICES Meetings: Veterinary biological products; manufacture, distribution, and use; regulatory and policy issues; canceled, 4477 E7-1529 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4512-4513 E7-1489 Meetings:
Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panels, 4513 E7-1501 Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect National Task Force, 4513 E7-1493 Immunization Practices Advisory Committee, 4513-4514 E7-1490 Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Extramural Research Program Office, 4514 07-417 Commerce Commerce Department See Economics and Statistics Administration See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Customs Customs and Border Protection Bureau RULES Merchandise examination, sampling, and testing:
Food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics; conditional release period and customs bond obligations, 4423-4430 07-408 NOTICES IRS interest rates in calculating interest on overdue accounts and refunds, 4524-4525 E7-1477 Defense Defense Department See Air Force Department See Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: Dose Reconstruction Veterans’ Advisory Board, 4492 E7-1532 Economics Economics and Statistics Administration NOTICES Meetings: Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy Advisory Committee, 4482 07-427 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4494-4497 E7-1457 E7-1458 E7-1459 E7-1460 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 4497 07-438 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: Aerotek Staffing Agency, 4533 E7-1470 Avondale Mills, Inc., 4533-4534 E7-1474 Davis International, 4534 E7-1469 National Apparel, LLC, 4534 E7-1473 Specialty Filaments, Inc., et al., 4534-4535 E7-1471 TTM Technologies, Inc., 4536 E7-1472 VIA Information Tools Inc., 4536 E7-1468 Employment Employment Standards Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4536-4537 E7-1486 Energy Energy Department See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Climate change:
Voluntary Greenhouse Gas reporting Program— General guidelines; correction, 4411-4414 E7-1436 Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Meetings: Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee, 4497 E7-1504 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air programs; approval and promulgation; State plans for designated facilities and pollutants: Michigan, 4432-4435 E7-1421 Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and raw agricultural commodities:
Thiabendazole, 4435-4441 E7-1234 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Kansas, 4472-4475 E7-1518 NOTICES Confidential business information and data transfer, 4501-4503 E7-1412 E7-1431 Pesticide programs: Tolerance reassessment decisions— Monocarbamide dihydrogen sulfate, 4503-4505 E7-1435 Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.: Fluometuron, 4505-4506 E7-1517 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents See Trade Representative, Office of United States Farm Farm Credit Administration RULES Corporate governance; correction, 4414 E7-1533 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:
Airbus, 4416-4419 E7-1394 Boeing, 4419-4423 E7-1396 Gulfstream, 4414-4416 E7-1397 NOTICES Exemption petitions; summary and disposition, 4556-4557 E7-1463 07-409 07-410 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Radio stations; table of assignments: Alabama, 4441-4442 E7-1523 Indiana, 4441 E7-1524 Texas, 4441 E7-1522 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4506 E7-1525 Correction, 4563 C7-309 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4525 E7-1499 Disaster and emergency areas:
Kansas, 4526 E7-1455 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4497-4498 E7-1484 Complaints filed: Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co., 4499 E7-1483 Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 4499-4501 E7-1481 Hydroelectric applications, 4501 E7-1482 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., et al., 4498-4499 E7-1485 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Seattle, WA, 4557-4558 E7-1495 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements filed, etc., 4506-4507 E7-1538 Ocean transportation intermediary licenses: EDM International Logistics, Inc., et al., 4507 E7-1565 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Change in bank control, 4507-4508 E7-1536 FTC Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Prohibited trade practices: TC Group L.L.C. et al., 4508-4511 E7-1479 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Organization, functions, and procedures:
Emergency relief docket (2007 CY); establishment, 4558-4559 E7-1488 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4514 E7-1549 Memorandums of understanding: FDA and Veterans Health Administration; FDA-regulated drugs, biologics, and medical devices; review and use, 4514-4519 07-421 Foreign Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Sanctions; blocked persons, specially designated nationals, terrorists, narcotics traffickers, and foreign terrorists organizations:
Terrorist-related blocked persons; additional designations, 4560-4561 07-422 Weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters; persons whose property and interests have been blocked; individuals removed from list, 4561-4562 E7-1548 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Forest Service Handbook: National Forest System land management planning directives— Wilderness evaluation procedures, 4478-4481 E7-1554 Recreation fee areas: Chugach National Forest, AK; Childs Glacier Recreation Area; campsites and pavillion use fees, 4481-4482 07-407 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4511-4512 E7-1464 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Customs and Border Protection Bureau See Federal Emergency Management Agency See Transportation Security Administration RULES Merchandise examination, sampling, and testing:
Food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics; conditional release period and customs bond obligations, 4423-4430 07-408 Interior Interior Department See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Clad steel pipe from— Japan, 4482-4483 E7-1571 Forged stainless steel flanges from— India, 4483-4486 E7-1575 Honey from— Argentina, 4486 E7-1461 Stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from— Korea, 4486-4490 E7-1462 Meetings:
Middle East and North Africa; influence of European standards, 4490-4491 E7-1521 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations: Carbon steel products from— Various countries, 4529 E7-1560 Justice Justice Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4529-4532 E7-1511 E7-1512 E7-1513 E7-1514 Privacy Act; systems of records, 4532-4533 E7-1562 E7-1567 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration See Employment Standards Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Alaska Native Claims Selection:
Levelock Natives, Ltd., 4527-4528 E7-1500 Lime Village Co., 4528 E7-1569 Pilot Station, Inc., 4528 E7-1503 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration RULES NARA facilities: Personal property inspection; correction, 4432 E7-1498 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Highway safety programs; breath alcohol testing devices: Model specifications and conforming products list— Alcohol in bodily fluids screening devices, 4559-4560 E7-1465 Meetings:
Brain Injury Symposium, 4560 E7-1491 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4520-4521 07-406 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: National Cancer Institute Director's Consumer Liason Group, 4521 07-400 Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 4521-4522 07-401 07-402 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 4522 07-397 07-398 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 4523-4524 07-404 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 4522-4523 07-399 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 4523 07-403 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management:
Northeastern United States fisheries— Atlantic bluefish, 4458-4461 E7-1544 West Coast States and Western Pacific fisheries— Pacific mackerel, 4461-4462 E7-1546 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, 4491 07-411 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Padre Island National Seashore, TX; plans of operations, 4528-4529 07-414 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Ships available for donation:
Submarine ex-DOLPHIN, 4493-4494 E7-1497 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee, 4537 E7-1541 E7-1543 Office of U.S. Trade Office of United States Trade Representative See Trade Representative, Office of United States Pension Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Employee Retirement Income Security Act: Sale of assets by employer who contributes to multiemployer plan; bond/escrow requirement; exemption request, 4538-4540 E7-1505 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4540-4541 E7-1542 E7-1545 E7-1564 Excepted service; positions placed or revoked, 4541-4543 E7-1454 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Hazardous materials:
Hazardous materials transportation— Compressed oxygen, other oxidizing gases, and chemical oxygen generators on aircraft, 4442-4458 E7-1487 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* National African American History Month (Proc. 8103), 4611-4614 07-455 Railroad Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4543 E7-1466 Saint Lawrence Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation RULES Seaway regulations and rules:
Tolls tariff, 4430-4432 E7-1535 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4544-4545 E7-1507 E7-1520 Intermarket Trading System Plan; de minimis exemption, 4545-4547 E7-1475 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 4547-4548 E7-1519 Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 4549-4550 E7-1510 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 4550-4552 E7-1509 National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 4574-4609 E7-1382 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 4552-4555 E7-1506 E7-1508 State State Department PROPOSED RULES Acquisition regulations:
Non-U.S. citizen locally employed staff; contracting authority, 4475-4476 E7-1534 NOTICES Meetings: Overseas Security Advisory Council, 4555 E7-1527 Trade Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES World Trade Organization: Dispute settlement panel proceedings— Canada; U.S. domestic support measures for corn and other agricultural products, 4537-4538 E7-1563 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Transit Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration See Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Regional Small Business Transportation Resource Centers (2007 FY), 4556 E7-1526 Transportation Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 4526-4527 07-369 Treasury Treasury Department See Foreign Assets Control Office Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Readers Aids, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, 4566-4572 E7-1382 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 4574-4609 E7-1382 Part IV Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 4611-4614 07-455 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 20 Wednesday, January 31, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 300 RIN 1901-AB23 Corrections and Updates to Technical Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting AGENCY: Office of Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Interim final rule and request for comment. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE)today publishes an interim final rule that corrects, updates, and makes clarifying changes to Technical Guidelines used for reporting under the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program authorized by section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Technical Guidelines were incorporated by reference in final program guidelines that were published on April 21, 2006, and placed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In accordance with the rules governing incorporation by reference in the CFR, DOE is amending its program regulations to reflect the update of the Technical Guidelines. DATES: *Effective Date:* This interim final rule is effective March 2, 2007, unless comments received warrant or necessitate a later effective date. The incorporation by reference of the updated Technical Guidelines is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 2, 2007. *Comment Date:* Written comments must be received by February 20, 2007. Comments may be mailed to the address given in the ADDRESSES section below. Comments also may be submitted electronically by e-mailing them to: *1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov* . We note that e-mail submissions will avoid delay currently associated with security screening of U.S. Postal Service mail. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by RIN 1901-AB23, by any of the following methods: 1. E-mail to *1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov* . Include RIN 1901-AB23 and “Interim Final Rule Comments” in the subject line of the e-mail. Please include the full body of your comments in the text of the message or an attachment. 2. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 3. *Mail:* Address the comments to Mark Friedrichs, PI-40, Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. DOE requires, in hard copy, a signed original and three copies of all comments. Due to potential delays in the DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage commenters to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Friedrichs, PI-40, Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, or e-mail: *1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov* . Phone:
(202)586-0124. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Discussion of Interim Final Rule II. Regulatory Review III. Approval of the Office of Secretary I. Background and Discussion of Interim Final Rule Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed DOE to issue guidelines establishing a voluntary greenhouse gas reporting program (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)). On February 14, 2002, the President directed DOE, together with other involved Federal agencies, to recommend reforms to enhance the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program established by DOE in 1994. On April 21, 2006, following a lengthy public review process, DOE published revised final General Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting (71 FR 20784). Those guidelines incorporated by reference detailed Technical Guidelines, dated March 2006, that are needed to fully implement the revised Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. Subsequent to the April 21, 2006 publication of the revised final General Guidelines and during preparation of new forms and instructions for reporting, DOE identified a number of errors and inconsistencies in the Technical Guidelines that warrant correction or clarification. To ensure that any revision of the March 2006 Technical Guidelines addressed as many of these problems as possible, on August 3, 2006, DOE sent a message by electronic mail to all persons who had previously expressed an interest in the guidelines and requested that they identify any needed technical corrections, clarifications, interpretations or other changes to the guidelines. Subsequently, DOE received communications that recommended additional corrections and other changes for consideration. Following a careful review of the recommended corrections and other suggested changes, DOE made those modifications to the Technical Guidelines that it believed were necessary to correct all the identified errors and inconsistencies or other ambiguities, while adhering to the essential language and intent of the March 2006 version of the Technical Guidelines. The updated version of the Technical Guidelines is dated January 2007. The regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register provide that an agency that seeks to change a document approved for incorporation by reference in a regulation must:
(1)Publish notice of the change in the Federal Register and amend the Code of Federal Regulations;
(2)ensure that a copy of the amendment or revision is on file at the Office of the Federal Register; and
(3)notify the Director of the Federal Register in writing that the changes are being made. 1 CFR 51.11(a). Accordingly, DOE sent the January 2007 update of the Technical Guidelines to the Director of the Federal Register and obtained his approval of the incorporation by reference of the January 2007 Technical Guidelines in the regulations for the section 1605(b) program that are published in the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations. By today's interim final rule, DOE changes the date of the Technical Guidelines from March 2006 to January 2007 in 10 CFR 300.13. DOE believes that all of the modifications in the January 2007 version of the Technical Guidelines are fully consistent with the section 1605(b) program's General Guidelines and DOE's original intent regarding the methods and other guidance provided in the Technical Guidelines. Before these changes are made final, however, DOE is providing an opportunity for public review and comment on the specific changes that DOE has made. DOE is specifically soliciting public comment on whether any of the changes DOE has made are inconsistent with the General Guidelines. The revised January 2007 Technical Guidelines are available on the web at: *http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/* . DOE is making two versions of the updated Technical Guidelines available on the Web site. One version shows all of the changes made since the March 2006 Technical Guidelines were issued, with the new text underscored and the deleted text marked as deleted. The second version includes all the changes, but does not highlight them. The changes and clarifications included in the updated Technical Guidelines fall into the following categories: *Corrections of factual and drafting errors.* The updated Technical Guidelines correct a number of clerical or typographical errors that appeared in the March 2006 Technical Guidelines. The errors include inaccurate physical values, repeated text, misplaced definitions, and incorrect citations or Web site links. *Elimination of inconsistencies.* There were instances where language in the March 2006 Technical Guidelines was not entirely consistent with the General Guidelines or with language in other parts of the Technical Guidelines. DOE has revised the Technical Guidelines to eliminate this inconsistency. In cases where the Technical Guidelines were internally inconsistent, DOE endeavored to remove this inconsistency by retaining the language it determined was most consistent with DOE's original intent, as explained in the preambles to the interim final General Guidelines published on March 24, 2005 (70 FR 15171-81) and the final General Guidelines published on April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20785-803). *Updated references.* In some cases, the March 2006 Technical Guidelines do not refer to the most current versions of documents referenced in the guidelines, even though some of those documents were in the public domain before the issuance of the final guidelines. The updated Technical Guidelines include a number of updates to referenced documents. During the development of the updated Technical Guidelines, consideration was given to referencing the 2006 emission inventory guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While these guidelines are generally viewed as the best available inventory guidelines, they have yet to be officially adopted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since DOE's Energy Information Administration has authority under the Technical Guidelines to update the factors and methodologies based on the IPCC guidelines as soon as it is appropriate to do so, no change to the Technical Guidelines is necessary at this time. *Clarifications of intent.* In some instances the language used in the March 2006 Technical Guidelines was confusing or vague. In the updated version, DOE added clarifying words or text where a modification was likely to significantly enhance reader comprehension. *Modification or elimination of inappropriate calculation methods.* In a few cases, commenters or DOE identified certain calculation methods as inappropriate for the purposes stated in the Technical Guidelines. For example, DOE eliminated the action-specific method for calculating the reductions associated with the recovery of methane from anaerobic digesters of animal waste because DOE concluded that this method is not needed to calculate reductions associated with these sources of emissions and is inconsistent with other guidance in both the General Guidelines and other parts of the Technical Guidelines. In other cases, formulas or factors were modified to ensure the applicability of the methods to the sources identified. DOE did not adopt in the January 2007 Technical Guidelines some clarifications or other changes recommended by stakeholders. In some cases, the stakeholders sought modifications that would be inconsistent with the General Guidelines or outside the scope of the guidelines under section 1605(b). DOE may consider additional changes to the Technical Guidelines when it conducts the periodic reviews provided for in 10 CFR 300.1(f). II. Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 Today's regulatory action has been determined to not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 13258, 67 FR 9385 (February 26, 2002). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) requires that an agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation when a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This rule makes corrections, updates and clarifying changes to Technical Guidelines for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program incorporated by reference in General Guidelines published on April 21, 2006. These changes do not affect the burden on the entities that report emissions under the section 1605(b) program. Moreover, as stated in the April 2006 notice of final guidelines, the reporting program is voluntary and DOE anticipates that small entities will weigh the benefits and costs when deciding to participate. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that these amendments to the Technical Guidelines will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will provide this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act The Energy Information Administration
(EIA)on November 9, 2006 (71 FR 65786) submitted the new forms and associated instructions for reporting under the April 2006 revised guidelines to OMB for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The changes to the Technical Guidelines made by today's interim final rule do not include any additional information collection requirements. D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act DOE has concluded that promulgation of this rule falls into the class of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment as set forth in DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ). Specifically, the interim final rule is covered under the categorical exclusion in paragraph A5 of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to rulemaking interpreting or amending an existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1969 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency regulation that may result in the expenditure by states, tribal, or local governments, on the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one year. The Act also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officials of state, tribal, or local governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity to provide timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. DOE has determined that the rule published today does not contain any Federal mandates affecting states, tribal, or local governments, so these requirements do not apply. F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4779 (February 7, 1996) imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: Eliminate drafting errors and needless ambiguity, write regulations to minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) requires Federal agencies to make every reasonable effort to ensure that a regulation, among other things: Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, adequately defines key terms, and addresses other important issues affecting the clarity and general draftsmanship under guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this interim final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. G. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this interim final rule and has determined that it would not preempt State law and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibility among the various levels of government. No further action is required by the Executive Order. H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a “Family Policymaking Assessment” for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule has no impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires preparation and submission to OMB of a Statement of Energy Effects for significant regulatory actions under Executive Order 12866 that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. DOE has determined that the rule published today is not a significant regulatory action and will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and, thus, the requirement to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects does not apply. J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most dissemination of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's interim final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines, and concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. K. Congressional Notification As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of today's interim final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this rulemaking. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2). III. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this interim final rule. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 300 Administrative practice and procedure, Energy, Gases, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Issued in Washington, DC on January 25, 2007. Karen A. Harbert, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends part 300 of title 10, chapter II, subchapter B of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below. PART 300—VOLUNTARY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING PROGRAM: GENERAL GUIDELINES 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101 *et seq.* , and 42 U.S.C. 13385(b). 2. The first sentence of § 300.13 is revised to read as follows: § 300.13 Incorporation by reference. The Technical Guidelines for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (1605(b)) Program (January 2007), referred to throughout this part as the “Technical Guidelines,” have been approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the **Federal Register** in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. * * * [FR Doc. E7-1436 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 620 RIN 3052-AC19 Disclosure to Shareholders; Correction AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration
(FCA)published a final rule (71 FR 5740, February 2, 2006) that amended the regulations affecting the governance of the Farm Credit System. This document corrects a nonsubstantive error in the final rule. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy R. Nicholson, Technical Editor, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,
(703)883-4020, TTY
(703)883-4020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In revising § 620.5(i)(2)(i), we inadvertently omitted the last two paragraphs in the final rule as published at 71 FR 5740, February 2, 2006. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 620 Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas. Accordingly, 12 CFR part 620 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 620—DISCLOSURE TO SHAREHOLDERS 1. The authority citation for part 620 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 5.17, 5.19, 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2252, 2254, 2279aa-11) sec. 424 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1656. Subpart B—Annual Report to Shareholders 2. Amend § 620.5(i)(2)(i) by adding paragraphs
(E)and
(F)to read as follows: § 620.5 Contents of the annual report to shareholders. (i)(2)(i) * * *
(E)Compensation amounts reported under the category “Other” (column (f)) shall reflect the dollar value of all other compensation not properly reportable in any other column. Items reported in this column shall be specifically identified and described in a footnote to the table. Such compensation includes, but is not limited to: ( *1* ) The amount paid to the senior officer pursuant to a plan or arrangement in connection with the resignation, retirement, or termination of such officer's employment with the institution; or ( *2* ) The amount of contributions by the institution on behalf of the senior officer to a vested or unvested defined contribution plan unless the plan is made available to all employees on the same basis.
