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 · 2007-02-01 · Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

15,806 words·~72 min read·/register/2007/02/01/07-439

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 21 Thursday, February 1, 2007 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AI03 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Standardized NUHOMS ® System Revision 9 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is proposing to amend its regulations revising the Transnuclear, Inc., Standardized NUHOMS ® System listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 9 to the Certificate of Compliance
(CoC)Number 1004. Amendment No. 9 would modify the CoC by revising Technical Specifications 1.2.1 and 1.2.14 to add the Framatome-ANP, Version 9x9-2 fuel assemblies (FANP9x9-2) as approved contents for storage in the NUHOMS ® -61BT dry shielded canister, under the general provisions of 10 CFR part 72. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AI03) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comment will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. *Mail comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. *E-mail comments to:* SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at
(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://rulemaking.llnl.gov.* Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov* . Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Hand deliver comments to:* 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays [telephone
(301)415-1966]. *Fax comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html* . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* An electronic copy of the proposed CoC No. 1004, proposed Technical Specifications (TS), and preliminary safety evaluation report
(SER)for Amendment No. 9 can be found under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML062830065, ML062830067, and ML062830069. The proposed CoC No. 1004, the proposed TS, the preliminary SER for Amendment No. 9, and the Environmental Assessment
(EA)are available for inspection at the NRC PDR, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville MD. Single copies of these documents may be obtained from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment 9 to CoC No. 1004 and does not include other aspects of the Standardized NUHOMS ® System design. Because NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently as a direct final rule. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on April 17, 2007. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by March 5, 2007, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1)The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, in a substantive response:
(a)The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b)The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c)The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2)The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3)The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the CoC or Technical Specifications. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72. PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1004 is revised to read as follows: § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. *Certificate Number:* 1004. *Initial Certificate Effective Date:* January 23, 1995. *Amendment Number 1 Effective Date:* April 27, 2000. *Amendment Number 2 Effective Date:* September 5, 2000. *Amendment Number 3 Effective Date:* September 12, 2001. *Amendment Number 4 Effective Date:* February 12, 2002. *Amendment Number 5 Effective Date:* January 7, 2004. *Amendment Number 6 Effective Date:* December 22, 2003. *Amendment Number 7 Effective Date:* March 2, 2004. *Amendment Number 8 Effective Date:* December 5, 2005. *Amendment Number 9 Effective Date:* April 17, 2007. *SAR Submitted by:* Transnuclear, Inc. *SAR Title:* Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS ® Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. *Docket Number:* 72-1004. *Certificate Expiration Date:* January 23, 2015. *Model Number:* NUHOMS ® -24P, -52B, -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB, and -24PTH. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of January, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E7-1643 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE254; Notice No. 23-06-06-SC] Special Conditions: Aviation Technology Group (ATG), Inc.; Javelin Model 100 Series Airplane; Acrobatic Spins AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Aviation Technology Group
(ATG)Javelin Model 100 Series airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with acrobatic spin recovery requirements. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards applicable to these airplanes. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on these proposed special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket CE254, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or delivered in duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Comments must be marked: CE254. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Lowell Foster, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4125, fax 816-329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of these proposed special conditions by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The proposals described in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE254.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On February 15, 2005, Aviation Technology Group (ATG); 8001 South InterPort Boulevard, Suite 310; Englewood, Colorado 80112-5951, applied for a type certificate for their new Model 100 airplane. ATG intends to certificate the Javelin in both utility and acrobatic categories. The preliminary design includes the following features: • Two-place, tandem configuration. • Maximum takeoff weight of approximately 6,900 pounds. • Design cruise speed of 500 knots calibrated airspeed. • Two Williams FJ33-4A-18M turbofan engines with dual channel FADEC controls. • Major airframe components constructed of carbon fiber composite materials. • Hydraulically boosted flight control system with floor-mounted control sticks. • Integrated avionics including electronic displays, autopilot, and flight management system. Title 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.221 contains spin requirements for normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes. When part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations was recodified in 1965 as 14 CFR, part 23, spin requirements for acrobatic category airplanes were presented in § 23.221(c). Since 1965, the spin requirements in § 23.221(c) have been amended three times. The original version of § 23.221(c) required an acrobatic category airplane to perform spins of at least six turns and recover without exceeding an airspeed limit or positive load factor limit. Spins were required for flaps-up configuration and flaps-down configuration. In addition, the airplane could not enter an uncontrollable spin with any use of the controls. Amendment 23-7 revised the presentation of the acrobatic category spin requirements and revised the minimum turn requirement to six turns or three seconds, whichever takes longer. Amendment 23-42 revised § 23.221(c)(3) and clarified the term “controls” in the previous version of the rule by identifying flight controls and engine controls. It also clarified that the use of the controls could be at spin entry or during the spin. Neither of these two amendments changed the basic acrobatic category spin requirements. In July 1994, the FAA proposed changes to the flight airworthiness standards for normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. The proposals arose from the joint effort of the FAA and the European Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)to harmonize 14 CFR regulations and the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR). The proposed changes were intended to provide nearly uniform flight airworthiness standards for airplanes certificated in the United States under 14 CFR, part 23 and in the JAA countries under JAR 23. Proposed changes to the introductory paragraph of § 23.221(c) required acrobatic category airplanes to meet the one-turn spin requirements of § 23.221(a) as well as the emergency egress requirements of § 23.807, and to meet the spin requirements of §§ 23.221(c)(1) through
