Unknown. Statement of Policy

30,009 words·~136 min read·/register/2007/03/16/07-1304

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-03-16.xml --- 72 51 Friday, March 16, 2007 Contents Agency Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Evidence-based practice centers; evidence reports, technology assessments, and comparative and effectiveness reviews; topics nominations, 12618-12619 07-1236 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Forest Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 12590 E7-4800 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:

Expert Review of Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 Advisory Committee, 12590-12592 E7-4873 E7-4874 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 12592-12593 E7-4824 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: Method and device for detection and track of targets in high clutter, 12596-12597 07-1277 Methods for polymerization of electronic and photonic polymers, 12597 07-1279 07-1280 Multiple pass faraday rotation amplifier, 12597 07-1276 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 12619-12620 07-1231 Civil Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings;

State advisory committees: California, 12595-12596 E7-4837 Illinois, 12596 E7-4838 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Transportation Worker Identity Credential biometric reader specification and contactless smart card, 12626-12627 07-1305 Commerce Commerce Department See National Institute of Standards and Technology See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Defense Defense Department See Army Department See Engineers Corps PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):

Approved attorneys, abstracters, and title companies; list, 12584-12585 07-1182 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Registration revocations, restrictions, denials, reinstatements: Siegfried (USA), Inc., 12635 E7-4825 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: San Bernadino County, CA; Burlington Northern Santa Fe

(BNSF)Third Main Track Summit to Keenbrook Project, 12597-12598 E7-4823 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Brevard County, FL; Port Canaveral Improvements Section 203 Feasibility Study, 12598-12599 07-1278 Placer Vineyards Project, CA; mixed-use planned community construction, 12599-12600 07-1287 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Wisconsin, 12565-12568 E7-4771 Hazardous waste program authorizations: Vermont, 12568-12572 E7-4774 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Wisconsin, 12581 E7-4772 Hazardous waste program authorizations: Vermont, 12581-12582 E7-4775 Toxic substances: Lead; renovation, repair, and painting program; hazard exposure reduction; studies availability, 12582-12584 E7-4869 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 12606-12609 E7-4855 E7-4856 E7-4857 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Agency comment availability, 12609-12610 E7-4859 Agency weekly receipts, 12610-12611 E7-4858 Superfund; response and remedial actions, proposed settlements, etc.: McClellan Air Force Base Site, CA, 12611 E7-4867 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives: Airbus, 12550-12557 E7-4734 E7-4740 B-N Group Ltd., 12557-12560 E7-4729 EADS SOCATA, 12546-12550 E7-4724 E7-4736 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH, 12574-12576 E7-4850 Saab, 12576-12578 E7-4862 Class E airspace, 12578-12581 07-1207 07-1208 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 12611-12612 07-1306 07-1307 Federal Election Federal Election Commission RULES Compliance procedures: Enforcement proceedings; matters under review; policy statement, 12545-12546 E7-4868 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 12612 07-1324 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 12600-12601 E7-4809 Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 12603-12604 E7-4816 Meetings: RTO and ISO seams issues in Eastern Interconnection; technical conference, 12604 E7-4805 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 12604-12605 E7-4836 Off-the-record communications, 12605-12606 E7-4810 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Enstor Gulf Coast Storage, LLC, 12601-12602 E7-4807 Gulf South Pipeline Co., LP, 12602 E7-4806 Southern Company Services, Inc., 12603 E7-4808 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Motor carrier safety standards: Driver qualifications; diabetes exemptions, 12656-12664 E7-4835 Driver qualifications; vision requirement exemptions, 12665-12669 E7-4840 E7-4841 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Change in bank control, 12612 E7-4790 Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 12612-12613 E7-4792 E7-4828 FTC Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Prohibited trade practices: Kmart Corp et al., 12613-12615 E7-4798 Missouri Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 12615-12617 E7-4799 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act: Fish and shellfish; subsistence taking, 12676-12694 07-1166 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and threatened species: Critical habitat designations— Peck's cave amphipod, etc., 12585-12589 E7-4802 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 12628-12631 E7-4842 E7-4843 E7-4844 Endangered and threatened species: Incidental take permits— Palm Beach County, FL; Florida scrub-jay, 12631-12632 E7-4853 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, VT; comprehensive conservation plan, 12632-12633 E7-4854 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Animal drugs, feeds, and related products: 25-hydroxyvitamin, 12560-12564 E7-4796 NOTICES Meetings: Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee, 12620 E7-4860 Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee, 12621 E7-4797 Foreign Foreign Claims Settlement Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 12635-12636 07-1325 Forest Forest Service RULES Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act: Fish and shellfish; subsistence taking, 12676-12694 07-1166 NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent.: Klamath National Forest, CA; canceled, 12593 07-1285 Pike and San Isabel National Forests Cimarron and Comanche Grasslands, CO, 12593-12595 07-1286 Meetings: Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee, 12595 07-1281 Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board, 12595 E7-4852 GSA General Services Administration RULES Federal Management Regulation: Surplus personal property donation; historic light stations, 12572 E7-4845 PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Approved attorneys, abstracters, and title companies; list, 12584-12585 07-1182 Health Health and Human Services Department See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Special Exposure Cohort; employee class designations: Allied Chemical Corporation Plant, IL, 12617 07-1274 Harshaw Harvard-Denison Plant, OH, 12617-12618 07-1273 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard NOTICES Meetings: National Infrastructure Advisory Council, 12625-12626 07-1235 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Homeless assistance; excess and surplus Federal properties, 12627-12628 07-1173 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: National origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient persons; prohibition; policy guidance to Federal financial assistance recipients, 12628 E7-4794 Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005; HUD programs applicability, 12696-12700 E7-4795 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration See Foreign Claims Settlement Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 12634 E7-4821 Meetings: Violence Against Women National Advisory Committee, 12634-12635 E7-4820 Labor Labor Department NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 12636 E7-4839 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Resource Advisory Councils— Central California, 12633-12634 07-1233 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 12669 E7-4829 Coastwise trade laws; administrative waivers: CATNAP, 12669-12670 E7-4834 KUWANLELENTA, 12670 E7-4831 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Approved attorneys, abstracters, and title companies; list, 12584-12585 07-1182 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: U.S. Spaced-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board, 12636 E7-4801 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 12636-12637 E7-4819 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: Stratos Biosystems, LLC, 12596 E7-4865 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Center for Research Resources, 12621 07-1225 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 12622 07-1222 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 12622-12623 07-1221 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 12623 07-1223 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 12623-12624 07-1226 07-1227 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 12623 07-1224 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 12624 07-1230 National Institute of Mental Health, 12622 07-1219 07-1220 Scientific Review Center, 12624-12625 07-1228 07-1229 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Northeastern United States fisheries— Atlantic sea scallop, 12572-12573 07-1304 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Export and import license applications for nuclear facilities and materials: AREVA NP Inc., 12637 E7-4870 Westinghouse Electric Co., 12637-12638 E7-4866 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 12638-12639 07-1320 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Hazardous materials: Special permit applications; list, 12670-12673 07-1271 07-1272 Postal Postal Service RULES Organization and administration: Conduct on Postal Service property; weapons and explosives prohibition; clarification, 12565 E7-4803 Railroad Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 12639 E7-4864 Saint Lawrence Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Board, 12673 E7-4863 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Joint Industry Plan: American Stock Exchange LLC et al., 12639-12640 E7-4783 Meetings: Interactive data; creating interactive data to serve investors; roundtable, 12640 E7-4892 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 12641-12644 E7-4785 E7-4812 E7-4817 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 12644-12646 E7-4784 E7-4818 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 12647-12650 E7-4811 E7-4814 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 12650-12651 E7-4813 NYSE Arca, Inc., 12651-12655 E7-4786 E7-4787 E7-4815 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster loan areas: Arkansas, 12655 E7-4871 Washington, 12655 E7-4872 State State Department NOTICES Meetings: Transformational Diplomacy Advisory Committee, 12656 E7-4849 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, control, etc.: Union Pacific Railroad Co., 12673 E7-4770 Railroad services abandonment: BNSF Railway Co., 12673-12674 E7-4768 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Maritime Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration See Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation See Surface Transportation Board Veterans Veterans Affairs Department RULES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, 12564-12565 E7-4826 NOTICES Real property; enhanced use leases: Sepulveda, CA; VA Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, 12674 E7-4827 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Agriculture Department, Forest Service; Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 12676-12694 07-1166 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 12696-12700 E7-4795 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 51 Friday, March 16, 2007 Rules and Regulations FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Part 111 [Notice 2007-6] Statement of Policy Regarding Commission Action in Matters at the Initial Stage in the Enforcement Process AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. ACTION: Statement of Policy. SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) is issuing a Policy Statement to clarify the various ways that the Commission addresses Matters Under Review (“MURs”) at the initial stage of enforcement proceedings. The Commission may take any of the four following actions at this stage: find “reason to believe,” “dismiss,” “dismiss with admonishment,” and find “no reason to believe.” DATES: *Effective Date:* March 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Shonkwiler, Assistant General Counsel, or Lynn Tran, Attorney, Enforcement Division, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463,