(F)Amounts displayed under “Total” (column (g)) shall reflect the sum total of amounts reported in columns (c), (d), (e), and (f). Dated: January 25, 2007. Roland E. Smith, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. E7-1533 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27077; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-286-AD; Amendment 39-14916; AD 2007-03-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream 100 Airplanes, and Model Astra SPX and 1125 Westwind Astra Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The unsafe condition is incomplete closure of the main entry door, which may result in the door opening in flight, causing damage to wing, fuselage, engine, and/or tail, and possible damage to the airplane. This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 15, 2007. We must receive comments on this AD by March 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • DOT Docket Web Site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2677; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli Airworthiness Directive 52-06-11-08, dated November 28, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The unsafe condition is incomplete closure of the main entry door, which may result in the door opening in flight, causing damage to wing, fuselage, engine, and/or tail, and possible damage to the airplane. The MCAI requires amending the airplane flight manuals to include additional procedures for verifying complete closure and locking of the main entry door. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because there have been two incidents of main entry doors opening in flight, both at relatively low altitude and airspeeds. Since it cannot be shown the airplane can continue safe operation and return to the nearest airport after such an event in any phase of flight, we have determined that loss of an airplane is possible unless immediate actions are taken. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27077; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-286-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-03-05 Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Formerly Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.):** Amendment 39-14916. Docket No. FAA-2007-27077; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-286-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective February 15, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Gulfstream Model Gulfstream 100 airplanes; and Model Astra SPX and 1125 Westwind Astra airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers. Reason
(d)The unsafe condition is incomplete closure of the main entry door, which may result in the door opening in flight, causing damage to wing, fuselage, engine, and/or tail, and possible damage to the airplane. The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)requires amending the airplane flight manuals to include additional procedures for verifying complete closure and locking of the main entry door. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions. Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, amend section IV, Normal Procedures, of the following Gulfstream airplane flight manuals (AFMs): Model 1125 Astra, 25W-1001-1; Model Astra SPX, SPX-1001-1; and Model G100, G100-1001-1; as applicable; to include the following statement. Insertion of copies of this AD at the appropriate places of the AFMs is acceptable. “1. BEFORE ENGINE START: (PRE and POST Mod 20052/Gulfstream Service Bulletin 100-31-284): CABIN DOOR—CLOSED (Physically verify door latch handle pin is fully engaged in the handle lock). 2. BEFORE TAXIING: Change the CABIN DOOR procedure as follows (POST Mod 20052/Gulfstream Service Bulletin 100-31-284): Check CABIN DOOR light—OUT. 3. BEFORE TAKE-OFF: Insert between the POSITION lights switch and the THRUST LEVERS procedures: (PRE Mod 20052/Gulfstream Service Bulletin 100-31-284): Check CABIN DOOR light—OUT (50% N1 may be required). (POST Mod 20052/Gulfstream Service Bulletin 100-31-284): Check CABIN DOOR light—OUT; CABIN DOOR SEAL light—OUT (50% N1 may be required).” Note 1: Mod 20052 is equivalent to Gulfstream Service Bulletin 100-31-284, dated August 17, 2006. Note 2: This AD may be accomplished by a holder of a Private Pilot's License. FAA AD Differences Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: We revised the order in which the AFM procedures for verifying closure and locking of the main entry door appear in the MCAI. We also removed one procedure under “BEFORE TAXIING” for verifying the cabin door seal light is out (Post Mod 20052/Post Gulfstream Service Bulletin 100-31-284) and for verifying the cabin door light is out (Pre Mod 20052/Pre Gulfstream Service Bulletin 100-31-284). Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, Attn: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(g)Refer to MCAI Israeli Airworthiness Directive 52-06-11-08, dated November 28, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(h)None. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 23, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1397 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27064; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-274-AD; Amendment 39-14915; AD 2007-03-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking of the wing MLG (main landing gear) rib 6 aft bearing forward lugs, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the MLG attachment. This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: This AD becomes effective February 15, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 15, 2007. We must receive comments on this AD by March 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2797; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0364-E, dated December 6, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that during MLG lubrication, a crack has been found visually in the MLG rib 6 aft bearing forward lug on one A330 in-service aircraft. The crack has extended through the entire thickness of the forward lug at approximately the 4 o'clock position (when looking forward). (Similar cracks have been found on MLGs with similar configurations on other Airbus airplane models). The investigations are ongoing to determine the root causes of this event and to define the appropriate corrective actions. This situation, if not corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the MLG attachment, which constitutes an unsafe condition. The aim of the MCAI is to mandate repetitive detailed visual inspections of the LH (left-hand) and RH (right-hand) wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs as the first step before finalization of the investigations, and replacement of MLG rib 6 if a crack is detected. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A330-57A3096, A340-57A4104, and A340-57A5009, all dated December 5, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because during a MLG maintenance task for lubrication, a crack was visually detected in the wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing forward lug on one in-service A330 aircraft. The crack had extended through the entire thickness of the forward lug at the 4 o'clock position. Failure of this attachment could result in gear collapse upon landing. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27064; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-274-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-03-04 Airbus:** Amendment 39-14915. Docket No. FAA-2007-27064; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-274-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective February 15, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following airplanes:
(1)Airbus Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes, all certified models, certificated in any category, all serial numbers; except those on which Airbus modification 49353 has been embodied in production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3082 has been embodied in service on both wings; and except those that have been repaired on both wings as per Airbus UK Limited Repair Drawing R572-56230, or Airbus A330 Structural Repair Manual 57-26-13, page block 201.
(2)Airbus Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes, all certified models, certificated in any category, all serial numbers; except those on which Airbus modification 49353 has been embodied in production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4088 has been embodied in service on both wings; and except those that have been repaired on both wings as per Airbus UK Limited Repair Drawing R572-56230, or Airbus A340 Structural Repair Manual 57-26-13, page block 201.
(3)Airbus Model A340-500 and A340-600 series airplanes, all certified models, certificated in any category, all serial numbers; except those on which Airbus modification 50040 or 51585 has been embodied in production. Reason
(d)EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0364-E, dated December 6, 2006, states that during MLG lubrication, a crack has been found visually in the MLG (main landing gear) rib 6 aft bearing forward lug on one A330 in-service aircraft. The crack has extended through the entire thickness of the forward lug at approximately the 4 o'clock position (when looking forward). (Similar cracks have been found on MLGs with similar configurations on other Airbus airplane models). The investigations are ongoing to determine the root causes of this event and to define the appropriate corrective actions. This situation, if not corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the MLG attachment, which constitutes an unsafe condition. The aim of the MCAI is to mandate repetitive detailed visual inspections of the LH (left-hand) and RH (right-hand) wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs as the first step before finalization of the investigations, and replacement of MLG rib 6 if a crack is detected. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57A3096, dated December 5, 2006; A340-57A4104, dated December 5, 2006; or A340-57A5009, dated December 5, 2006; as applicable.
(1)Within 60 months since first flight, or 14 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Perform a detailed visual inspection of the LH (left-hand) and RH (right-hand) wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs (forward and aft) to detect any cracks on the two lugs.
(2)If any crack is detected, contact Airbus immediately and proceed with the replacement of the MLG rib 6 before further flight.
(3)If no crack is detected, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed the applicable interval specified in paragraph (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(ii), or (e)(3)(iii) of this AD, and if a crack is detected during the repeat inspections, before further flight, apply the corrective action mentioned in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD as applicable.
(i)300 flight cycles
(FC)for Model A330 airplanes.
(ii)200 FC for Model A340-200 and A340-300 airplanes.