(4)in each configuration approved for spins. The addition of normal category spin requirements was necessary because acrobatic category airplanes should have sufficient controllability to recover from the developing one-turn spin under the same conditions as normal category airplanes. The configuration requirement was added to recognize the common practice of approving intentional spins only for a specific configuration (e.g, gear and flaps up). The proposed changes were incorporated into the rule by Amendment 23-50. There was never any discussion or intent by the FAA or JAA to approve an acrobatic category airplane that met only the normal category spin requirements. The assumption has always been that an inadvertent spin could result during the performance of a variety of acrobatic maneuvers. FAA Position Title 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.221(c), as amended by Amendment 23-50, presents acrobatic category airplane spin requirements. As the rule is currently written, the acrobatic category airplane must comply with normal category spin requirements, acrobatic category emergency egress requirements in § 23.807, and acrobatic spin requirements for each configuration requested for spin approval. ATG proposes to prohibit intentional spins and requests that no configuration be approved for spins. This proposal leads to an acrobatic category airplane that meets only normal category spin requirements. This proposal is unacceptable since the FAA has always maintained that an acrobatic category airplane must comply with acrobatic category spin requirements despite the wording in the current rule. The rule's history, coupled with preamble information for Amendment 23-50, reveals that the rule was changed to add the normal category spin requirements and to accommodate an applicant's desire to comply with the acrobatic spin requirements for at least one configuration, but not necessarily all configurations. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR, part 21, § 21.17, ATG must show that the Model 100 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by Amendment 23-1 through 23-55 thereto. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( *i.e.* , 14 CFR, part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the ATG Model 100 series because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The ATG Model 100 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: High thrust-to-weight ratio, military training jet configuration with a higher fuselage mass compared to typical part 23 acrobatic airplanes. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the ATG Model 100 series. Should ATG apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the ATG Model 100 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the ATG Model 100 airplanes. Title 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.221(c) as amended by Amendment 23-50 presents acrobatic category airplane spin requirements. As the rule is currently written, the acrobatic category airplane must comply with normal category spin requirements, acrobatic category emergency egress requirements in § 23.807, and acrobatic spin requirements for each configuration requested for spin approval. ATG proposes to prohibit intentional spins and requests that no configuration be approved for spins. This proposal leads to an acrobatic category airplane that meets only normal category spin requirements. This proposal is unacceptable since the FAA has always maintained that an acrobatic category airplane must comply with acrobatic category spin requirements despite the wording in the current rule. The rule's history coupled with preamble information for Amendment 23-50 reveals that the rule was changed to add the normal category spin requirements and to accommodate an applicant's desire to comply with the acrobatic spin requirements for at least one configuration, but not necessarily all configurations. Since the wording of the current rule combined with ATG's proposal does not provide the level of safety envisioned for an acrobatic category airplane, the FAA proposes the following special condition under the authority of 14 CFR, part 21, § 21.16 to replace § 23.221(c) in its entirety: SC 23.221 Spinning
(c)*Acrobatic category airplanes.* An acrobatic category airplane must meet the spin requirements of paragraph
(a)of this section and § 23.807(b)(5). In addition, the following requirements must be met in an applicant-designated acrobatic configuration, and in each other configuration for which approval for spinning is requested:
(1)The airplane must recover from any point in a spin up to and including six turns, or any greater number of turns for which certification is requested, in not more than one and one-half additional turns after initiation of the first control action for recovery. However, beyond three turns, the spin may be discontinued if spiral characteristics appear.
(2)The applicable airspeed limits and limit maneuvering load factors must not be exceeded. For flaps extended configurations for which approval is requested, the flaps must not be retracted during the recovery.
(3)It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or during the spin.
(4)There must be no characteristics during the spin (such as excessive rates of rotation or extreme oscillatory motion) that might prevent a successful recovery due to disorientation or incapacitation of the pilot.
(5)The airplane is considered to meet the requirements of paragraph
(c)of this special condition with a specific demonstration. The applicant must demonstrate that it is extremely remote for the airplane in the applicant-designated acrobatic configuration, and in each other configuration for which approval for spinning is requested, to enter a spin with any use of the flight or engine power controls, either at or after entry into the stall maneuver. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on January 24, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1610 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26498; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-83-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Cessna Aircraft Company Models 208 and 208B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive
(AD)2006-06-06, which applies to certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models 208 and 208B airplanes. AD 2006-06-06 currently requires you to incorporate information into the applicable section of the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)and Pilot's Operating Handbook
(POH)and requires installation of placards. Since we issued AD 2006-06-06, Cessna issued further revisions to the AFM Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment” and developed a low airspeed awareness system. Consequently, this proposed AD would require you to incorporate the AFM Supplement revisions, to install the low airspeed awareness system, and to retain the requirements of AD 2006-06-06 until the above requirements are incorporated. We are proposing this AD to assure that the pilot has enough information and the necessary equipment to prevent loss of control of the airplane while in flight during icing conditions. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact The Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert P. Busto, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; *telephone:*
(316)946-4157; fax:
(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-26498; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-83-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion Several accidents/incidents with Cessna Models 208 and 208B airplanes during operations in icing conditions, including six accidents in the 2003/2004 icing season and nine accidents in the 2004/2005 icing season, caused us to issue AD 2005-07-01, Amendment 39-14025 (70 FR 15223), which required the incorporation of revisions into applicable section of the AFM, and AD 2006-01-11, Amendment 39-14450 (71 FR 16994). AD 2006-01-11 requires the installation of a pilot assist handle, pneumatic deicing boots on the cargo pod and landing gear struts, and changes to the Limitations Section of the AFM if the airplane is to be operated in ground icing conditions and approved for flight into known or forecast icing conditions. AD 2005-07-01 was superseded by AD 2006-06-06, Amendment 39-14514 (71 FR 13533, March 16, 2006). AD 2006-06-06 currently requires the following on certain Cessna Models 208 and 208B airplanes: • Incorporation of revisions to the FAA-approved AFM and FAA-approved AFM Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment;” • Incorporation of new text in the Limitations Section of the AFM and AFM Supplement; and • Incorporation of new text in the Performance Section of the AFM Supplement and the fabrication and installation of placards. AD 2006-06-06 was intended to be an interim action. Cessna has since published revisions to the AFM Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” which incorporates climb performance data in icing conditions. This data is to be used for preflight planning and as an in-flight limitation. AD 2006-06-06 included a limitation on autopilot use as an interim action until the development of an acceptable low speed awareness system. Cessna has issued service information introducing this system. Cessna has also developed specific training for operation of the Models 208 and 208B airplanes in icing conditions. This training is available on-line at: *http://www.cessnaelearning.com* or as part of the Cessna Winter Awareness Seminars. If the pilot does not have enough information in the AFM or the necessary equipment to conduct safe flight into icing conditions, then loss of control could occur. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Cessna Caravan Service Bulletin