(202)694-1650 or

(800)424-9530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. 431 *et seq.* (“FECA” or “the Act”), grants the Commission “exclusive jurisdiction with respect to civil enforcement” of the provisions of the Act and Chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26. 2 U.S.C. 437c(b)(1). Enforcement matters come to the Commission through complaints from the public; information ascertained in the ordinary course of the Commission's supervisory responsibilities, including referrals from the Commission's Reports Analysis and Audit Divisions; referrals from other government agencies; and self-reported submissions. The FECA provides that “upon receiving a complaint” or upon the basis of information ascertained in the course of carrying out its supervisory responsibilities, the Commission “shall make an investigation of such alleged violation” of the Act where the Commission, with the vote of four members, determines that there is “reason to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit” a violation of the Act. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2); *see also* 11 CFR 111.10(f). Commission “reason to believe” findings have caused confusion in the past because they have been viewed as definitive determinations that a respondent violated the Act. In fact, “reason to believe” findings indicate only that the Commission found sufficient legal justification to open an investigation to determine whether a violation of the Act has occurred. Indeed, the Commission has recommended that Congress modify the FECA to clarify this point. *See* Legislative Recommendations in 2003 and 2004 FEC Annual Reports. Other kinds of dispositions at this preliminary stage would also benefit from clarification to ensure consistency and promote understanding of the Commission's reasons for taking action. Thus, the Commission is issuing this policy statement to assist complainants, respondents, and the public in understanding the Commission's findings at this stage of the enforcement process. Generally speaking, at the initial stage in the enforcement process, the Commission will take one of the following actions with respect to a MUR:

(1)Find “reason to believe” a respondent has violated the Act;

(2)dismiss the matter;

(3)dismiss the matter with admonishment; or

(4)find “no reason to believe” a respondent has violated the Act. This policy statement is intended to clarify the circumstances under which the Commission uses each of these dispositions. A. “Reason To Believe” The Act requires that the Commission find “reason to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, a violation” of the Act as a predicate to opening an investigation into the alleged violation. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2). The Commission will find “reason to believe” in cases where the available evidence in the matter is at least sufficient to warrant conducting an investigation, and where the seriousness of the alleged violation warrants either further investigation or immediate conciliation. A “reason to believe” finding will always be followed by either an investigation or pre-probable cause conciliation. For example: • A “reason to believe” finding followed by an investigation would be appropriate when a complaint credibly alleges that a significant violation may have occurred, but further investigation is required to determine whether a violation in fact occurred and, if so, its exact scope. • A “reason to believe” finding followed by conciliation would be appropriate when the Commission is certain that a violation has occurred and the seriousness of the violation warrants conciliation. A “reason to believe” finding by itself does not establish that the law has been violated. When the Commission later accepts a conciliation agreement with a respondent, the conciliation agreement speaks to the Commission's ultimate conclusions. When the Commission does not enter into a conciliation agreement with a respondent, and does not file suit, a Statement of Reasons, a Factual and Legal Analysis, or a General Counsel's Report may provide further explanation of the Commission's conclusions. The Commission has previously used the finding “reason to believe, but take no further action” in cases where the Commission finds that there is a basis for investigating the matter or attempting conciliation, but the Commission declines to proceed for prudential reasons. As discussed below, the Commission believes that resolving these matters through dismissal or dismissal with admonishment more clearly conveys the Commission's intentions and avoids possible confusion about the meaning of a reason to believe finding. B. Dismissal and Dismissal With Admonishment Under *Heckler* v. *Chaney* , 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Commission has broad discretion to determine how to proceed with respect to complaints or referrals. The Commission has exercised its prosecutorial discretion under *Heckler* to dismiss matters that do not merit the additional expenditure of Commission resources. 1 As with other actions taken by the Commission, dismissal of a matter requires the vote of at least four Commissioners. 1 The FECA and Commission regulations also recognize the Commission's authority to dismiss enforcement matters. *See* 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(1); 11 CFR 111.6(b) and 111.7(b). Pursuant to the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the Commission will dismiss a matter when the matter does not merit further use of Commission resources, due to factors such as the small amount or significance of the alleged violation, the vagueness or weakness of the evidence, or likely difficulties with an investigation, or when the Commission lacks majority support for proceeding with a matter for other reasons. For example, a dismissal would be appropriate when: • The seriousness of the alleged conduct is not sufficient to justify the likely cost and difficulty of an investigation to determine whether a violation in fact occurred; or • The evidence is sufficient to support a “reason to believe” finding, but the violation is minor. The Commission may also dismiss when, based on the complaint, response, and publicly available information, the Commission concludes that a violation of the Act did or very probably did occur, but the size or significance of the apparent violation is not sufficient to warrant further pursuit by the Commission. In this latter circumstance, the Commission will send a letter admonishing the respondent. For example, a dismissal with admonishment would be appropriate when: • A respondent admits to a violation, but the amount of the violation is not sufficient to warrant any monetary penalty; or • A complaint convincingly alleges a violation, but the significance of the violation is not sufficient to warrant further pursuit by the Commission. C. “No Reason To Believe” The Commission will make a determination of “no reason to believe” a violation has occurred when the available information does not provide a basis for proceeding with the matter. The Commission finds “no reason to believe” when the complaint, any response filed by the respondent, and any publicly available information, when taken together, fail to give rise to a reasonable inference that a violation has occurred, or even if the allegations were true, would not constitute a violation of the law. For example, a “no reason to believe” finding would be appropriate when: • A violation has been alleged, but the respondent's response or other evidence convincingly demonstrates that no violation has occurred; • A complaint alleges a violation but is either not credible or is so vague that an investigation would be effectively impossible; or • A complaint fails to describe a violation of the Act. If the Commission, with the vote of at least four Commissioners, finds that there is “no reason to believe” a violation has occurred or is about to occur with respect to the allegations in the complaint, the Commission will close the file and respondents and the complainant will be notified. D. Conclusion This policy enunciates and describes the Commission's standards for actions at the point of determining whether or not to open an investigation or to enter into conciliation with respondents prior to a finding of probable cause to believe. The policy does not confer any rights on any person and does not in any way limit the right of the Commission to evaluate every case individually on its own facts and circumstances. This notice represents a general statement of policy announcing the general course of action that the Commission intends to follow. This policy statement does not constitute an agency regulation requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunities for public participation, prior publication, and delay effective under 5 U.S.C. 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). As such, it does not bind the Commission or any member of the general public. The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), which apply when notice and comment are required by the APA or another statute, are not applicable. Dated: March 7, 2007. Robert D. Lenhard, Chairman, Federal Election Commission. [FR Doc. E7-4868 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26166; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-58-AD; Amendment 39-14992; AD 2007-06-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Cracks on a vertical stabilizer attachment fitting due to corrosion, have been found on an aircraft in service. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri, 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4119; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 17, 2006 (71 FR 66889). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that: Cracks on a vertical stabilizer attachment fitting due to corrosion, have been found on an aircraft in service. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. EADS SOCATA gave comments addressing the following: Comment Issue No. 1: Costs of Compliance EADS SOCATA comments that the proposed AD specifies it would take 4 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD, but according to EADS SOCATA, it would take 3.5 work-hours. The FAA agrees and will incorporate that change into the final rule Costs of Compliance section. Comment Issue No. 2: Service Bulletin Compliance Quest Diagnostics comments that as an operator of 4 TBM 700 aircraft with over 25,000 hours time-in-service