(iii)100 FC for Model A340-500 and A340-600 airplanes. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Tim Backman, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(4)*Special Flight Permits:* We are not allowing special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199). Related Information
(g)Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI)EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0364-E, dated December 6, 2006; and Airbus Service Bulletins A330-57A3096, A340-57A4104, and A340-57A5009, all dated December 5, 2006; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(h)You must use the service information specified in Table 1 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference Airbus service bulletin Revision Date A330-57A3096 Original December 5, 2006. A340-57A4104 Original December 5, 2006. A340-57A5009 Original December 5, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 23, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1394 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24496; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-141-AD; Amendment 39-14914; AD 2007-03-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series 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 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the vertical beam webs of the body station
(BS)178 bulkhead, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also requires a terminating modification for the repetitive inspections. This AD results from reports of numerous cracks in the vertical beam webs. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracks in certain vertical beam webs, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the BS 178 bulkhead, and consequently could impair the operation of the control cables for the elevators, speed brakes, and landing gear, or could cause the loss of cabin pressure. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 7, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 7, 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: Howard Hall, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6430; fax
(425)917-6590. 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 Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on April 18, 2006 (71 FR 19835). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the vertical beam webs of the body station
(BS)178 bulkhead, and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require a terminating modification for the repetitive inspections. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Extend Compliance Time Threshold Continental Airlines (Continental) requests that the threshold for the compliance times specified in Table 1 of the NPRM be aligned with the compliance times specified in ADs 2000-05-29, amendment 39-11639 (65 FR 14834, March 20, 2000), and 2001-02-01, amendment 39-12085 (66 FR 7576, January 24, 2001). Continental states that this will reduce the economic impact on operators from doing early inspections and will encourage operators to terminate those ADs at 20,000 total flight cycles as opposed to doing repetitive inspections. We do not agree. Continental provided no technical justification for revising the inspection threshold. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the inspections. In consideration of these items, as well as the reports of numerous cracks in the vertical beam webs in service, we have determined that the compliance times specified in Table 1 of this AD will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the inspections to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators. However, according to the provisions of paragraph
(m)of the AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. Request To Include an Additional Grace Period The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, United Airlines (United), requests that the compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(2) of the NPRM be revised to reflect the intention of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2005 (referred to in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the repetitive inspections and terminating preventative modification). United proposes that all airplanes should have a minimum of 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD to do the initial inspection required by paragraph
(f)of the NPRM. United also states that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, dated October 19, 2000, specifies an interval of 12,000 flight cycles for the repetitive high frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspections. Without a grace period, United points out that operators doing those inspections would be grounded as of the effective date of the AD. We agree and have revised paragraph (f)(2) of this AD to provide a grace period of 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. Request To Include Certain Airplanes in Compliance Time Table Boeing requests that we revise Table 1, “Compliance Times,” of the NPRM to address airplanes inspected in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1. We do not agree. Operators are given credit for actions previously done by means of the phrase in paragraph
(e)of this AD that states, “unless the actions have already been done.” Therefore, in the case of this AD, if the required inspection specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, has been done before the effective date of this AD, this AD does not require that it be repeated. In addition, if the required inspection specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, has not been done before the effective date of this AD, this AD requires that inspection to be done at the applicable time specified in Table 1. We have made no change to the final rule in this regard. Requests To Allow the Use of Boeing BOECOM M-7200-01-00546 KLM Engineering & Maintenance (KLM), Southwest Airlines (Southwest), and United request that the procedures specified in Boeing BOECOM M-7200-01-00546, dated March 1, 2001 (referred to in paragraph
(j)of the NPRM) be allowed to be used after the effective date of the AD as an acceptable method of compliance with the preventative modification specified in paragraph
(i)of the NPRM. Southwest states that BOECOM M-7200-01-00546 describes procedures for fabricating replacement parts, which would result in a significant cost savings to operators. United states that it has modified the majority of its fleet using instructions equivalent to those contained BOECOM M-7200-01-00546. KLM states that it has modified a majority of its fleet using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 4, dated September 19, 2002 (Revision 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1173 is referred to in paragraph
(k)of the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the preventative modification), together with the instructions specified in BOECOM M-7200-01-00546. United and KLM would like to continue modifying their fleets using the same instructions. In addition, Boeing requests that the description of acceptable actions in paragraph
(j)of the NPRM be revised to include procedures done in accordance with Boeing BOECOM M-7200-01-00546 and approved by Boeing and the FAA after March 1, 2001. We partially agree. We agree that doing the replacement or modification specified in Boeing BOECOM M-7200-01-00546, dated March 1, 2001, may be an acceptable means of compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(j)of this AD. However, it is not likely that replacement or modification in accordance with BOECOM M-7200-01-00546 can be done without deviations that require further FAA approval. It has been our experience that work done in accordance with BOECOM M-7200-01-00546 has nearly always required deviations. As noted in BOECOM M-7200-01-00546, to obtain approval for using the BOECOM, the operator must provide an Authorized Representative
(AR)for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization with the airplane identification, the details of the proposed replacement, and any deviations. Therefore, we have determined that operators who use the BOECOM procedures after the effective date of this AD must get them approved as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(m)of this AD. We have made no change to the final rule in this regard. Request To Remove Option To Repair Boeing requests that the word “repair” in paragraph
(i)of the NPRM and in the “Relevant Service Information” section of the NPRM be deleted. Boeing did not provide a justification. We agree. We have re-reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1. In several places in Parts II through IV of the Accomplishment Instructions, the service bulletin states, “Repair or change the vertical beam * * * Refer to Figure 25 * * *.” Figure 25 refers to “replacement” procedures; however, it does not refer to a repair procedure. Therefore, we have deleted “repair or” in paragraph
(i)of this AD. We have made no change to the AD in regard to the “Relevant Service Information” section, because that section of the NPRM does not reappear in the final rule. Request To Allow Repair Plans Approved Previously Southwest requests that paragraph
(j)of the NPRM be revised to allow certain repair plans approved by an AR for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization or a Boeing Designated Engineering Representative
(DER)before the release of Boeing BOECOM M-7200-01-00546, dated March 1, 2001, as an acceptable method of compliance with the preventative modification specified in paragraph
(i)of the NPRM. Southwest states that it has installed thicker vertical beam webs with such approval on some of its airplanes before the issuance of Boeing BOECOM M-7200-01-00546, dated March 1, 2001. We do not agree with Southwest to revise paragraph
(j)of this AD. Southwest did not provide sufficient data for us to determine if these earlier repairs are equivalent to those specified in Boeing BOECOM M-7200-01-00546, dated March 1, 2001. It is possible that the review and approval of earlier repairs may not have taken into account the latest information that was used to develop the BOECOM. However, if a particular repair is shown to be equivalent to that specified in the BOECOM, paragraph
(m)of the AD provides operators the opportunity to apply for an AMOC to address this type of repair. Request for Clarification Southwest requests that paragraph
(j)of the NPRM be revised to clarify that it is not necessary to replace certain stiffeners per step 4 of Boeing BOECOM M-7200-01-00546, if the existing holes can be oversized and a new identical fastener can be installed with an acceptable edge distance. Step 4 indicates that certain stiffeners must be replaced because they are offset by the thickness of the new webs. Southwest believes that the intent of that step is to eliminate detrimental fastener over-sizing and short edge distances that can result from the offset. We do not agree with Southwest to revise paragraph
(j)of this AD. Southwest did not provide any specific limits nor define any acceptable combinations of maximum over-sizing of fasteners and/or minimum fastener edge distance. Therefore, we are unable to provide approval at this time. However, under the provisions of paragraph
(m)of this AD, we may consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that such a design change would provide an acceptable level of safety. Request To Delete Concurrent Requirements Delta Air Lines (Delta) requests that the concurrent requirements of paragraphs
(k)and
(l)of the NPRM be deleted, and to continue to allow the requirements specified in paragraph