(SB)CAB06-8, dated September 18, 2006; Cessna Caravan SB CAB06-11, dated October 9, 2006; and Cessna Caravan Service Kit
(SK)208-171, dated October 9, 2006. The service information includes the following: • *Cessna Caravan SB CAB06-8:* revisions to the Pilot's Operating Handbook
(POH)Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment” and installation instructions for installation of operational placards; and • *Cessna Caravan SB CAB06-11:* announces the availability of a Service Kit which provides parts and instructions to install a new low airspeed awareness system. • *Cessna Caravan SK208-171:* instructions for the installation of a new icing low speed awareness system. In addition, Cessna has developed revisions to the AFM Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment” as follows: Document Affects Revision 9 of the Model 208 (675 SHP) FAA-approved Flight Manual Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1352-S1-09, dated August 24, 2006 Cessna Model 208 airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114A turboprop engine installed (675 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent or higher horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing. Revision 8 of the Model 208 (600 SHP) FAA-approved Flight Manual Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1307-S1-08, dated August 24, 2006 Cessna Model 208 airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114 turboprop engine installed (600 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing. Revision 9 of the 208B (675 SHP) FAA-approved Flight Manual Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1329-S1-09, dated August 24, 2006 Cessna Model 208B airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114A turboprop engine installed (675 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent or higher horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing. Revision 9 of the 208B (600 SHP) FAA-approved Flight Manual Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1309-S1-09, dated August 24, 2006 Cessna Model 208B airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114 turboprop engine installed (600 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-06-06 with a new AD that would: • Require the actions in the previously referenced service information; and • Retain the actions of AD 2006-06-06 until the above requirements are incorporated. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 765 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed actions: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 22 work-hours × $80 per hour = $1,760 $6,440 $8,200 $6,273,000 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD)2006-06-06, Amendment 39-14514, (71 FR 13533, March 16, 2006), and adding the following new AD: **Cessna Aircraft Company:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26498; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-83-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by March 5, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-06-06, Amendment 39-14514. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Models 208 and 208B, all serial numbers that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from our determination that further revisions to the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment” are necessary, and the installation of a low airspeed awareness system is required. We are issuing this AD to assure that the pilot has enough information and the necessary equipment to prevent loss of control of the airplane while in-flight during icing conditions. New Actions Required by This AD
(e)Within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do the following, unless already done:
(1)For all Model 208 and 208B aircraft not currently restricted from flight into known or forecast icing: Install a low airspeed awareness system following the instructions in Cessna Service Bulletin CAB06-11 and Service Kit SK 208-171, both dated October 9, 2006.
(2)Incorporate the following revisions to the AFM Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment” as applicable: Document Affects
(i)Revision 9 of the Model 208 (675 SHP) FAA-approved Flight Manual Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1352-S1-09, dated August 24, 2006 Cessna Model 208 airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114A turboprop engine installed (675 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent or higher horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing.
(ii)Revision 8 of the Model 208 (600 SHP) FAA-approved Flight Manual Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1307-S1-08, dated August 24, 2006 Cessna Model 208 airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114 turboprop engine installed (600 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing.
(iii)Revision 9 of the Model 208B (675 SHP) FAA-approved Flight Manual Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1329-S1-09, dated August 24, 2006 Cessna Model 208B airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114A turboprop engine installed (675 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent or higher horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing.
(iv)Revision 9 of the Model 208B (600 SHP) FAA-approved Flight Manual Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1309-S1-09, dated August 24, 2006 Cessna Model 208B airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114 turboprop engine installed (600 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing.
(3)For all Model 208 and 208B aircraft equipped with pneumatic deicing boots, and not currently restricted from flight into known or forecast icing: incorporate the following information in the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment” to require pilot training before further flight into known or forecast icing conditions. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may insert the information into the POH specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (e)(3)(ii) of this AD. You may insert a copy of this AD into the appropriate sections of the POH to comply with this action. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9):
(i)“The pilot-in-command must successfully complete specific training for flight into icing conditions provided by Cessna Aircraft Company within the 12 calendar months preceding any flight into known or forecast icing conditions. Completion of either of the following courses will meet this training requirement: Caravan Cold Wx Ops Onsite—C14694—(CAC 14694) Caravan Cold Wx Ops Online—C14695—(CAC 14695)”
(ii)“Note: The three-hour, on-line training course became available on October 2, 2006, at: *http://www.cessnaelearning.com* . The three-hour on-site training courses are scheduled annually in October at various locations and provided by Cessna Aircraft Company at no cost as part of the Cessna Winter Awareness Seminars. Confirmation of pilot training completion will be maintained by Cessna Aircraft Company. Please note that all operators of the affected airplanes must initiate action to notify and ensure that flight crewmembers are aware of this requirement.”
(f)The actions in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)below are retained in this AD from AD 2006-06-06. The new actions required by this AD in paragraph
(e)above terminates the requirement for the actions in paragraphs
(g)and (h).
(g)No later than March 27, 2006 (3 days after March 24, 2006, which is the effective date of AD 2006-06-06), incorporate the following revisions into the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), unless already accomplished: Affected airplanes Incorporate the following AFM revision document
(1)Cessna Model 208 airplanes and Model 208B airplanes, all serial numbers Section 2: Limitations and Section 4: Normal Procedures: Temporary Revision 208PHTR05, dated June 27, 2005, to the POH and FAA-approved AFM.
(2)Cessna Model 208 airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114A turboprop engine installed (675 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing Section 9: Optional Systems Description and Operating Procedures: Revision 6 of the 208 (675 SHP) POH/FAA-approved AFM Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1352-S1-06, dated June 27, 2005.