(TIS)and more than 35,000 cycles of operating experience they have been performing the requirements of EADS SOCATA Service Bulletin

(SB)70-104 since its publication in 2004. They have found in their experience that step 5 of the SB, which requires an additional step to perform a “penetrante inspection” to the bores of the fitting and attachment on the rear fitting, is impractical if not impossible to complete. They found that because this attachment area comprises a “sandwich” of attachment lugs any penetrant applied to this area in situ is absorbed between the layers and becomes impossible to clean without removing the fin completely. Further, they found, since each assembly is nearly 1 inch thick, there is severely limited visual access to the entire bore, particularly in the middle section. They contracted the services of a Level 3 Nondestructive Testing

(NDT)inspector to perform a Rotary Gun Eddy Current Inspection of the fitting area. They discussed this situation with the EADS SOCATA Service Center in Pembroke Pines, Florida; came to the conclusion this is the only practical approach to completing this inspection without removal of the vertical fin; and feel the published procedure is inadequate for the purposes of detecting cracks in this area. EADS SOCATA has since released SB 70-104 Amendment 2, dated January 2007. The revised service bulletin allows crack detection by penetrant inspection or other equivalent process (eddy current* * *) on the bores of the vertical stabilizer fitting and attachments. The revised service bulletin Amendment 2 will be incorporated into the AD, and the FAA will give 100 percent credit for doing the action with Amendment 1 of the Service Bulletin. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 205 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3.5 work-hours per product to comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $3,000 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $672,400, or $3,280 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-06-11 EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes:** Amendment 39-14992; Docket No. FAA-2006-26166; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-58-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective April 20, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to SOCATA TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 308, plus the serial number 310, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD does not apply to airplanes in which both modifications No. MOD70-127-55 and MOD70-129-53 have been factory installed. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states that: Cracks on a vertical stabilizer attachment fitting due to corrosion have been found on an aircraft in service. Actions and Compliance

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

(1)Within the next 600 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or the next 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, inspect the vertical stabilizer attachment fittings and bolts for cracks or corrosion, and, if necessary, repair or replace the damaged part and then apply a corrosion protection reinforcement, following EADS SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-104, Amendment 1, dated August 2004 or EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-104, Amendment 2, dated January 2007.

(2)Repeat the actions of paragraph (e)(1) every 1,200 hours TIS or every 24 months, whichever occurs first, following EADS SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-104, Amendment 1, dated August 2004 or EADS SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-104, Amendment 2, dated January 2007. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: This AD permits Amendment 2 of the SB to be used. Other FAA AD Provisions

(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4119; fax:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

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

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

(g)Refer to Direction ge ne rale de l'aviation civile

(DGAC)AD No F-2003-366 R1, dated November 24, 2004; EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-104, Amendment 1, dated August 2004; and EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-104, Amendment 2, dated January 2007 for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(h)You must use EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 70-104, Amendment 1, dated August 2004, or EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 70-104, Amendment 2, dated January 2007 to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(3)For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France.

(4)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 7, 2007. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4724 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26180; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-59-AD; Amendment 39-14995; AD 2007-06-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the discovery of propeller control cables with a defective crimping. Two cable ends were found uncrimped at the factory after an engine run-up test, and one cable end was also found uncrimped on the first 100-hour aircraft maintenance check. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4119; fax:

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 28, 2006 (71 FR 68764). That NPRM proposed to require you to check the batch number and/or replace the control cables. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. EADS SOCATA states the costs of the required parts and the necessary work-hours to replace the control cables are under warranty coverage. Therefore, the cost of work-hours to operators/owners is only the one work-hour for inspection. The FAA will revise the cost of compliance to reflect only the above costs of work-hours. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable in a U.S. court of law. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements, if any, take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 20 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $1,600, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-06-14 EADS SOCATA:** Amendment 39-14995; Docket No. FAA-2006-26180; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-59-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective April 20, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 285 through 304 and 307, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states the discovery of propeller control cables with a defective crimping. Two cable ends were found uncrimped at the factory after an engine run-up test, and one cable end was also found uncrimped on the first 100-hour time-in-service aircraft maintenance check. If not corrected, an incorrect crimping of the propeller control lever cable could generate a decrease of the propeller revolutions per minute which could result in loss of power. Actions and Compliance

(e)Unless already done, within the next 50 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after April 20, 2007 (the effective of this AD), inspect for the batch number identification and replace defective control cables as necessary in accordance with the paragraph B. of the “ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS” of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-123, dated October 2004. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI, the French Direction générale de l' aviation civile

(DGAC)AD No. F-2004-175, dated November 10, 2004, as follows:

(1)The requirement of paragraph 3.1 of DGAC AD No. F-2004-175, dated November 10, 2004, was based on the urgency in November 2004. However, in 2007, this action is not necessary.

(2)For the requirement of paragraph 3.2 of DGAC AD No. F-2004-175, dated November 10, 2004, the FAA has determined the seriousness of the condition does not warrant a compliance time of 25 hours TIS; we require instead a compliance time of 50 hours TIS. Other FAA AD Provisions

(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Safety Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4119; fax:

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

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

(g)Refer to Direction Générale de l' Aviation Civile Airworthiness Directive No. F-2004-175, dated November 10, 2004 (the MCAI); and EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-123, dated October 2004, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(h)You must use EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin SB 70-123, dated October 2004, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; telephone: 33 (0)5 62.41.73.00; fax: 33 (0)5 62.41.76.54; or SOCATA AIRCRAFT, INC., North Perry Airport, 7501 Airport Road, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone:

(954)893-1400; fax

(954)964-4141.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 9, 2007. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4736 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-22036; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-009-AD; Amendment 39-14994; AD 2007-06-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes); and Model A310 Airplanes; Equipped With General Electric CF6-80A3 or CF6-80C2 Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Airbus airplane models, as specified above. This AD requires installing electro-pneumatic locking bar devices (TRAS lock systems) in the engine nacelles, installing a dedicated and shielded electrical circuit that is segregated from the existing thrust reverser control system, and performing related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from the manufacturer's reassessment of the thrust reverser systems in the Airbus airplane models specified above, which showed that the thrust reverser could inadvertently deploy in flight under certain conditions. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent deployment of thrust reversers in flight, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2797; fax

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

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

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

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes; equipped with General Electric

(GE)CF6-80A3 or CF6-80C2 engines. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 8, 2005 (70 FR 45595). That NPRM proposed to require installing electro-pneumatic locking bar devices (TRAS lock systems) in the engine nacelles, installing a dedicated and shielded electrical circuit that is segregated from the existing thrust reverser control system, and performing related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. Since the Issuance of the NPRM We have received copies of the following Airbus service bulletins: • Airbus Service Bulletin A300-78-6024, Revision 01, dated April 22, 2005. Revision 01 describes essentially the same procedures specified in the original issue of the service bulletin, dated October 7, 2003 (referenced in the NPRM as one appropriate source of service information). Revision 01 also adds technical notes referring to certain Middle River Aircraft Systems