(c)of ADs 2000-05-29 and 2001-02-01 to be done separately. Delta notes that the “Effect of Accomplishing Concurrent Requirements” section in the preamble of the NPRM states, “We realize that the concurrent requirements of this proposed AD will force some operators to do the preventative modifications required by AD 2001-02-01 early and to do the optional preventative modification specified in AD 2000-05-29. However, accomplishing the applicable preventative modifications together is necessary to avoid repeated disassembly and re-assembly of common parts, which increases the likelihood of additional assembly errors.” Delta states that the timing of doing the preventative modification is an economic and operational decision, which is properly at the discretion of the operators, not a subject for an AD. We partially agree. We do not agree with Delta that the concurrent requirements be deleted. We determined that mandating the previous optional preventative modification specified in AD 2000-05-29 in this AD will better ensure long-term continued operational safety of the affected airplanes by removing the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections. Long-term inspections may not provide the degree of safety necessary for the affected airplanes. This, coupled with our understanding of the human factor errors associated with numerous repetitive inspections, has led us to consider placing less emphasis on special procedures and more emphasis on design improvements. The preventative modification required by paragraph
(l)of this AD is consistent with these considerations. Additionally, accomplishing the modifications concurrently provides the most effective installation of these modifications and will avoid repeated disassembly and re-assembly of common parts of critical structure, which increases the likelihood of additional assembly errors. Boeing also has provided us with data supporting our determination. We somewhat agree with Delta to allow the requirements specified in paragraph
(c)of ADs 2000-05-29 and 2001-02-01 to be done separately. It is acceptable to do the preventative modifications required by AD 2001-02-01 before the requirements of paragraph
(i)of this AD. However, paragraphs
(k)and
(l)of the NPRM state, “Concurrently with the requirements of paragraph
(i)of this AD * * *.” Therefore, we have revised those paragraphs to clarify that the concurrent requirements must be done “before or concurrently with the requirements of paragraph
(i)of this AD.” For clarification purposes, we also removed the phrase “unless already done before the effective date of this AD” from paragraph
(k)of this AD. Request To Supersede AD 2000-05-29 The ATA, on behalf of one of its members, Delta, requests that AD 2000-05-29 be superseded or revised to avoid conflicting requirements. Delta states that this should be done if its request in the “Request To Delete Concurrent Requirements” section of this AD is not feasible. We do not agree. Paragraph
(k)of this AD mandates the previously optional preventative modification specified in paragraph
(c)of AD 2000-05-29. A mandatory requirement takes precedence over an optional action. Therefore, we find that no conflict exists between the requirements of this AD and AD 2000-05-29. In addition, we considered superseding ADs 2000-05-29 and AD 2001-02-01 when developing the NPRM. We determined that doing so would have made this AD more complex and would have increased the consequent workload associated with revising maintenance record entries, because this AD does not affect all requirements of those ADs. This AD only affects paragraph
(c)of those ADs. Therefore, we determined that a less burdensome approach for operators was not to supersede those existing ADs. Request To Address Certain Airplanes If the concurrent requirements of the NPRM are kept, Delta further requests that Boeing be tasked to address airplanes on which the replacement of the forward pressure bulkhead web has been done and on which the modification of the vertical beam has not been done. We do not agree. We have determined that the procedures specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2005, adequately address all affected airplanes. Although the information mentioned by Delta may be helpful, the procedures specified in the service bulletin are adequate. Therefore, we find it inappropriate to task Boeing to revise the service bulletin and to delay the issuance of this AD. However, if additional data are presented that would justify additional actions, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. Requests To Allow AMOCs Approved Previously Southwest requests that paragraphs
(k)and
(l)of the NPRM be revised to allow AMOCs approved previously in accordance with ADs 2000-05-29 and 2001-02-01, respectively. Southwest wants to avoid any issues as to whether or not those AMOCs must be resubmitted to us for approval. Continental requests that paragraph
(k)of the NPRM be revised to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 4, dated September 19, 2002. Continental states that Revision 4 included several corrections and work flow improvements. We partially agree with both Southwest and Continental. We agree that approved AMOCs to paragraph
(c)of ADs 2000-05-29 and 2001-02-01 that are done before or concurrently with the requirements of paragraph
(i)of this AD are acceptable as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs
(k)and
(l)of this AD, respectively. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 4, is one of those AMOCs. We do not agree with the commenters that the paragraphs
(k)and
(l)should be revised in regard to AMOCs. The appropriate paragraph to revise is paragraph
(m)of this AD, which is the AMOC paragraph. Therefore, we have revised paragraph
(m)accordingly. Request To Revise AMOC Paragraph Boeing requests that paragraph (m)(3) of the NPRM be changed to allow AR approval of modifications as well as repairs. We agree and have revised paragraph (m)(3) of this AD accordingly. Requests To Revise Costs of Compliance The ATA, on behalf of two of its members, U.S. Airways and United, requests that the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the NPRM account for the work required to gain access, reassemble, complete post-modification checkouts, close access, etc. associated with the proposed inspection and preventative modification. U.S. Airways states that these actions represent an increase of almost 40 percent above and beyond the 240 work hours specified in the NPRM. United states that the proposed inspection and preventative modification are not normally accessed at any routine maintenance visit. We do not agree. The Costs of Compliance section describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by this AD. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours (240 for preventative modification; 4 for each inspection) necessary to do the required actions. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators may incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time required to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which may vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD in this regard. Request To Correct Typographical Error Boeing requests that a typographical error be fixed in paragraph
(h)of the NPRM. The reference to “paragraph
(1)of this AD” should be changed to “paragraph
(m)of this AD.” We agree and have changed paragraph
(h)of this AD accordingly. 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 3,132 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 Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection, per inspection cycle 4 $80 None $320, per inspection cycle 1,172 $375,040, per inspection cycle. Preventative modification 240 80 Between $960 and $13,620, depending on kit purchased Between $20,160 and $32,820, depending on configuration 1,172 (720 airplanes have had the preventative modification incorporated) Between $9,112,320 and $14,834,640. 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): **2007-03-03 Boeing:** Amendment 39-14914. Docket No. FAA-2006-24496; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-141-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective March 7, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2005. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of numerous cracks in the vertical beam webs. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracks in certain vertical beam webs, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the body station
(BS)178 bulkhead, and consequently could impair the operation of the control cables for the elevators, speed brakes, and landing gear, or could cause the loss of cabin pressure. 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)At the applicable times specified in Table 1 of this AD, do a high frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspection and detailed inspection to detect cracks in the BS 178 vertical beam webs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2005. Table 1.—Compliance Times For airplanes on which— Inspect— And repeat the HFEC and detailed inspections thereafter at—
(1)An HFEC or a detailed inspection specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, dated October 19, 2000, has not been done as of the effective date of this AD Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later Intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles.
(2)An HFEC or detailed inspection specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, dated October 19, 2000, has been done before the effective date of this AD Within 6,000 flight cycles since the last HFEC inspection, within 1,200 flight cycles since the last detailed inspection, or within 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later Intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles. Corrective Actions
(g)If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, before further flight, repair or replace the vertical beam web and associated parts with a new vertical beam web, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2005, except as provided by paragraph
(h)of this AD.
(h)If any damage is beyond the scope of the service bulletin or structural repair manual, before further flight, repair the damaged vertical beam web in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or using a method approved in accordance with paragraph
(m)of this AD. Terminating Preventative Modification
(i)Before the accumulation of 50,000 total flight cycles, or within 25,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the vertical beams at buttock lines
(BL)5.7 and 17.0 of the BS 178 bulkhead, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2005. Accomplishing the replacement ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph
(f)of this AD.
(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing BOECOM M-7200-01-00546, dated March 1, 2001, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(i)of this AD. Prior to or Concurrent Requirements
(k)For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2005: Before or concurrently with the requirements of paragraph
(i)of this AD, do the preventative modifications of the center web, vertical chords, and side chord areas, including the side chord areas at water line 207, of the forward pressure bulkhead, specified in paragraph
(c)of AD 2000-05-29, amendment 39-11639 (reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1173, Revision 3, dated May 6, 1999).
(l)For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2005: Before or concurrently with the requirements of paragraph
(i)of this AD, but no later than the time specified in AD 2001-02-01, amendment 39-12085, do the preventative modifications of the vertical and side chord areas of the forward pressure bulkhead required by paragraph
(c)of AD 2001-02-01 (reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1208, dated May 6, 1999). Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any replacement or repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a replacement or repair method to be approved, the replacement or repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4)Approved AMOCs to paragraph
(c)of AD 2000-05-29 done before or concurrently with the requirements of paragraph
(i)of this AD are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph
(k)of this AD.