(3)Cessna Model 208 airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114 turboprop engine installed (600 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing Section 9: Optional Systems Description and Operating Procedures: Revision 6 of the Cessna Model 208 (600 SHP) POH/FAA-approved AFM Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1307-S1-06, dated June 27, 2005.
(4)Cessna Model 208B airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114A turboprop engine installed (675 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing Section 9: Optional Systems Description and Operating Procedures: Revision 7 of the 208B (675 SHP) POH/FAA-approved AFM Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1329-S1-07, dated June 27, 2005.
(5)Cessna Model 208B airplanes with a Pratt & Whitney of Canada Ltd., PT6A-114 turboprop engine installed (600 SHP) or FAA-approved engine of equivalent horsepower installed, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing Section 9: Optional Systems Description and Operating Procedures: Revision 6 of the 208B (600 SHP) POH/FAA-approved AFM Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment,” Cessna document D1309-S1-06, dated June 27, 2005.
(h)You must do the following actions, unless already done. These changes are to the POH and FAA-approved AFM and to the POH/FAA-approved AFM Supplement S1 “Known Icing Equipment” mandated in paragraph
(g)of this AD: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)For Cessna Model 208 airplanes and Model 208B airplanes, all serial numbers, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing: You are prohibited from continued flight after encountering moderate or greater icing conditions. The airplane can dispatch into forecast areas of icing but must exit moderate or greater icing conditions if encountered No later than March 27, 2006 (3 days after March 24, 2006, which is the effective date of AD 2006-06-06) Not Applicable.
(2)For Cessna Model 208 airplanes and Model 208B airplanes, all serial numbers, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing:
(i)Insert the text in Appendix 1 of this AD preceding the KINDS OF OPERATION LIMITS paragraph in the LIMITATIONS section of the Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-approved AFM.
(ii)Insert the text in Appendix 2 of this AD in the LIMITATIONS section of the Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-approved AFM KNOWN ICING EQUIPMENT SUPPLEMENT S1 at the beginning of the paragraph “REQUIRED EQUIPMENT.” No later than March 27, 2006 (3 days after March 24, 2006, which is the effective date of AD 2006-06-06) The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may insert the information into the POH/AFM as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. You may insert a copy of this AD into the appropriate sections of the POH/AFM to comply with this action. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(3)For Cessna Model 208 airplanes and Model 208B airplanes, all serial numbers, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing: Install 3 placards with black letters on a white background. The placards shall be located on the instrument panel in one of the following areas: under the radio stack, immediately above the pilot's flight instruments, or below the pilot's vertical speed indicator. Lettering on the placard shall be a minimum height of 1/8 -inch
(i)Placard 1 shall include the text of Appendix 3 of this AD.
(ii)Placard 2 shall include the following text: “120 KIAS Minimum in Icing Flaps Up except 110 KIAS if Climbing to Exit Icing.”
(iii)Placard 3 shall include the following text: “Disconnect autopilot at first indication of ice accretion.” No later than March 27, 2006 (3 days after March 24, 2006, which is the effective date of AD 2006-06-06) The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may install the placards as specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(4)For Cessna Model 208 airplanes and Model 208B airplanes, all serial numbers, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing:
(i)Insert the text in Appendix 4 of this AD under the “AIRSPEED LIMITATIONS” paragraph in the LIMITATIONS section of the Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-approved AFM.
(ii)Replace the text in the KNOWN ICING EQUIPMENT SUPPLEMENT S1 under the “MINIMUM SPEED IN ICING CONDITIONS” paragraph with the text in Appendix 4.
(iii)Insert the following text in the LIMITATIONS section of the POH/AFM under the “OTHER LIMITATIONS” paragraph and in the LIMITATIONS section of the KNOWN ICING EQUIPMENT SUPPLEMENT S1 under the “AUTOPILOT OPERATION IN ICING CONDITIONS” paragraph: “Disconnect autopilot at first indication of ice accretion.” No later than March 27, 2006 (3 days after March 24, 2006, which is the effective date of AD 2006-06-06) The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may insert the information into the POH/AFM as specified in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD. You may insert a copy of this AD into the appropriate sections of the POH/AFM to comply with this action. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(5)For Cessna Model 208 airplanes and Model 208B airplanes, all serial numbers, equipped with airframe deicing pneumatic boots, that are not currently prohibited from flight in known or forecast icing:
(i)Replace the text in the PERFORMANCE section of the Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-approved AFM KNOWN ICING EQUIPMENT SUPPLEMENT S1 under the “STALL SPEEDS” paragraph with the text in Appendix 5.
(ii)Replace the “WARNING” text in the LIMITATIONS section of the Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-approved AFM KNOWN ICING EQUIPMENT SUPPLEMENT S1 under “ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS” with: “FLIGHT IN THESE CONDITIONS ARE PROHIBITED.”