(MRAS)proprietary data 491B1200200, 491B1200201, 491B1200202, and 491B1200203, Revision B, dated September 9, 2003, which provide instructions to install the electro-pneumatic locking bar devices in the nacelles on GE Model CF6-80C2 engines with a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) thrust reverser system, as additional sources of service information. • Airbus Service Bulletin A300-78-6025, Revision 01, dated April 22, 2005. Revision 01 describes essentially the same procedures specified in the original issue of the service bulletin, dated October 7, 2003 (referenced in the NPRM as one appropriate source of service information). Revision 01 also adds technical notes referring to certain MRAS proprietary data 491B1200202 and 491B1200203, both Revision B, both dated September 9, 2003, as additional sources of service information. The proprietary data provide instructions to install the electro-pneumatic locking bar devices in the nacelles on GE Model CF6-80C2 engines with a power management control

(PMC)thrust reverser system. • Airbus Service Bulletin A310-78-2023, Revision 01; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-78-2025, Revision 01; both dated April 22, 2005. These service bulletins were issued to advise operators of the issuance of technical notes referenced in MRAS proprietary data 603A1000, 603A1001, 603A2000, 603A2001, and 603A2100. The proprietary data provides instructions to install the electro-pneumatic locking bar devices, as additional sources of service information. (Airbus Service Bulletin A310-78-2023, dated October 7, 2003; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-78-2025, dated July 23, 2004; were referenced as appropriate sources of service information in the NPRM.) • Airbus Service Bulletin A310-78-2022, Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated July 18, 2006. (The original version of this service bulletin, dated January 7, 2003, was referenced as an appropriate source of service information in the NPRM.) Revision 02 updates certain figures referenced in the original version of the service bulletin. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Withdraw the NPRM One commenter, American Airlines, states that it appears inconsistent to invest a significant amount of money for additional protection by installing electro-pneumatic locking bar devices (TRAS lock system). The commenter points out that the FAA has previously extended the inspection interval of current mandated inspections in another existing AD that also addresses inadvertent thrust reverser deployment. We infer that American Airlines is questioning the cost benefit of the additional protection that the AD provides, and would like us to withdraw the NPRM. We acknowledge that, although we have extended the inspection intervals due to positive results of past inspections, the possibility still exists that a directional pilot valve

(DPV)leak may occur. This type of leak is a hidden failure that cannot be detected at the system level, and could result in inadvertent thrust reverser deployment. We have determined that installation of electro-pneumatic locking bar devices will ensure an adequate measure of protection for the system. No change is necessary to the AD in this regard. Requests To Revise the Applicability Two commenters, Tradewinds Airlines and GE Transportation, request that the applicability stated in the NPRM be revised by removing Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes. One commenter points out that those models are not specified in the French airworthiness directive, and that there are no service bulletins specified in the NPRM that are applicable to those models. We agree with the commenters. We acknowledge that the Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes are not equipped with the affected engines and were inadvertently included in the NPRM. The applicability of this AD is revised to remove those airplane models. Another commenter, Airbus, requests that the associated modification numbers for the corresponding service bulletins be added to the applicability of the NPRM. Airbus suggests that adding the associated modification numbers will make it easier for operators to comply with the AD and will help operators to avoid having to request alternative methods of compliance. We partially agree with the commenter's request in this case. The applicability of French airworthiness directive F-2004-165 excludes airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletins A310-78-2024; A310-78-2025; A310-78-2022; A310-78-2023, A300-78-6022, Revision 1; A300-78-6025; A300-78-6021 original issue or Revision 01; and A300-78-6024; have been accomplished in-service, as well as certain modifications accomplished during production. We agree that revising the applicability of the final rule is necessary to exclude airplanes on which certain modifications have been accomplished during production. However, as is our standard practice, we have not excluded those airplanes that have accomplished certain modifications in service in the applicability of this final rule. Rather, this final rule includes requirements to accomplish the actions specified in the service bulletins that clearly identify the airplanes that the service bulletins affect. The requirements of the specified service bulletins will ensure that the actions required by this final rule are accomplished on all affected airplanes. Operators must continue to operate the airplane in the configuration required by this final rule unless an alternative method of compliance is approved. We have, however, added a new Note 1 and Table 2 to this final rule that provide a list of corresponding modifications with the applicable service bulletins for ease of reference for the operators. We have re-identified subsequent notes and tables accordingly. Requests To Revise the “Costs of Compliance” Section Several commenters, including theAir Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, American Airlines, and FedEx and GE Transportation, request that the estimated costs of complying with the NPRM be revised to add additional work hours. American Airlines states that the NPRM would require concurrent accomplishment of four service bulletins that are not specified in the NPRM. American Airlines estimates it will take 600 work hours and $283,042 for parts per each of its airplanes, rather than the costs estimated in the applicable service bulletins in the NPRM for various airplane models. FedEx explains that the cost estimates in the NPRM are not realistic because additional modification requirements are necessary that are described in MRAS and Goodrich/Rohr technical documents. One commenter, GE Transportation, also points out that certain cost information is available in certain service information that is not referred to in the NPRM. We acknowledge that certain estimated costs were not included in the NPRM. We have obtained the additional service information from MRAS, but it does not contain estimated cost information. We also have requested further information from one of the commenters, GE Transportation, which has provided some new cost information figures to us. We have revised the estimated costs of the AD by including the estimated costs of accomplishing the MRAS service bulletins. We have coordinated those estimated costs with Airbus. Request To Clarify “Relevant Service Information” Section GE Transportation suggests certain revised wording regarding the work tasks described in the service bulletins specified in the “Relevant Service Information” section of the NPRM. We consider that the descriptions of the work tasks in the NPRM adequately describe those tasks. Since that section of the preamble in the NPRM does not reappear in the final rule, no change to the AD is necessary. Request To Consider the Possibility of No Deployment American Airlines requests that we consider the possibility that an increase in risk of no deployment on landing may occur with the modification installed. American Airlines states that the modification could affect reliable operations in those airports restricted by short runway lengths when employing the Minimum Equipment List provisions. We acknowledge the commenter's concern. In its reassessment of thrust reverser reliability, the manufacturer considered the possibility of thrust reverser non-deployment on landing with the third line of defense

(TLOD)system installed. The reassessment showed that the thrust reverser without the TLOD could inadvertently deploy in flight under certain conditions, which could lead to decreased aircraft controllability. We have determined that the basic two-line-of-defense architecture does not adequately address the system's vulnerability to damage and long-term maintainability. Therefore, the modification is necessary to prevent the identified unsafe condition. In addition, we have not seen an increase in occurrences of thrust reverser nondeployments on landing for aircraft that have a TLOD or other thrust reverser third lock-type system installed. No change to the AD is necessary regarding this issue. Request To Use Latest Service Bulletin Revisions Several commenters, including the ATA, on behalf of one of its members, American Airlines, and FedEx, note that new revisions of certain service bulletins have been issued since the issuance of the NPRM. The commenters are requesting that we mandate the new revisions, which contain test procedures that will take less time for the operators to accomplish. We agree with the commenters. We have received certain newer revisions of the service bulletins (described previously) from the manufacturer and have specified those revisions in Table 3 of the AD. Additionally, we received new revisions of the service bulletins specified in Table 2 of the AD from the manufacturer. We have revised Table 2 of the AD accordingly. Explanation of Change to Applicability We have revised the applicability of the AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance

(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither significantly increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 101 airplanes of U.S. registry. (The total number of airplanes in the following table totals more than 101 airplanes because most of the airplanes are required to accomplish two of the specified service bulletins.) The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD at an average labor rate per hour of $80. Estimated Costs for Modifications (Listed by Applicable Service Bulletin) Airbus service bulletins

(SB)Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of airplanes Cost per SB A300-78-6021, Revision 02 257 $19,652 $40,212 36 $1,447,632 A300-78-6024, Revision 01 206 223,649 240,129 36 8,644,644 A300-78-6022, Revision 02 289 19,220 42,340 34 1,439,560 A300-78-6025, Revision 01 206 223,649 240,129 34 8,164,386 A310-78-2024, Revision 01 262 19,119 40,079 31 1,242,449 A310-78-2025, Revision 01 206 194,487 210,967 31 6,539,977 None of the airplanes required to accomplish the following service bulletins are currently on the U.S. Register. The airplanes affected by the following service bulletins are currently operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, we consider it necessary to include these airplanes to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed if any affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. The estimated costs apply to any affected airplane should it be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. Estimated Costs for Modifications for Certain Other Airplanes Airbus service bulletin

(SB)Work hours Parts Cost per airplane A310-78-2022 275 19,652 41,652 A310-78-2023 206 $223,649 $240,129 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. *For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:*

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

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

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

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-06-13 Airbus:** Amendment 39-14994. Docket No. FAA-2005-22036; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-009-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective April 20, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD; except for those airplanes on which the following applicable modifications have been incorporated in production: Airbus Modification 12348, 12349, 12350, 12514, and 12511. Table 1.—Applicability Airplane models General Electric engine model Airbus service bulletin and revision Date A300 B4-605R and F4-605R airplanes CF6-80C2 A300-78-6024, Revision 01 April 22, 2005. A300 B4-605R and F4-605R airplanes CF6-80C2 A300-78-6021, Revision 02 June 8, 2005. A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes CF6-80C2 A300-78-6025, Revision 01 April 22, 2005. A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes CF6-80C2 A300-78-6022, Revision 02 June 8, 2005. A310 airplanes CF6-80C2 A310-78-2023, Revision 01 April 22, 2005. A310 airplanes CF6-80C2 A310-78-2022, Revision 02 July 18, 2006. A310 airplanes CF6-80A3 A310-78-2024, Revision 01 June 13, 2005. A310 airplanes CF6-80A3 A310-78-2025, Revision 01 April 22, 2005. Note 1: We have provided a list of corresponding modifications with the applicable Airbus service bulletins in Table 2 of this AD for ease of reference for the operators. Table 2.—Corresponding Modifications Airbus service bulletin Modifications A310-78-2022 and A300-78-6022 12348, 12350, 12351, and 12514. A310-78-2023 and A300-78-6025 12512. A310-78-2024 12552 and 12553. A310-78-2025 12564. A300-78-6021 12348, 12349, 12350, and 12514. A300-78-6024 12511. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from the manufacturer's reassessment of the thrust reverser systems in the Airbus airplane models specified in Table 1 of this AD, which showed that the thrust reverser could deploy in flight under certain conditions. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent deployment of thrust reversers in flight, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Installing TRAS Lock Systems and Accomplishing Modifications

(f)For airplanes identified in the service bulletins specified in Table 3 of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, install the electro-pneumatic locking bar devices (TRAS Lock Systems) in the thrust reverser system of the nacelles, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. Table 3.—Installing TRAS Lock Systems Airplane models General electric engine model Airbus service bulletin and revision Date A300 B4-605R and F4-605R airplanes CF6-80C2 A300-78-6024, Revision 01 April 22, 2005. A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes CF6-80C2 A300-78-6025, Revision 01 April 22, 2005. A310 airplanes CF6-80C2 A310-78-2023, Revision 01 April 22, 2005. A310 airplanes CF6-80A3 A310-78-2025, Revision 01 April 22, 2005. Note 2: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-78-2025, Revision 01, dated April 22, 2005, references draft Goodrich Service Bulletin 71-065 as an additional source of service information. After the issuance of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-78-2025, the Goodrich service bulletin was reissued as Rohr Service Bulletin CF6-80A3-NAC-71-065, dated April 28, 2005.

(g)For airplanes identified in the service bulletins specified in Table 4 of this AD: Prior to or concurrent with the accomplishment of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD, accomplish all the modifications and actions related to an independent third line of defense on the thrust reversers, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 4 of this AD. Table 4.—Prior or Concurrent Accomplishment Airplane models Airplanes equipped with General Electric engine model Airbus service bulletin and revision Date A300 B4-605R and F4-605R airplanes CF6-80C2 (with full authority digital engine control (FADEC)) A300-78-6021, Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and 02 June 8, 2005. A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes CF6-80C2 (without FADEC) A300-78-6022, Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and 02 June 8, 2005. A310 airplanes CF6-80C2 (without FADEC) A310-78-2022 Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and 02 June 18, 2006. A310 airplanes CF6-80A3 A310-78-2024 Revision 01, including Appendices 01 and 02 June 13, 2005. Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issues of Service Bulletins

(h)Actions accomplished in accordance with the following service bulletins are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD, as applicable, if done before the effective date of this AD: Table 5.—Service Bulletins Accomplished Previously Airbus service bulletin Revision level Date A300-78-6021 Original April 8, 2003. A300-78-6021 01 October 7, 2003. A300-78-6022 01 January 7, 2003. A300-78-6024 Original October 7, 2003. A300-78-6025 Original October 7, 2003. A310-78-2022 Original January 7, 2003. A310-78-2022 01 June 8, 2005. A310-78-2023 Original October 7, 2003. A310-78-2024 Original October 15, 2003. A310-78-2025 Original July 23, 2004. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information

(j)French airworthiness directive F-2004-165, dated October 13, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(k)You must use the applicable Airbus service bulletins specified in Table 6 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Table 6.—Material Incorporated by Reference Airbus service bulletin Revision level Date A300-78-6021, including Appendices 01 and 02 02 June 8, 2005. A300-78-6022, including Appendices 01 and 02 02 June 8, 2005. A300-78-6024 01 April 22, 2005. A300-78-6025 01 April 22, 2005. A310-78-2022, including Appendices 01 and 02 02 July 18, 2006. A310-78-2023 01 April 22, 2005. A310-78-2024, including Appendices 01 and 02 01 June 13, 2005. A310-78-2025 01 April 22, 2005. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4734 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26324; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-214-AD; Amendment 39-14993; AD 2007-06-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Airbus Model A330-300 airplanes. That AD currently requires reinforcement of the structure of the center fuselage by installing external stiffeners (butt straps) at frame

(FR)53.3 on the fuselage skin between left-hand

(LH)and right-hand

(RH)stringer

(STR)13, and related investigative and corrective actions. This new AD requires additional reinforcement of the structure of the center fuselage by installing external stiffeners (butt straps) at frame FR53.3 on the fuselage skin between LH and RH STR13, and related investigative and other specified actions. This AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. This AD results from cracking found at the circumferential joint of FR53.3. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 20, 2007. On October 19, 2005 (70 FR 57732, October 4, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3127, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2003. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2797; fax

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

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

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2005-20-07, amendment 39-14300 (70 FR 57732, October 4, 2005). The existing AD applies to certain Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 15, 2006 (71 FR 66472). That NPRM proposed to continue to require reinforcement of the structure of the center fuselage by installing external stiffeners (butt straps) at frame

(FR)53.3 on the fuselage skin between left-hand

(LH)and right-hand

(RH)stringer

(STR)13, and related investigative and corrective actions. That NPRM also proposed to require additional reinforcement of the structure of the center fuselage by installing external stiffeners (butt straps) at frame FR53.3 on the fuselage skin between LH and RH STR13, and related investigative and other specified actions. That NPRM also proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. Request To Revise Paragraph