(5)Approved AMOCs to paragraph
(c)of AD 2001-02-01 done before or concurrently with the requirements of paragraph
(i)of this AD are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph
(l)of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(n)You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1225, Revision 1, dated April 14, 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. E7-1396 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Parts 113, 141, and 151 [CBP Dec. 07-02] RIN 1505-AB57 Conditional Release Period and CBP Bond Obligations for Food, Drugs, Devices, and Cosmetics AGENCIES: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document amends the Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)regulations to clarify the responsibilities of importers of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics under the basic CBP importation bond and to provide a reasonable period of time to allow the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)to perform its enforcement functions with respect to these covered articles. The amendments include a provision for a specific conditional release period of 30 days for any food, drug, device, or cosmetic which has been released under bond and for which admissibility is to be determined under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). The amendments also clarify the amount of liquidated damages that may be assessed when there is a breach of the terms and conditions of the bond and authorize any representative of FDA to obtain a sample of any imported article subject to section 801 of the Act, as amended. DATES: *Effective Date:* The amendments set forth in this document are effective on May 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wende Schuster, Office of International Trade, (202-572-8761). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 381 referred to herein as section 381), and the regulations promulgated under that statute, provide the basic legal framework governing the importation of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics into the United States. Under 21 U.S.C. 381(a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, upon request, samples of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics which are being imported or offered for import. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized under section 381(a) to refuse admission of, among other things, any article that appears from the examination or otherwise to be adulterated or misbranded or to have been manufactured, processed, or packed under insanitary conditions. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is required by section 381(a) to cause the destruction of any article refused admission unless the article is exported, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, within 90 days of the date of notice of the refusal or within such additional time as may be permitted pursuant to those regulations. Under 21 U.S.C. 381(b), pending decision (by FDA) as to the admission of an article being imported or offered for import, the Secretary of the Treasury may authorize delivery of that article to the owner or consignee upon the execution by him of a good and sufficient bond providing for the payment of liquidated damages in the event of default, as may be required pursuant to regulation. In addition, section 381(b) allows the owner or consignee in certain circumstances to take action to bring an imported article into compliance for admission purposes under such bonding requirements as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe by regulation. Authority Delegation On November 25, 2002, the President signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (referred to in this document as “the HS Act”), which involved, among other things, the creation of a new cabinet-level department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the transfer or reorganization of a number of executive branch agencies and offices within existing cabinet-level departments. This legislation and subsequent reorganization plans affected the organization and operation of the Customs Service. Section 402 of the HS Act provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall be responsible for administering the customs laws of the United States. With regard to the Customs Service, section 403(1) of the HS Act transferred the functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Customs Service, including the functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating to the Customs Service, to the Secretary of Homeland Security. However, notwithstanding the transfer of the Customs Service to DHS, section 412 of the HS Act provides that the legal authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury over customs revenue functions is to be retained by the Secretary of the Treasury. Section 412 also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to delegate any of the retained legal authorities over the customs revenue functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Order 100-16, dated May 15, 2003, the Secretary of the Treasury, by virtue of authority vested in him/her by 31 U.S.C. 321(b) and section 412 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security authority for customs revenue functions with certain exceptions, including that contained in paragraph (1)(a)(i) of the Order by which the Secretary of the Treasury retains the sole authority to approve regulations concerning import quotas or trade bans, user fees, marking, labeling, copyright and trademark enforcement, and the completion of entry or substance of entry summary including duty assessment and collection, classification, valuation, application of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedules, eligibility or requirements for preferential trade programs, and establishment of related recordkeeping requirements. As this final rule concerns activities involving both the completion of entry and the substance of the entry summary focusing on bond obligations and consequences that might arise as a result of post-entry and post-summary determinations of admissibility of merchandise, its subject matter is excepted from the delegation of authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Thus, the responsibility for this regulation rests with the Secretary of the Treasury. Applicable Regulations Based upon the above Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act statutory provisions, imported foods, drugs, devices, and cosmetics are conditionally released under bond while determinations as to admissibility are made; *see* 19 CFR 12.3. Under current 19 CFR 141.113(c), CBP may demand the return to CBP custody of most types of merchandise that fail to comply with the laws or regulations governing their admission into the United States (also referred to as the redelivery procedure). The condition of the basic importation and entry bond contained in 19 CFR 113.62(d) sets forth the obligation of the importer of record to timely redeliver released merchandise to CBP on demand and provides that a demand for redelivery will be made no later than 30 days after the date of release of the merchandise or 30 days after the end of the conditional release period, whichever is later. Under current procedures, when imported merchandise is refused admission by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), CBP issues a notice of redelivery in order to establish a claim for liquidated damages if the importer of record fails to export, destroy, or redeliver the refused merchandise in the time period prescribed in that notice of redelivery. CBP has taken the position in C.S.D. 86-21 that the term “end of the conditional release period” in 19 CFR 113.62(d) has reference to a set time limitation that is either established by regulation ( *see* , for example, 19 CFR 141.113(b) which prescribes a 180-day conditional release period for purposes of determining the correct country of origin of imported textiles and textile products) or by express notification to the importer of record. The end of the conditional release period does not refer to the liquidation of the entry covering the imported merchandise. Proposed Regulatory Changes On June 7, 2002, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the **Federal Register** (67 FR 39322; the NPRM) that proposed to amend the regulations to provide for a specific conditional release period for merchandise for which the FDA is authorized to determine admissibility. The changes proposed were intended to clarify importers' responsibilities under the bond, provide a defined period of time to allow the FDA to perform its enforcement functions, and provide finality to the process. The NPRM proposed to make the following specific changes to what were then referred to as the Customs regulations (now the CBP regulations): 1. To redesignate some paragraphs in 19 CFR 141.113 due to the addition of a new paragraph (c), which provided for a specific conditional release period of 180 days for any food, drug, device, or cosmetic. The FDA would have this time period to make its determination of admissibility. Similar to the case of textiles and textile products mentioned above, the proposed amendment specified a 180-day conditional release period but also provided for a shorter period if FDA made a determination of inadmissibility before the expiration of that 180-day period. It is noted that under the proposed regulatory text, a demand for redelivery under 19 CFR 113.62(d) could be made up to 210 days (that is, 180 days plus 30 days) after the date of release of the merchandise. (The standard CBP bond condition states that redelivery may be demanded within 30 days after release or 30 days after the end of any applicable conditional release period, whichever is later.) The proposed regulation also made clear that the failure to redeliver merchandise would result in the assessment of liquidated damages equal to three times the value of the merchandise or equal to the domestic value of the merchandise in those instances where the port director has required a bond equal to the domestic value as permitted by current 19 CFR 12.3. 2. To amend 19 CFR 151.11 to authorize a representative of the FDA to obtain samples of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetic products covered by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Comments One hundred and forty
(140)comments were received from importers, brokers, sureties, freight forwarders, express consignment operators, and trade associations. All commenters were opposed to the length of time of the proposed conditional release period. An analysis of those comments follows. Comment The vast majority of commenters stated that, as importers of food and health and beauty aid products, having a conditional release period of 180 days would effectively put them out of business. The costs involved in warehousing the goods would make their businesses unmanageable. Additionally, the long waiting period could cause products to fall out of specification, lose effectiveness, or become obsolete or unusable. These comments assume that any FDA-regulated merchandise must be held intact for 180 days after entry. Other commenters who stated that the 180-day period is too long recognize that the intent of the regulation was not to require that all this merchandise be held during the pendency of the conditional release period, but rather that it only apply to merchandise for which an admissibility decision by FDA is not made. Many of these commenters specifically recommended that the conditional release period end upon issuance of a notice from FDA providing that the goods may proceed (a may proceed notice) or issuance of a notice of refusal if those acts occur before the end of the 180-day conditional release period. Various other commenters noted that under FDA's own Regulatory Procedures Manual, articles which have been released by FDA are no longer considered to be in import status by that agency. Response After review of all the comments, CBP concurs that the 180-day conditional release period is too long. Thus, the regulatory text of this final rule is amended to provide that the conditional release period ends upon the soonest occurring of the following events: issuance by the FDA that the merchandise may proceed, issuance of a notice of refusal of admission, or expiration of the 30-day period after release of the goods. It was not the intention of the proposed regulation to require that all goods regulated by the FDA be warehoused for 6 months while the conditional release period runs its course. When FDA issues a notice that the merchandise may proceed (which is the case on the vast majority of entries that come under FDA scrutiny), that act will serve to end the conditional release period. Accordingly, we concur with the commenter who recommended amendment of the proposed rule to indicate that the conditional release period ends upon issuance of the notice by FDA that the merchandise may proceed. In addition, the issuance of a notice of refusal of admission would end the conditional release period. There may be some situations where FDA will need additional time to determine admissibility. Accordingly, the final rule also includes regulatory language that would permit FDA to extend the general 30-day conditional release period through express notification to the importer identifying the necessary testing requiring this extension. Comment Many commenters opposed the 180-day conditional release period for the reason that it extends the current conditional release period of 30 days. Response Under the conditions of the basic importation bond, in order to establish a valid claim for liquidated damages for failure to redeliver merchandise into CBP custody, CBP must issue a notice of redelivery within 30 days of CBP release of merchandise or within 30 days after the end of the conditional release period, whichever is later. As stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking, there currently exists no conditional release period created by regulation for merchandise the admissibility of which is determined by the FDA. Therefore, neither the proposed rulemaking nor this final rule extends the conditional release period from 30 to 180 days because no express conditional release period for FDA contexts has ever been created by regulation. The commenters were apparently confusing the conditional release period