(iii)Replace the last two sentences in the LIMITATIONS section of the Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-approved AFM KNOWN ICING EQUIPMENT SUPPLEMENT S1 under “ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS” with the following text: “Exit strategies should be determined during pre-flight planning.” No later than March 27, 2006 (3 days after March 24, 2006, which is the effective date of AD 2006-06-06) The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may insert the information into the POH/AFM as specified in paragraph (h)(5) of this AD. You may insert a copy of this AD into the appropriate sections of the POH/AFM to comply with this action. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(i)The Manager Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Robert P. Busto, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; *telephone:*
(316)946-4157; *fax:*
(316)946-4107, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(j)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact: The Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-26498; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-83-AD. Appendix 1 Retained From AD 2006-06-06 Changes to the Cessna Models 208 or 208B Pilot's Operating Handbook
(POH)and FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Affected Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-Approved AFM Insert the following text at the beginning of the KINDS OF OPERATION LIMITS paragraph in the LIMITATIONS section of the Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-approved AFM. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the POH/AFM: “Continued flight after encountering moderate or greater icing conditions is prohibited. One or more of the following defines moderate icing conditions for this airplane: Indicated airspeed in level cruise flight at constant power decreases by 20 knots. Engine torque required to maintain airspeed increases by 400 ft. lbs. Airspeed of 120 KIAS cannot be maintained in level flight. An accretion of 1/4 -inch of ice is observed on the wing strut. Disregard any mention of approval for flight in icing conditions within the POH/AFM.” Appendix 2 Retained From AD 2006-06-06 Changes to the Cessna Models 208 or 208B Pilot's Operating Handbook
(POH)and FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Affected Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-Approved AFM Insert the following text in the LIMITATIONS section of the POH and FAA-approved AFM KNOWN ICING EQUIPMENT SUPPLEMENT S1, at the beginning of the paragraph “REQUIRED EQUIPMENT.” This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the POH/AFM: “Continued flight after encountering moderate or greater icing conditions is prohibited. One or more of the following defines moderate icing conditions for this airplane: Indicated airspeed in level flight at constant power decreases by 20 knots. Engine torque required to maintain airspeed increases by 400 ft. lbs. Airspeed of 120 KIAS cannot be maintained in level flight. An accretion of 1/4 -inch of ice is observed on the wing strut. Disregard any mention of approval for flight in icing conditions within the POH/AFM.” Appendix 3 Retained From AD 2006-06-06 Cessna Model 208 Airplanes and Model 208B Airplanes, Equipped With Airframe Deicing Pneumatic Boots, That Are Not Currently Prohibited From Flight in Known or Forecast Icing Install a placard with black letters on a white background. The placard shall be located on the instrument panel in one of the following areas: Under the radio stack, immediately above the pilot's flight instruments, or below the pilot's vertical speed indicator. Lettering on the placard shall be a minimum 1/8 -inch tall and state the following: “Continued flight after encountering moderate or greater icing conditions is prohibited. One or more of the following defines moderate icing conditions for this airplane: Airspeed in level flight at constant power decreases by 20 KIAS. Engine torque required to maintain airspeed increases by 400 ft. lbs. 120 KIAS cannot be maintained in level flight. Ice accretion of 1/4 inch observed on the wing strut.” Appendix 4 Retained From AD 2006-06-06 Changes to the Cessna Models 208 or 208B Pilot's Operating Handbook
(POH)and FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Supplement S1 Affected Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-Approved AFM and FAA-Approved Supplement S1 Insert the following text into the LIMITATIONS section under the “AIRSPEED LIMITATIONS” paragraph of the Cessna Models 208 or 208B POH and FAA-approved AFM, and replace the text in the KNOWN ICING EQUIPMENT SUPPLEMENT S1 under the “MINIMUM SPEED IN ICING CONDITIONS” paragraph with the following text. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the POH/AFM: “Minimum airspeed in icing conditions, for all flight phases including approach, except takeoff and landing: Flaps up: 120 KIAS Flaps 10°: 105 KIAS Flaps 20°: 95 KIAS Exception for flaps up: when climbing to exit icing conditions airspeed can be reduced to 110 KIAS minimum. Flaps must be extended during all phases (takeoff and landing included) at airspeeds below 110 KIAS, except adhere to published AFM procedures when operating with ground deicing/anti-icing fluid applied. WARNING The aural stall warning system does not function properly in all icing conditions and should not be relied upon to provide adequate stall warning when in icing conditions.” Note: These are minimum speeds for operations in icing conditions. Disregard any reference to the original speeds within the POH/AFM. Appendix 5 Retained From AD 2006-06-06 Changes to the Cessna Models 208 or 208B Pilot's Operating Handbook
(POH)and FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Supplement S1 Replace the text in the PERFORMANCE section of the POH/AFM KNOWN ICING EQUIPMENT SUPPLEMENT S1 under the “STALL SPEEDS” paragraph with the following text: “Ice accumulation on the airframe may result in a 20 KIAS increase in stall speed. Either buffet or aural stall warning should be treated as an imminent stall.” “WARNING—The aural stall warning system does not function properly in all icing conditions and should not be relied upon to provide adequate stall warning when in icing conditions.” Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 25, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1604 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-07-001] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Severn River, College Creek, Weems Creek and Carr Creek, Annapolis, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.518. This rulemaking is intended to accommodate changes in event dates for recurring marine events specified in this regulation. The marine events included in this proposed rule include the Safety at Sea Seminar, U.S. Naval Academy Crew Races and the Blue Angels Air Show. This proposed rule is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Severn River during the period of these marine events and is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 415 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax them to
(757)391-8149. The Inspection and Compliance Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis M. Sens, Project Manager, Inspections and Compliance Branch, at
(757)398-6204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-07-001), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address listed under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose We propose to amend 33 CFR 100.518 to accommodate changes to the enforcement period for U.S. Naval Academy sponsored marine events. Each year the U.S. Naval Academy hosts various marine events on the Severn River adjacent to the academy. Organized collegiate crew races are typically held annually during weekends in March, April and May. The Blue Angels air show is normally scheduled during graduation week at the U.S. Naval Academy. Maritime traffic is prohibited from using the regulated area of the Severn River during air show performances in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration requirements. The proposed dates for marine events for 2007 will be; Safety at Sea Seminar on March 24, 2007; U.S. Naval Academy crew races on May 6 and May 27, 2007; and the Blue Angels air show on May 23 and May 24, 2007. The events will be enforced from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. on those days and if the event's daily activities should conclude prior to 6 p.m., enforcement of this proposed regulation may be terminated for that day at the discretion of the Patrol Commander. The U.S. Naval Academy is the sponsor for all of these events and intends to hold them annually on the dates provided in 33 CFR 100.518. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations at 33 CFR 100.518 to accommodate the dates of annual recurring U.S. Naval Academy marine events. The changes are necessary to reflect new enforcement dates. These proposed changes are needed to control vessel traffic during the events to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The effect of this proposed action merely establishes the dates on which the existing regulations would be enforced. It would not impose any additional restrictions on vessel traffic. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Severn River during the event. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This proposed rule would merely establish the dates on which the existing regulations would be enforced. It would not impose any additional restrictions on vessel traffic. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine event permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) introductory text, (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iii) and (c)(2) and add (c)(3) of § 100.518 to read as follows: § 100.518 Severn River, College Creek, Weems Creek and Carr Creek, Annapolis, Maryland.