(h)Airbus requests that we revise the phrase “For all airplanes * * *” in paragraph

(h)of the NPRM to duplicate paragraph 2 of European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)airworthiness directive 2006-0266, dated August 30, 2006, as follows: “For all A330-200 and -300 series aircraft [as listed in the applicability of this directive] which have received embodiment of AIRBUS modification 41652S11819.” We agree to clarify paragraph

(h)of this AD. The term “for all airplanes” in paragraph

(h)of the NPRM applies to the airplanes identified in paragraph

(c)of the NPRM (the applicability of the NPRM). Even though paragraph

(h)of the NPRM is essentially the same as paragraph 2 of EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0266, we have revised paragraph

(h)of this AD as follows: “For Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, on which Airbus Modification 41652S11819 has been incorporated in production or in accordance with paragraph

(f)of this AD, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 49202 has been incorporated in production * * *.” This change has not expanded the scope of this AD. Request To Include Note Airbus requests that we revise the NPRM to include Note 2 of EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0266: “Notwithstanding the compliance times referenced above, EASA supports the Airbus recommendation to embody SB A330-53-3143 at latest within 8,300 FC or 29,200 FH, whichever occurs first, in order to reduce the extent of any required repairs.” We disagree with including the note. We acknowledge that accomplishing the required actions sooner could reduce the extent of repairs needed in the future. However, it is not appropriate and, therefore, not the FAA's practice to state recommendations in an AD. We have not revised this AD in this regard. Request To Revise Discussion Section Airbus requests that we revise the Discussion section of the NPRM to state the unsafe condition was found during fatigue tests

(EF2)of the fuselage. We agree with Airbus's statement. However, that portion of the Discussion section is not retained in this final rule. We have not revised this AD in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance Currently, the action required by AD 2005-20-07 and retained in this AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry. However, we have been advised that all affected U.S. operators have already accomplished that action. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the action required by AD 2005-20-07 takes about 315 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $8,920 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required action is $34,120 per airplane. The new action affects about 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The new action takes about 316 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $9,160 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new action specified in this AD for U.S. operators is $929,880, or $34,440 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. *For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:*

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

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

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

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14300 (70 FR 57732, October 4, 2005) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-06-12 Airbus:** Amendment 39-14993. Docket No. FAA-2006-26324; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-214-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective April 20, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-20-07. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, certificated in any category; except those on which Airbus Modification 49202 has been incorporated in production. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from cracking found at the circumferential joint of frame

(FR)53.3. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Requirements of AD 2005-20-07 Installation for Model A330-300 Series Airplanes

(f)For Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, except those on which Airbus Modification 41652S11819 has been incorporated in production: At the later of the times in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, install the butt straps at FR53.3 on the fuselage skin between left-hand

(LH)and right-hand

(RH)stringer

(STR)13, and do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Except as provided by paragraph

(g)of this AD, do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3127, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2003.

(1)Before the accumulation of 14,700 total flight cycles or 51,400 total flight hours, whichever occurs earlier.

(2)Within 6 months after October 19, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-20-07). Contact the FAA/Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC)/European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)for Certain Repair Instructions

(g)For Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, except those on which Airbus Modification 41652S11819 has been incorporated in production: If any crack is detected during the related investigative actions (rototest) required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, before further flight, repair the crack according to a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the DGAC (or its delegated agent); or the EASA (or its delegated agent). New Requirements of This AD Installation for Model A330-200 and -300 Series Airplanes

(h)For Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, on which Airbus Modification 41652S11819 has been incorporated in production or in accordance with paragraph

(f)of this AD, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 49202 has been incorporated in production: At the later of the times in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, install the butt straps at FR53.3 on the fuselage skin between LH and RH STR13; and do all related investigative and other specified actions before further flight, as applicable. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 29, 2006; except if any crack is detected during a related investigative action (rototest), before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent).

(1)Before the accumulation of 17,600 total flight cycles or 61,600 total flight hours, whichever occurs earlier.

(2)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD. Credit for Actions Done in Accordance With Previous Service Bulletin

(i)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, including Appendix 01, dated December 24, 2004, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph

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

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

(k)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0266, dated August 30, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(l)You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3127, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2003; and Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 29, 2006; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated June 29, 2006, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)On October 19, 2005 (70 FR 57732, October 4, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3127, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2003.

(3)Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 7, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4740 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26401; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-72-AD; Amendment 39-14987; AD 2007-06-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; B-N Group Ltd. BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN-2T-4R Series (All Individual Models Included in Type Certificate Data Sheet

(TCDS)A17EU, Revision 16, Dated December 9, 2002), and BN-2A-Mklll Trislander Series (All Individual Models Included in Type Certificate Data Sheet

(TCDS)A29EU, Revision 4, Dated December 9, 2002) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: * * * incidences have been reported to Britten-Norman Aircraft Ltd where cracks have been found in the inner shell of the pitot/static pressure heads. This could result in incorrect readings on the pressure instrumentation, e.g. altimeters, vertical speed indicators (rate-of-climb) and airspeed indicators. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor B. Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri, 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4138; facsimile:

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76952). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that: * * * incidences have been reported to Britten-Norman Aircraft Ltd. where cracks have been found in the inner shell of the pitot/static pressure heads. If not corrected this could result in incorrect readings on the pressure instrumentation, e.g. altimeters, vertical speed indicators (rate-of-climb) and airspeed indicators. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Comment Issue No. 1: Reference to Service Bulletin Jack Buster of the Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) comments that the correct reference to the service bulletin is Britten-Norman Service Bulletin Number SB 310, Issue 2, dated March 1, 2006. When referencing what is in the MCAI, we reference it as “B-N Service Bulletin 310 Issue 2” because we try to use terminology straight from the MCAI when we can. We are not able to use this reference in the actual AD portion because to incorporate by reference

(IBR)this service bulletin, we must reference it exactly how it appears in the reference document. Therefore, we will reference it in the AD as follows: • When referencing the MCAI: We will reference it as B-N Service Bulletin 310 Issue 2. • All other references: We will reference it as Britten-Norman Service Bulletin Number SB 310, Issue 2, dated March 1, 2006. Comment Issue No. 2: Incorporation of Service Documents MARPA comments that it was informed service documents are usually not incorporated into proposed actions (NPRMs), but only into final actions. MARPA notes there is no indication in the NPRM the FAA intends to incorporate by reference the necessary service information. In addition, there is no indication of which service documents are mandatory and which are merely sources of additional service information. Therefore, the reader is unsure of the FAA's intent. MARPA asks that future proposed actions indicate the FAA's intent by including the following, or a similar statement: “We intend to incorporate by reference the following publications.” We do not concur with the commenter's request to indicate in an NPRM our intent to incorporate service information by reference. When we propose that actions be accomplished in accordance with certain service information in an NPRM, the public may assume we intend to Incorporate by Reference

(IBR)that service information, as requested by the Office of the Federal Register. Service information that is cited in the proposed AD as a source of additional information is not presented as a requirement, and the public may assume we do not intend to IBR that service information. No change to this final rule is necessary in regard to the commenter's request. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 135 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $10,000 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $1,371,600, or $10,160 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-06-06 B-N Group Ltd:** Amendment 39-14987; Docket No. FAA-2006-26401; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-72-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective April 20, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to B-N Group Ltd BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN-2T-4R Series (all individual models included in Type Certificate Data Sheet

(TCDS)A17EU, Revision 16, dated December 9, 2002), and BN-2A-Mklll Trislander Series (all individual models included in TCDS A29EU, Revision 4, dated December 9, 2002) airplanes, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: * * * incidences have been reported to Britten-Norman Aircraft Ltd. where cracks have been found in the inner shell of the pitot/static pressure heads. If not corrected this could result in incorrect readings on the pressure instrumentation, e.g. altimeters, vertical speed indicators (rate-of-climb) and airspeed indicators. Actions and Compliance

(e)Unless already done, do the following actions in accordance with Britten-Norman Service Bulletin Number SB 310, Issue 2, dated March 1, 2006:

(1)Within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform the inspection procedure and the leak test procedure as detailed in Section 6 Action, of Britten-Norman Service Bulletin Number SB 310, Issue 2, dated March 1, 2006. Repeat this inspection procedure and the leak test procedure at intervals not to exceed 500 hours time-in-service (TIS).