with the 30-day period, after the conditional release period, during which CBP may still demand redelivery. Comment One commenter suggested that the proposed sampling procedures would result in the compromising of its packaging between manufacturing sites and customers' facilities. The commenter proposed a process whereby it and other manufacturers could provide dedicated samples of present and proposed imported products, and CBP could maintain a data bank of importers and known imported products covered by these regulations. Response The commenter's suggestion is outside the scope of the regulation because it proposes an examination procedure that is not done on a shipment-by-shipment basis. Under the provisions of 21 U.S.C. 381, CBP delivers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services such samples of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics that are being imported or offered for import into the United States. Through these regulations, this sampling authority is delegated to the FDA in recognition of the practicalities of merchandise inspection. This will clarify that FDA inspectors may, under section 381(a), pull samples of imports of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics. Comment One commenter asked whether CBP contemplates changing line release (otherwise known as Border Release Advanced Screening and Selectivity (BRASS)) procedures to accommodate the exchange of information necessary for providing notices of sampling. Response Contemplated changes to line release (otherwise known as BRASS release) systems are operational in nature and are, thus, outside the scope of this rulemaking. Comment One commenter suggested that the rule must be rescinded in order to comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. The commenter stated that given the huge volume of imports involved, the storage costs alone would almost certainly exceed the $100 million threshold or would, at the very least, adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, or jobs. Response The commenter did not provide detail or justification for these comments, but CBP does not believe that storage costs of this magnitude would be incurred as a result of the rule now being promulgated. As noted above, CBP does believe that the 180-day conditional release period originally proposed is too long and realizes that this time period could negatively affect importers. To that end, CBP has modified the conditional release period from 180 days to 30 days in the final rule to reduce potential negative impacts to imports and corresponding storage costs. Comment Various commenters state that CBP has failed to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, disagreeing with the statement in the proposed rulemaking that the proposed amendments, if adopted, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The commenters claim that, contrary to the assertion in the notice of proposed rulemaking, assessment of liquidated damages of three times the value of imported merchandise could have a devastating impact upon the many thousands of small companies engaged in the importation of FDA-regulated products. It is also stated that the proposed rulemaking represents a radical departure from current CBP policy with regard to redelivery of FDA-regulated products. Response CBP does not agree because the rule is not a radical departure from current CBP policy. Additionally, in response to the comments to the proposed rule, the final rule reduces the conditional release period time from 180 days to 30 days, and potential costs that could be incurred should now be substantially less. The rule should not affect small entities that are compliant with redelivery requirements, and the rule does not impose further entry requirements or additional paperwork burden. Comment Various commenters suggested that CBP rescind or place a stay on consideration of the proposed rulemaking until the implications of recently passed legislation governing port security can be considered in relation to FDA's inspection protocol and CBP's release procedures. The commenters indicated that the new law requires that importers provide CBP and FDA with advance notice of their intent to import food products—a procedure that should enhance FDA's ability to promptly identify shipments that pose a safety concern. Those commenters also stated that the proposed rule should be rescinded in order to allow CBP and FDA to examine and discuss standardization of FDA notifications to importers and to take into account the commercial needs of the importing community. Response CBP disagrees. We are unaware of legislation governing port security that impinges upon or supplants FDA's authority to refuse merchandise pursuant to the provisions of 21 U.S.C. 381(a). That provision allows for the release of merchandise under bond while the determination as to admissibility is made. This rulemaking simply provides for the creation of a conditional release period for FDA contexts that is more clearly defined than the practice that currently exists. Furthermore, the Bioterrorism Act creates a new section 21 U.S.C. 381(m), which specifically indicates that FDA-regulated food and food products for which prior notice of arrival is not received shall not be released under a bond authorized by section 381(b). As set out in implementing regulations issued by FDA and CBP (see 68 FR 58974), decisions regarding compliance with new prior notice requirements are different from, and may precede, determinations of admissibility under other sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or other laws. ( *See* 21 CFR 1.283(g).) While CBP believes that the Bioterrorism Act will affect the importation of FDA-regulated products, it does not serve to overrule regulations concerning longstanding FDA and CBP authorities. Effect must be given to all of the substantive provisions of 21 U.S.C. 381, not part of them. Further, since the FDA-regulated food or food products for which prior notice of arrival is not received will not be released under a bond authorized by section 381(b), any issues arising concerning a conditional release period for merchandise released under bond are moot. Comment One commenter suggested that the time period to comment on the proposed rule be extended because of the complex underlying issues involved. Response CBP disagrees that the comment period needed to be extended. CBP received 140 comments to the proposed rule, and a wide variety of issues were presented in these comments. The primary concern, which was raised by all commenters to the proposed rule, was the length of the conditional release period. In response to this concern CBP has reduced the conditional release period from 180 to 30 days. Comment Many commenters conceded that it may be appropriate to clearly define a conditional release period, but they also suggested that 30 days would be a reasonable conditional release period for these products. Those same commenters also stated that CBP must further clarify and limit the scope of the proposed rule. Clarification is needed that clearly exempts from the conditional release period shipments that have been issued a may proceed notice. The commenters also suggested that FDA should notify importers when an entry is deemed conditional. As proposed, the commenters claimed that the rule represents a radical departure from current practices when the release of imported product is only rendered conditional through FDA's timely notification of its intent to examine or sample the product. Response CBP agrees that the rule should make clear that a conditional release period ends when FDA provides a may proceed notice. The final rule has been amended accordingly. CBP also agrees that a conditional release period shorter than 180 days is appropriate and has amended the rule to provide for a conditional release period of 30 days after the release of the merchandise unless FDA issues a may proceed notice or a notice of refusal which would immediately end the conditional period as provided for in the final rule. However, shipments that have been issued a may proceed notice are still subject to demands for redelivery for 30 days from the issuance of the may proceed notice. The regulation confirms that all FDA-regulated products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are conditionally released pending FDA's determination of admissibility. In the vast majority of cases the conditional release period will end when the may proceed notice is provided before the end of the time provided in the regulation. Comment Various commenters contended that CBP seeks to modify its regulations in order to reverse the result of the court decision in *United States* v. *So's USA Company, Inc.,* 23 CIT 605 (1999). These commenters stated that the *So's* court indicated that an importer must have affirmative notice that goods are released conditionally in order to extend the redelivery period beyond the 30 days from the date of release. Another stated that under the proposed regulation, FDA would no longer be required to advise an importer why its product is on hold, or even that it is on hold, within the first 30 days of entry. Response CBP disagrees. The final rule is entirely consistent with the So's opinion and it does not conflict with that opinion in any respect. Further, this regulation does not affect any notice that FDA provides to an importer under its authorities. Comment One commenter stated that the proposal is arbitrary because the Government has not explained the need for a 180-day period to render a decision on admissibility. The statement in the proposed rule that the 180-day period is a reasonable period of time to allow the FDA to perform its enforcement functions is not supported by any explanation. Response Again, CBP agrees that the 180-day period is too long a time period to have this merchandise conditionally released by regulation. Accordingly, the conditional release period has been reduced to 30 days in the final regulation. The 30-day release period can be shortened by the earlier issuance of a may proceed notice or a notice of refusal of admission. It also can be extended by an express notification from FDA to the importer. Comment One commenter suggested that FDA import inspectors issue a notice of review with regard to any shipment for which a may proceed notice is not provided. The commenter stated that the conditional release period could be established from the issuance date of the notice of review. That same commenter stated that for perishable products, the conditional release period should not exceed 5 days. For non-perishable products, the conditional release period should not exceed 30 days. Response Issuance of a new FDA form of notice that a shipment is under review is beyond the scope of this regulation. CBP disagrees that a conditional release period should be for as little as 5 days. The taking of samples and testing of merchandise could exceed that 5-day time period. Comment Some commenters stated that the 180-day conditional release period is not consistent with the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) in that homeland security efforts are focused on increased review of imports at the time of admission. The proposed 180-day period would provide no potential homeland security benefits since the materials would already be conditionally released to importers. Response CBP acknowledges that the proposed 180-day conditional release period is too long and has revised the regulation accordingly. Review of cargo for terrorism concerns preferably is performed earlier than the time of admission of merchandise. In fact, review for terrorism concerns is performed in the information transmission or presentation process, which is in advance of arrival. For example, the FDA's prior notice regulations (21 CFR 1.276 *et seq.* ) require notice of food being imported or offered for import into the United States in advance of the foods' arrival, and CBP's advance electronic cargo information regulations (set forth in 68 FR 68140) require information concerning cargo before the cargo is brought into the United States by any mode of transportation, so that CBP can pre-screen all cargo based on advance data transmission. CBP's enforcement of these requirements is consistent with C-TPAT. The conditional release period is meant to address the longstanding application of the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which allow for the release of merchandise under good and sufficient bond pending an admissibility determination and therefore is in addition to the prior notice and advance cargo information requirements that implement border security measures. Comment Many commenters stated that a 180 day conditional release period is contrary to public policy in that merchandise which causes a public health or safety issue should be identified and refused by FDA as quickly as possible. A 180-day period raises an unreasonable risk. Response CBP has revised the regulation to provide for a 30-day conditional release period in order to address this concern. Comment Many commenters indicated that if the redelivery period was shorter than the 180-days prescribed, companies would hold merchandise pending such a period and there would be more chance for a successful recall for safety concerns, since there is less chance that the goods would have been used or consumed. Response CBP agrees and has revised the final rule to provide for a 30-day conditional release period in order to address this concern. Comment One commenter suggested that CBP should strive to allow unconditional release of FDA-regulated merchandise with the filing of the CF-3461 (CBP entry document) as long as the entry summary and carrier manifest data are consistent with information contained within the FDA approved product listings. Response CBP disagrees because this would have CBP making decisions as to admissibility under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act when this decision-making authority clearly resides with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Comment Many commenters stated that the proposed amendment to 19 CFR 151.10 of the CBP regulations regarding the collection of samples is not necessary. The commenters noted that the provisions of section 702(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 372) already allow for the taking of samples by representatives of FDA. Response Under the provisions