(c)*Enforcement period.*
(1)This section will be enforced from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. on days when the following events are held:
(i)Safety at Sea Seminar, held on the fourth Saturday in March;
(ii)Naval Academy Crew Races held on the last weekend in March and every weekend in April and May;
(iii)Blue Angels Air Show, held on the fourth Tuesday and Wednesday in May.
(2)Should the event's daily activities conclude prior to 6 p.m., enforcement of this section may be terminated for that day at the discretion of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(3)The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners announcing the specific event dates and times. Notice will also be made via marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 22 (157.1 MHz). Dated: January 10, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-1613 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0928; FRL-8275-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; South Dakota; Revisions to New Source Review Rules AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove revisions adopted by South Dakota on August 29, 2006 to Chapter 74:36:09 of the South Dakota Administrative Rules (Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality). South Dakota submitted the request for approval of these rule revisions into the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)on September 1, 2006. South Dakota was granted delegation of authority by EPA on July 6, 1994 to implement and enforce the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)permitting regulations. EPA's delegation of authority to South Dakota for the PSD regulations would be rescinded if EPA issues final approval of this SIP revision, except for the one rule provision that EPA is proposing to disapprove. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0928, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: daly.carl@epa.gov* and *ostrand.laurie@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • *Hand Delivery:* Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0928. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Daly, Air and Radiation Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
(303)312-6416, *daly.carl@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i)The words or initials *Act* or *CAA* mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii)The words *EPA, we, us* or *our* mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii)The initials *SIP* mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv)The words *State* or *South Dakota* mean the State of South Dakota, unless the context indicates otherwise. Table of Contents I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Is Being Addressed in This Document? III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is Approving? IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Is Being Addressed in This Document? EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Chapter 74:36:09 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality) of the Administrative Rules of South Dakota. These revisions were submitted to EPA by the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR)on September 1, 2006, and relate to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)permit program of the State of South Dakota. These revisions to Chapter 74:36:09 were adopted by the South Dakota Board Interim Rules Committee on August 29, 2006. South Dakota was granted delegation of authority by EPA on July 6, 1994 to implement and enforce the federal PSD permitting regulations. EPA provided notice of this delegation in the **Federal Register** on September 15, 1994 (59 FR 47260). On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the federal PSD and non-attainment NSR regulations in 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 (67 FR 80186). These revisions are commonly referred to as the “NSR Reform” regulations and became effective nationally in areas not covered by a SIP on March 3, 2003. Since South Dakota is delegated for PSD and not covered by a SIP, the NSR Reform regulations became effective in South Dakota at that time. These regulatory revisions include provisions for baseline emissions determinations, actual-to-future-actual methodology, plantwide applicability limits (PALs), clean units, and pollution control projects (PCPs). As stated in the December 31, 2002 rulemaking, State and local permitting agencies must adopt and submit revisions to their part 51 permitting programs implementing the minimum program elements of that rulemaking no later than January 2, 2006 (67 FR 80240). As noted above, South Dakota is currently delegated for the PSD program and is not subject to this requirement, but the State requests in their submittal to have the PSD program incorporated into South Dakota's SIP. On November 7, 2003, EPA published a reconsideration of the NSR Reform regulations that clarified two provisions in the regulations by including a definition of ”replacement unit” and by clarifying that the plantwide applicability limitation
(PAL)baseline calculation procedures for newly constructed units do not apply to modified units. On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling on challenges to the December 2002 NSR Reform revisions ( *State of New York et al.* v. *EPA* , 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). Although the Court upheld most of EPA's rules, it vacated both the Clean Unit and the Pollution Control Project provisions and remanded back to EPA the recordkeeping provision at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) that required a stationary source to keep records of projects when there was a “reasonable possibility” that the project could result in a significant emissions increase. On October 27, 2003 EPA published the Routine Equipment Replacement Provision (68 FR 61248), which specified at 40 CFR 52.21(cc) the criteria for routine equipment. On March 17, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's final Routine Equipment Replacement Provision (ERP). In its revision to Chapter 74:36:09 of the South Dakota Administrative Rules, South Dakota did not incorporate the vacated Clean Unit, PCP, and ERP provisions. III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is Approving? EPA is proposing to approve a revision to South Dakota's SIP that would incorporate by reference the federal PSD requirements, found at 40 CFR 52.21, into the State's PSD program. The revision to the South Dakota Administrative Rules Chapter 74:36:09 incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21, as they exist on July 1, 2005, with the exceptions noted below. South Dakota did not incorporate by reference those sections of the federal rules that do not apply to State activities or are reserved for the Administrator of the EPA. These sections are 40 CFR 52.21(a)(1) (plan disapproval), 52.21(q) (public participation), 52.21(s) (environmental impact statements), 52.21(t) (disputed permit or redesignations), and 52.21(u) (delegation of authority). South Dakota did not incorporate by reference the vacated federal requirements for Equipment Replacement, Clean Unit, and Pollution Control Project. Therefore, the following federal provisions found in 40 CFR 52.21 are not incorporated by reference in Chapter 74:36:09: 40 CFR 52.21(x), 52.21(y), 52.21(z), 52.21(cc), 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(e), the second sentence of 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f), 52.21(a)(2)(vi), 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(h), 52.21(b)(3)(iii)(b), 52.21(b)(3)(vi)(d), 52.21(b)(32), 52.21(b)(42), (b)(55), (b)(56), (b)(57), (b)(58), and the phrase “other than projects at a Clean Unit or at a source with a PAL” in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6). The phrase “reasonable possibility” used in the federal rule at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) limits the recordkeeping provisions to modifications at facilities that use the actual-to-future-actual methodology to calculate emissions changes and that may have a “reasonable possibility” of a significant emissions increase. The South Dakota rule does incorporate by reference