(2)In addition, within 500 hours after the initial inspection, perform an initial inspection of the drain traps for moisture. Repeat this inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS.

(3)Before further flight, after any inspection or procedure required by this AD, correct, modify, or replace, as specified in the service information. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: This AD references the service bulletin as Britten-Norman Service Bulletin Number SB 310, Issue 2, dated March 1, 2006; and the MCAI references the service bulletin as B-N Service Bulletin 310 Issue 2. Other FAA AD Provisions

(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Taylor B. Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4138; facsimile:

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

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

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

(g)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), AD No.: 2006-0143, dated May 30, 2006; and Britten-Norman Service Bulletin SB 310, Issue 2, dated March 1, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference You must use Britten-Norman Service Bulletin Number SB 310, Issue 2, dated March 1, 2006 to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Bembridge Airport, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom, PO35 5PR.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 6, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4729 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 584 [Docket No. 1995G-0321] (formerly 95G-0321) Food Substances Affirmed as Generally Recognized as Safe in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals: 25-Hydroxyvitamin D 3 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is amending its regulations to affirm that the use of 25-hydroxyvitamin D 3 is generally recognized as safe

(GRAS)as a source of vitamin D 3 activity in broiler chicken feeds and drinking water when used in accordance with certain limitations. This action is in response to a petition filed by Amoco BioProducts Corp. Subsequently, the sponsorship for this petition was changed to IsoGen L.L.C., Monsanto Co., Roche Vitamins, Inc., and lastly, to DSM Nutritional Products, Inc. DATES: This rule is effective March 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michaela Alewynse, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-228), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-453-6866, e-mail: *mika.alewynse@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In accordance with the procedures described in 21 CFR 570.35, Amoco BioProducts Corp., P.O. Box 3011, Naperville, IL, 60566, submitted a petition (GRASP 2449) requesting that 25-hydroxyvitamin D 3 (25-OH D 3 ) be affirmed as GRAS for use as a source of vitamin D 3 activity in broiler chicken feeds. In the original petition, 25-OH D 3 was proposed for use in feed only. The proposed use was amended in a submission dated January 7, 1998, to include administration through drinking water. Furthermore, all data for feed are applicable to water. FDA published a notice of filing of this petition in the **Federal Register** of October 24, 1995 (60 FR 54505), and gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments to the agency. FDA did not receive any comments in response to that notice. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, sponsorship was changed to IsoGen L.L.C., Monsanto Co., Roche Vitamins, Inc., and lastly, to DSM Nutritional Products, Inc., 45 Waterview Blvd., Parsippany, NJ, 07054-1298. II. Standards for GRAS Affirmation Under § 570.30 (21 CFR 570.30), general recognition of safety of food ingredients may be based only on the views of experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety of food substances directly or indirectly added to food. The basis of such views may be either of the following:

(1)Scientific procedures, or

(2)in the case of a substance used in food prior to January 1, 1958, through experience based on common use in food. General recognition of safety based upon scientific procedures requires the same quantity and quality of scientific evidence as is required to obtain approval of a food additive regulation for the ingredient and ordinarily is to be based upon published studies, which may be corroborated by unpublished studies and other data and information (§ 570.30(b)). General recognition of safety through experience based on common use of a substance in food prior to January 1, 1958, may be determined without the quantity or quality of scientific evidence required for approval of a food additive regulation. Ordinarily it is to be based upon generally available data and information (§ 570.30(c)). The subject petition relies on scientific procedures evidence to support the GRAS affirmation of 25-OH D 3 as a source of vitamin D 3 activity in broiler chicken feeds and drinking water. III. Safety Evaluation A. Introduction 25-OH D 3 , also called 25-hydroxycholecalciferol, is a normal metabolite of vitamin D 3 in mammals and birds. Chemically, the substance is 9,10-secocholesta-5,7,10(19)-triene-3β, 25-diol. 25-OH D 3 is the principal circulating form of vitamin D 3 , which is the primary source of vitamin D activity for livestock animals. The metabolism of vitamin D in animals is well understood and is documented in biochemistry textbooks (for example, Ref. 1). In poultry, vitamin D regulates calcium and phosphorus homeostasis, bone growth, eggshell formation, as well as other endocrine system functions (Ref. 2). Animals, including poultry, do not have a dietary requirement for vitamin D when sufficient ultraviolet

(UV)light is available, because vitamin D is produced through action of UV light on a provitamin present in the skin. This provitamin is synthesized in the body and present in large amounts in skin, intestinal wall, and other tissues (Ref. 2). Vitamin D becomes a nutritionally important factor in the absence of sufficient UV light either from the sun or from an artificial source. Under modern farming conditions, many animals are raised in total confinement with limited exposure to UV light thus creating the need for a dietary supply of vitamin D. There are two predominant forms of vitamin D for poultry. Vitamin D 2 comes mainly from plants. Vitamin D 3 is produced in a bird's body when sunlight reacts with vitamin D precursors obtained from the bird's diet. Since vitamin D 3 is 30 to 40 times more potent than D 2 , plants are considered insignificant sources of vitamin D for birds. Commonly, broiler chickens are grown within the confines of buildings with large numbers of birds per building and are supplied with bulk feed and water for *ad libitum* consumption. Various strains of chicken have been developed for broiler production. They have been bred primarily for rapid weight gain and efficient feed utilization. Typically, broilers are slaughtered at 6 to 7 weeks of age if size and weight requirements are attained. Crumbled starter feed is supplied during weeks 1 to 3, pelletized grower feed during weeks 4 to 6, and finisher feed until slaughter. The major differences among these types of feed are the levels and sources of nutrients provided in the feed, such as amino acids, minerals, and vitamins. The level of vitamin supplementation provided in the broiler industry is based on type of diets fed, species, age of the bird, dietary antagonists, form of vitamin product, requirement status (optimum or minimum requirements), disease status, complexity of the ration, and environmental factors, primarily ambient temperature. Only after all these factors are considered can the optimal vitamin requirements for poultry be estimated (Ref. 2). The National Research Council's

(NRC)recommendation for dietary vitamin D 3 requirement of broiler chickens is 200 International Units

(IU)of vitamin D 3 per kilogram (/kg) of feed (Ref. 3). One unit of vitamin D 3 is defined as the activity of 0.025 microgram (µg) of vitamin D 3 . Thus, a supplement of 200 IU/kg of feed is equivalent to 5 µg of vitamin D 3 /kg of feed. This requirement is based on diets containing the required amounts of calcium and available phosphorus and is considered by NRC to be the minimum amount required to prevent deficiency signs. B. Manufacturing and Specifications According to the petition, the production of 25-OH D 3 uses a bioengineered strain of the yeast *Saccharomyces cerevisiae* . The 25-OH D 3 final product is a white to slightly pink, odorless, crystalline substance. The petition lists the specifications for 25-OH D 3 as: not less than 94.0 percent 25-OH D 3 ; not more than 1 percent of any individual sterol; not more than 5 percent water; not more than 20 parts per million