of 21 U.S.C. 381(a), CBP delivers samples of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics that are being imported or offered for import into the United States, to the Secretary of Health and Human Services upon his request. The proposed amendment simply clarifies that such delivery authority is delegated to representatives of FDA and is not intended to intrude on any other authority that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may already have. Comment A group of commenters suggested the adoption of regulatory language that would preclude the issuance of fines or penalties against an importer who distributes articles after having received an FDA may proceed notice. Response CBP disagrees with this proposed language. CBP cannot by regulatory amendment exempt an importer from incurring fines or penalties that may otherwise be imposed for violation of a statute. Comment Various commenters stated that imposition of a 180-day conditional release period is violative of U.S. international obligations under the GATT 1994, and one commenter indicated that the proposed rule is violative of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. While conceding that some additional controls at the border are acceptable, these commenters asserted that extending CBP control over imports for a seven-month period after importation would not stand scrutiny. Additionally, it was noted that sanitary and phytosanitary procedures must be undertaken and *completed without undue delay* (commenter's emphasis) and in no less favorable a manner for imported products than for like domestic products. Imposition of a conditional release period of 180 days is claimed to be violative of this “undue delay” proscription. Response Again, CBP has reduced the conditional release period from 180 to 30 days in the final rule. Comment Some commenters indicated that continuation of a conditional release period after FDA admits goods into commerce is inconsistent with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The commenters stated that conditional delivery of the merchandise to the owner is made pending a decision as to admission generally, and not solely a decision to deny admission. It is argued that conditional release also ends upon admission of the article and, as such, CBP's proposal to extend the conditional release period to 180 days without concern as to whether the merchandise has been admitted defeats the statutory intent of the Act. In contrast, another commenter stated that once a positive determination as to admissibility is made, the importer should not have to be subjected to the possibility of a redelivery demand for sampling or testing of the product. The latter commenter further contended that even after receiving a may proceed notice, an importer is left in the dark as to the status of goods that are apparently admitted into the commerce. Response CBP agrees that issuance of a notice from FDA that the merchandise may proceed would usually make it unnecessary to issue a redelivery notice in order to establish liability under the bond. For purposes of clarity, CBP is amending the language in the final rule to indicate that one of three acts occurring first in time—issuance of a notice of refusal, issuance of a may proceed notice or passage of 30 days from the date of conditional release—will end the conditional release period. However, it should be understood that issuance of a may proceed notice does not mean that CBP is precluded from issuing a subsequent demand to redeliver within 30 days from the end of that conditional release period. Comment Two commenters suggested that sureties be given the earliest possible notice (preferably in electronic form) that goods they have secured are subject to detention, refusal, and/or redelivery in order that immediate action can be taken with regard to pending and future importations. Also, mitigation guidelines should be adopted that provide extraordinary mitigation to sureties for efforts to locate, redeliver, and/or rehabilitate goods which are subject to liquidated damages for failure to redeliver into CBP custody. Response Mitigation guidelines for claims for liquidated damages are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Issuance of notices of detention and refusal are governed by FDA statute and regulation and any changes to issuance of those documents are also outside the scope of this regulation. Notices of redelivery may include private or confidential business information that would not be releasable to a surety unless a demand for payment was made against its bond. Comment One commenter proposed that the regulation require that all demands for redelivery be made contemporaneously with the notice of refusal issued by FDA. The commenter contended that this change would promote cooperation between FDA and CBP and encourage compliance through the more efficient issuance of required notices. Response CBP does not agree because, for operational reasons, it may not always be possible for notices to be issued contemporaneously. Conclusion In accordance with the foregoing analysis of the comments and further consideration of the matter, CBP has determined that the amendments of the proposed rule should be adopted as final with the sole major change being a reduction in the conditional release period from 180 days to 30 days, as set forth in the regulatory text further below. In addition, cross-references to the section of the regulations involving conditional release periods are being added to the relevant portion of the section on basic importer and entry bond conditions in 19 CFR 113.62. Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule is not considered to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is certified, pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), that the regulatory amendments set forth in this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule should not affect small entities that are compliant with redelivery requirements, and the rule does not impose further entry requirements or additional paperwork burdens. A review of data for FY2004 indicates actual CBP liquidated damage collections for FDA jurisdiction goods are comparatively rare and of modest amounts. The total amount of liquidated damages collected in FY2004 for these goods was approximately $4 million. The total revenue (including those liquidated damages) collected for all imports was $27 billion. This amount reflects 6,000 liquidated damage cases, compared to 28.1 million entries of all goods worth $1.41 trillion. Pertinent cases and liquidated damage amounts are a tiny fraction (less than 1 percent) of overall revenue collected and import value. The value of liquidated damages collected changes minimally from year to year based on the number of importers, the number of bonds, and the number of violations. CBP does not expect this amount to change as a result of this rule. Additionally, the conditional release period should help importers, regardless of size, by clarifying that CBP must issue a redelivery notice within 30 days if it wishes to collect liquidated damages. As noted previously, there is currently no set date to issue a redelivery notice. The rule will compel CBP to act more quickly to provide notice to importers that violate the conditions of their bond. If CBP cannot act within the 30 days, it then foregoes collecting any liquidated damages. List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 113 Customs bond conditions. 19 CFR Part 141 Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Entry procedures, Imports, Prohibited merchandise, Release of merchandise. 19 CFR Part 151 Customs duties and inspection, Examination, Sampling and testing, Imports, Laboratories, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendments to the Regulations For the reasons stated above, parts 113, 141, and 151 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR Parts 141 and 151) are amended as set forth below. PART 113—CUSTOMS BOND CONDITIONS 1. The authority citation for part 113 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624. § 113.62 [Amended] 2. Section 113.62(d) is amended by adding a sentence at the end to read as follows: “(See §§ 141.113(b), 12.73(b)(2), and 12.80 of this chapter.)” PART 141—ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE 3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1624. Section 141.113 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1499, 1623. 4. Section 141.113 is amended as follows: a. The heading of the section is revised to read as set forth below; b. Paragraph
(a)is amended by, after the heading, designating the introductory text of paragraph
(a)as paragraph (a)(1), redesignating current paragraphs
(1)through
(5)as paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v), and designating the remaining text, after redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(v), as paragraph (a)(2); c. In redesignated paragraph (a)(2), first sentence, the words “Customs custody” are removed and replaced with the words “CBP custody”; d. In paragraph (b), the two references to “Customs” are replaced with reference to “CBP” and the three references to “Customs custody” are replaced with reference to “CBP custody”; e. Current paragraphs
(c)through
(h)are redesignated as paragraphs
(d)through (i); f. New paragraph
(c)is added; g. In redesignated paragraph (d), the words “in paragraph
(a)or
(b)of this section” are removed and replaced with the words “in paragraph (a), (b), or
(c)of this section”, and the words “Customs custody” are removed and replaced with the words “CBP custody”; h. In redesignated paragraphs
(e)and (f), the words “Customs custody” are removed and replaced with the words “CBP custody”; i. In redesignated paragraph (g), first sentence, the words “Customs custody” are removed and replaced with the words “CBP custody”; and j. In redesignated paragraph
(h)and in the first sentence of redesignated paragraph (i), the words “Customs custody” are removed and replaced with the words “CBP custody”. The revisions read as follows: § 141.113 Recall of merchandise released from Customs and Border Protection custody.
(c)*Food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics* —(1) *Conditional release period.* For purposes of determining the admissibility of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic imported pursuant to section 801(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)), as amended, the release from CBP custody of any such product will be deemed conditional. Unless extended in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the conditional release period will terminate upon the earliest occurring of the following events:
(i)The date that FDA issues a notice of refusal of admission;
(ii)The date that FDA issues a notice that the merchandise may proceed; or
(iii)Upon the end of the 30-day period following the date of release.
(2)*Extension of conditional release period.* The conditional release period provided under this paragraph
(c)may be extended. The FDA must issue a written or electronic notice of sampling, detention, or other FDA action to the bond principal (i.e., importer of record) within 30 days of the release of the merchandise in order for the extension of the conditional release period to be valid.
(3)*Issuance of a redelivery notice.* If FDA refuses admission of a food, drug, device or cosmetic into the United States, or if any notice of sampling or other request is not complied with, FDA will communicate that fact to the CBP port director who will demand the redelivery of the product to CBP custody. CBP will issue a notice of redelivery within 30 days from the date the product was refused admission by the FDA or from the date FDA determined the noncompliance with a notice of sampling or other request. The demand for redelivery may be made contemporaneously with the notice of refusal issued by the FDA. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
(i)of this section, a failure to comply with a demand for redelivery made under this paragraph
(c)will result in the assessment of liquidated damages equal to three times the value of the merchandise involved unless the port director has prescribed a bond equal to the domestic value of the merchandise pursuant to § 12.3(b) of this Chapter. PART 151—EXAMINATION, SAMPLING, AND TESTING OF MERCHANDISE 5. The general authority citation for part 151 continues to read, and a specific authority citation for § 151.11 is added to read, as follows: Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Notes 3(i) and 3(j), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624. Section 151.11 also issued under 21 U.S.C. 381; 6. Section 151.11 is amended as follows: a. In the first sentence, the words “Customs custody” are removed and replaced with the words “CBP custody”; b. In the second sentence, the words “Customs custody” are replaced with the words “CBP custody”; and c. After the second sentence, a third sentence is added, to read as follows: § 151.11 Request for samples or additional examination packages after release of merchandise. * * * For purposes of determining admissibility, representatives of the Food and Drug Administration may obtain samples of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic, the importation of which is governed by section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 381). Deborah J. Spero, Acting Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection. Approved: January 25, 2007. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. [FR Doc. 07-408 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 33
Traces to 33 documents
14 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 300
  • 10 CFR 1021
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 105-277
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 12 CFR 620
  • Pub. L. 100-233
  • 101 Stat. 1568
  • 14 CFR 39
  • Pub. L. 107-296
  • 116 Stat. 2135
  • 19 CFR 113
  • 19 CFR 141
  • 19 CFR 151
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Interim final rule and request for comment
U.S.C.§ 13385
C.F.R.§ 51.11
C.F.R.§ 300.13
C.F.R.§ 300.1
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Rules and Regulations
U.S.C.§ 601
U.S.C.§ 605
U.S.C.§ 3501
Cite10 CFR 300
Cite10 CFR 1021
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-4
Cites 47 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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