the phrase “reasonable possibility” as it is used at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6). EPA has not yet responded to the D.C. Circuit Court's remand of the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. As a result, EPA's final decision with regard to the remand may require EPA to take further action on this portion of South Dakota's rule. At this time, however, South Dakota's recordkeeping provisions are as stringent as the federal requirements, and are therefore approvable. The South Dakota incorporation by reference describes the circumstances in which the term “Administrator” continues to mean the EPA Administrator and when it means the Secretary of DENR instead. South Dakota rule 74:36:09:02(1) identifies the following provisions in Chapter 74:36:09 where the term “Administrator” continues to mean the Administrator of EPA: 40 CFR 52.21(b)(17), 52.21(b)(37)(i), 52.21(b)(43), 52.21(b)(48)(ii)(c), 52.21(b)(50)(i), 52.21(g)(1) to 52.21(g)(6), and 52.21(l)(2). This list does not include 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2). Therefore, under South Dakota's PSD rule, the term “Administrator” in 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2) refers to the Secretary of the DENR. This is inconsistent with EPA's determination that 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2) must still refer to the Administrator of EPA. EPA bases this determination on a review of its PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166. While the PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 apply to EPA's direct implementation of the PSD program in States that do not have an approved PSD SIP, the PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 identify the elements States must include in their SIPs to gain EPA approval. The regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 generally mirror the regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, except that the term “Administrator” in 40 CFR 52.21 is often replaced by the term “reviewing authority” in 40 CFR 51.166. However, 40 CFR 51.166(p)(2), which corresponds to 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), retains the term “Administrator,” indicating that in SIPs the required consultation must continue to occur with the EPA Administrator, not the Administrator of the State program. In contrast, other provisions in 40 CFR 51.166(p) use the term “reviewing authority” in place of Administrator (e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(p)(1) and (p)(3)). In addition, EPA's determination is consistent with recently EPA approved SIP revisions where the State has incorporated by reference 40 CFR 52.21. Mississippi's PSD regulations identify that “Administrator as it appears in 40 CFR 52.21 shall mean the Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board, except that: * * * In the following subsections, it shall continue to mean the Administrator of the USEPA: * * * i. (p)(2) (concerning Federal Land Manager).” (See 71 FR 38773, July 10, 2006). Missouri's PSD regulations identify that “Administrator as it appears in 40 CFR 52.21 shall refer to the director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' Air Pollution Control Program except in the following, where it shall continue to refer to the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: * * * 9. (p)(2) Federal Land Manager.” (See 71 FR 36486, (June 27, 2006)). Therefore, we are proposing disapproval of 74:36:09:02's incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), and we are proposing to disapprove 74:36:09:02(1) to the extent it defines “Administrator,” as used in 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), to mean the Secretary of DENR. In all other respects, we are approving 74:36:09:02 and 74:36:09:02(1). Thus, until South Dakota revises its PSD rule to address our concern and gains EPA approval of the revision, 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2) will continue to apply as federal law in lieu of the State-adopted version of 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2). This means that the consultation required by 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2) needs to occur with the EPA Administrator, not the Secretary of DENR. 1 1 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2): “Federal Land Manager. The Federal Land Manager and the Federal official charged with direct responsibility for management of Class I lands have an affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality related values (including visibility) of any such lands and to consider, in consultation with the *Administrator* , whether a proposed source or modification would have an adverse impact on such values.” If South Dakota submits a SIP revision that revises their PSD rule to clarify that the term “Administrator,” as used in 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), means the EPA Administrator prior to final EPA action on this SIP rulemaking, EPA will approve the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2). As noted above, South Dakota did not incorporate by reference 40 CFR 52.21(q) (public participation). South Dakota has instead incorporated by reference 40 CFR 51.166(q) (public participation) at 74:36:09:03. The regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 are what a SIP must contain for EPA to approve a PSD permit program, and generally mirror the federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. In addition, South Dakota added in 74:36:09:03 six additional provisions that revise 40 CFR 51.166(q) in order to make the PSD permit public participation requirements specific to South Dakota. The requirements included in South Dakota's PSD program, as specified in Chapter 74:36:09, are substantively the same as the federal PSD provisions due to South Dakota's incorporation of the federal rules by reference. The revisions South Dakota made to 40 CFR 52.21 noted above were reviewed by EPA and found to be as stringent as the federal rules, except for provision 74:36:09:02(1), noted above. EPA has, therefore, determined that, except for 74:36:09:02(1), the proposed revisions are consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption, and submittal of implementation plans for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, as set forth at 40 CFR 51.166, and are approvable as part of the South Dakota SIP. IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? We propose to partially approve revisions to Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Chapter 74:36:09 Prevention of Significant Deterioration into the South Dakota SIP. EPA is proposing to disapprove 74:36:09:02's incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), and we are proposing disapproval of 74:36:09:02(1) to the extent that it defines “Administrator,” as used in 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), to mean the Secretary of DENR. In all other respects, we are approving 74:36:09:02 and 74:36:09:02(1). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: January 23, 2007. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E7-1621 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 60 [EPA-R08-OAR-2005-UT-0007; FRL-8275-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Administrative Procedures AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Governor of Utah on August 15, 2001. This SIP submittal deletes Utah's rules R307-102-3, “Administrative Procedures and Hearings,” and R307-414-3, “Request for Review.” EPA is proposing to remove Utah's rules R307-102-3 and R307-414-3 from Utah's federally approved SIP, because these rules are not required to be in Utah's SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, on August 25, 2006, the Governor of Utah submitted revisions to the New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)rules in Utah's Air Conservation Regulations. We are proposing to approve updates to the NSPS “Delegation Status of New Source Performance Standards” table to indicate the State has been delegated the authority to implement and enforce NSPS and to add entries for newly delegated NSPS. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R08-OAR-2005-UT-0007, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *ostrand.laurie@epa.gov* and *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov* . • Fax:
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • Mail: Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • Hand Delivery: Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instruction on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone
(303)312-6493, and e-mail at: *fiedler.kerri@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations Section of this **Federal Register** . Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq* . Dated: January 22, 2007. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region VIII. [FR Doc. E7-1620 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 2, 4, 5, and 13 [FAR Case 2006-015; Docket 2006-0020; Sequence 15] RIN: 9000-AK68 Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2006-015, Federal Computer Network (FACNET) Architecture AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)to delete references to FACNET. DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the FAR Secretariat on or before April 2, 2007 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by FAR case 2006-015 by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Search for any document by first selecting the proper document types and selecting “Federal Acquisition Regulation” as the agency of choice. At the “Keyword” prompt, type in the FAR case number (for example, FAR Case 2006-015) and click on the “Submit” button. Please include any personal and/or business information inside the document. You may also search for any document by clicking on the “Advanced search/document search” tab at the top of the screen, selecting from the agency field “Federal Acquisition Regulation”, and typing the FAR case number in the keyword field. Select the “Submit” button. • Fax: 202-501-4067. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. *Instructions:* Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2006-015 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, at
(202)501-3775 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat at
(202)501-4755. Please cite FAR case 2006-015. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background In 1994, Congress enacted Pub. L. 103-355, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), which in Title IX called for the development of a Federal Acquisition Computer Network (FACNET) for automating the procurement process. FACNET was to be the preferred means for conducting Government purchases above the micro-purchase limit and below the simplified acquisition threshold. The law set a goal: the Government was to utilize FACNET to purchase more than 75 percent of its goods and services within these dollar limits by 2000. However, in its 1997 report, *Acquisition Reform: Obstacles to Implementing FACNET* , GAO reviewed comments from agency electronic commerce managers about FACNET's effectiveness, its ability to handle simple procurement transactions and its management and technical obstacles. As a result, GAO urged the Office of Management and Budget, General Services Administration, DOD and other leading Federal procurement shops to devise a new integrated electronic commerce strategy based on clearer functional requirements. In 1997, Congress enacted Pub. L. 105-85, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, which removed the statutory goal and freed agencies to use other electronic contracting means, such as FedBizOpps. Because of implementing obstacles, the statutory changes addressed above, and an electronic business environment that has evolved since FACNET's introduction, the FAR is being revised to remove FACNET references and provide the opportunity to recognize the evolution of alternative technologies, processes, etc. that Federal agencies are using and will use to satisfy their acquisition needs without removing the use of FACNET for Federal agencies that may use the system. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the rule addresses the deletion of a term used to describe a system for the electronic data interchange of acquisition information between the private section and the Federal Government without removing the use of the system. Additionally, where necessary in the FAR, the term has been replaced with a more appropriate term that incorporates various electronic data interchange systems. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Parts 2, 4, 5, and 13 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* (FAR case 2006-015), in correspondence. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2, 4, 5, and 13 Government procurement. Dated: January 24, 2007. Ralph De Stefano Director, Contract Policy Division. Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 2, 4, 5, and 13 as set forth below: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 4, 5, and 13 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). PART 2—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 2.101 [Amended] 2. Amend section 2.101 by removing from paragraph
(b)the definition “Federal Acquisition Computer Network (FACNET) Architecture”. PART 4—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 4.502 [Amended] 3. Amend section 4.502 by removing from paragraph (b)(2) “, ( *e.g.* , the Federal Acquisition Computer Network (FACNET))”. PART 5—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS 5.101 [Amended] 4. Amend section 5.101 by removing from paragraph (a)(2)(ii) “or Federal Acquisition Computer Network (FACNET)”. 5.102 [Amended] 5. Amend section 5.102 by removing from paragraph (a)(3) “to FACNET” and adding “using electronic commerce” in its place. 5.201 [Amended] 6. Amend section 5.201 by removing from paragraph (b)(2) “to FACNET” and adding “using electronic commerce” in its place. 5.203 [Amended] 7. Amend section 5.203 by removing from paragraph
(b)“via FACNET or for which” and adding “where” in its place. PART 13—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES 13.104 [Amended] 8. Amend section 13.104 by removing from paragraph
(b)“using either FACNET or”. 9. Amend section 13.105 by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: 13.105 Synopsis and posting requirements.
(a)The contracting officer must comply with the public display and synopsis requirements of 5.101 and 5.203 unless an exception in 5.202 applies. 10. Amend section 13.106-1 by revising paragraph
(f)to read as follows: 13.106-1 Soliciting competition.
(f)*Inquiries.* An agency should respond to inquiries received through any medium (including electronic commerce) if doing so would not interfere with the efficient conduct of the acquisition. 13.106-2 [Amended] 11. Amend section 13.106-2 by removing from paragraph (b)(4) “FACNET or”. 13.106-3 [Amended] 12. Amend section 13.106-3 by removing from paragraph
(c)“FACNET or”. 13.307 [Amended] 13. Amend section 13.307 by removing from paragraph (b)(1) “via FACNET, electronically,” and adding “electronically” in its place. [FR Doc. 07-439 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 37
Traces to 37 documents
U.S. Code
41 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 72
  • 68 Stat. 929
  • 83 Stat. 444
  • Pub. L. 86-373
  • 73 Stat. 688
  • 88 Stat. 1242
  • Pub. L. 95-601
  • 92 Stat. 2951
  • Pub. L. 102-486
  • 106 Stat. 3123
  • Pub. L. 91-190
  • 83 Stat. 853
  • Pub. L. 97-425
  • 96 Stat. 2229
  • Pub. L. 100-203
  • 101 Stat. 1330
  • 112 Stat. 2750
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 119 Stat. 806
  • 68 Stat. 955
  • 96 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2202
  • 98 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2252
  • 14 CFR 23
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 33 CFR 100
  • 33 CFR 100.518
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • 33 USC 1233
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 413 F.3d 3
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 103-355
  • Pub. L. 105-85
+ 1 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 2071
U.S.C.§ 2021
U.S.C.§ 5841
U.S.C.§ 5851
U.S.C.§ 4332
U.S.C.§ 10151
U.S.C.§ 3504
U.S.C.§ 2014
F. App'x413 F.3d 3
Cite10 CFR 72
Stat.68 Stat. 929
Cites 78 · 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.