(ppm)lead; not more than 20 ppm aluminum; not more than 1.0 percent solvents; and non-detectable levels of 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin. In order to ensure vitamin potency so that the 25-OH D 3 “performs an appropriate function in the food,” an expiration date should be included on feed and water premixes (§ 570.30(f)(2)). C. Use in Feed and Drinking Water The petitioner claims that the NRC recommendation of 5 µg of vitamin D 3 /kg of feed is virtually never used in the broiler industry because commercial broiler strains currently grow much faster, utilize feed more efficiently, and are reared in confinement with less exposure to UV light than when the NRC made its recommendation. As a result, petitioner claims supplementation of broiler feed with vitamin D 3 is typically at a considerably higher level. A survey of commercial practices in regard to vitamin supplementation of poultry feed supported this argument, i.e., it revealed that the amounts of vitamin D 3 commonly added by the broiler chicken feed companies range from 50.0 to 62.5 parts per billion

(ppb)(µg/kg) of finished feed (Ref. 4). The petitioner proposes that 25-OH D 3 is GRAS when added to broiler chicken feed at levels not to exceed 69 ppb (µg/kg) of finished feed. Based on the manufacturing and composition of a liquid product and its liquid release and stability data, the petitioner also proposes that 25-OH D 3 is GRAS when added to broiler chickens' drinking water at levels not to exceed 34.5 ppb. This is because it is generally assumed that birds drink approximately twice as much water as the amount of feed consumed on a weight basis. To assure safe use of 25-OH D 3 , the label and labeling shall bear adequate mixing directions to ensure that the product (and its premixes) is uniformly blended throughout the feed or drinking water. In addition, since there are no animal consumption data to support the concurrent use of 25-OH D 3 in feed and water, there must be a statement on all premix labeling (feed and drinking water forms) that 25-OH D 3 should not be used concurrently in both feed and water. D. General Recognition of Safety The petition provides information to support a determination that the use of 25-OH D 3 in broiler chicken diets or drinking water is GRAS based upon the existence of an expert consensus, based on scientific procedures, that 25-OH D 3 has been shown to be safe. Foremost in the support of the determination is the same kind and quality of safety data as would be required to obtain FDA approval of 25-OH D 3 for use as a food additive. In particular, the majority of the data is published, and there is a consensus among qualified experts, based on the data, that this use of the substance is safe. Information in the petition shows that the safety of 25-OH D 3 has been evaluated by an expert panel. The expert panel was convened by the Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. The expert panel obtained background information, identified and analyzed pertinent literature and experimental studies, and reached an opinion as to whether the available information and data on the health effects of 25-OH D 3 were sufficient to meet the regulatory requirements of safety as a GRAS substance for the intended use. The expert panel concluded that the available information supports a GRAS classification of 25-OH D 3 when supplied as a source of vitamin D activity in broiler feed at the intended level of use of about 69 µg/kg of feed. Corroborating evidence has shown that 25-OH D 3 is a normal metabolite of vitamin D 3 and the principal circulating form of vitamin D 3 in mammals and birds (Ref. 2). In addition, the petitioner provided testimony of a world-renowned expert on vitamin D who concluded that 25-OH D 3 would be a safer dietary ingredient than vitamin D, since it does not accumulate in the body and thus, would not cause toxicity because of accumulation to toxic levels (Ref. 5). 1. Target Animal Safety The NRC reported that the existing data for broiler chickens do not allow precise estimates to be made for maximum vitamin D (and vitamin D metabolites such as 25-OH D 3 ) tolerance levels; however, it indicated that under short-term feeding conditions (less than 60 days), most species including chickens, can tolerate as much as 100 times (100 X) their apparent vitamin D dietary requirements, i.e., 500 µg/kg of feed (Ref. 6). Estimates of the tolerance of 25-OH D 3 by broiler chickens were assessed by the expert panel (Ref. 7) primarily from two field trials conducted for Amoco BioProducts Corp. The aim of these studies was to determine the utility of 25-OH D 3 as a source of vitamin D 3 activity and/or to evaluate whether 25-OH D 3 exhibited toxic effects when added to broiler diets. One of the studies (Ref. 8) was compromised due to the high mortality rate (up to 16 percent) that occurred in all groups including controls. The other study (Ref. 9) was requested by the expert panel and is discussed below. In addition to the field trials conducted for Amoco BioProducts Corp., the expert panel evaluated information from separate published sources, including the results of several animal feeding studies. Based on its comprehensive review of the literature, the expert panel concluded that dietary levels up to 10 µg of 25-OH D 3 /kg of feed are safe for broiler chickens for prolonged feeding. It was noted that broiler chickens fed 100 µg of 25-OH D 3 /kg of feed exhibited toxicity signs characterized by epithelial necrosis and mineralization in the distal convoluted tubules of the kidney (Ref. 10). However, a detailed evaluation of the study revealed significant inadequacies in its design and experimental procedures. Thus, the expert panel did not place great weight on this study in its evaluation of safety. Additionally, a number of studies were performed in other poultry species. No signs of toxicity were reported in laying hens when 25-OH D 3 was fed at levels up to 50 µg/kg of feed for periods up to 448 days (Ref. 11). Laying Japanese quail and growing turkeys were fed diets containing up to 16.6 µg of 25-OH D 3 /kg of feed for periods up to 42 days with no adverse effects recorded (Refs. 12 and 13). Because the concentration of 25-OH D 3 in broiler feed that may elicit toxic effects was not known, the expert panel requested that Amoco BioProducts Corp. conduct an additional target animal safety study (Ref. 9). 25-OH D 3 was tested at multiple levels at and above (0, 1, 10, 50, 100, and 200X) the maximum proposed use level. No significant differences in body weight, mortality rate, or treatment-related lesions were observed in the 25-OH D 3 group at the maximum proposed level of 69 µg/kg of feed. However, 35 percent of the birds in the 690 µg 25-OH D 3 /kg group

(10X)developed renal calcification. In addition, by the end of the study, the body weights of the birds from the 690 µg/kg group fell 12 percent when compared with the birds from the 69 µg/kg group. Data were not collected to determine the level between 69 and 690 µg 25-OH D 3 /kg of feed at which toxic effects were seen. High mortality was observed in birds exposed to high levels of 25-OH D 3 (50, 100, and 200X) thus, these treatments were terminated before the end of the study. Based on its review of the available information, including the results of this additional study, the expert panel concluded that the proposed maximum level (69 µg 25-OH D 3 /kg of feed) is within the range that growing broilers can tolerate. After evaluating the results of the latter study (Ref. 9), FDA found that, although no toxic effects were observed at the maximum proposed use level (69 µg/kg of feed), significant treatment-related lesions occurred when birds were exposed to 10 times (690 µg/kg of feed) that level. In the absence of key data to determine the level between 69 and 690 µg/kg at which toxicity effects were seen, there was no assurance that toxicity would not occur at levels just above 69 µg/kg. Thus, to identify the margin of safety for the intended use, FDA requested another target animal safety study. The study (Ref. 14) was designed to show safety to broiler chickens by testing 25-OH D 3 at varying levels between 69 and 690 µg/kg of feed which represented 0 (control), 1, 3, 5, and 10 times the maximum proposed use level. The results of the study corroborated previous findings that 25-OH D 3 supplementation at levels up to the maximum proposed use rate resulted in no toxic effect, and at levels 10 times the proposed use level resulted in renal calcification. The study also found that no treatment-related lesions occurred when broilers were fed at levels up to five times the highest proposed use level. FDA has determined that the published studies, as corroborated by this unpublished study, provide an adequate basis upon which to conclude that 25-OH D 3 is a safe source of vitamin D 3 activity for broiler chickens when fed at nutritional levels not to exceed 69 µg/kg of finished feed. 2. Consumer Exposure The safety of 25-OH D 3 has been evaluated to assess its potential toxicity in humans who consume edible tissues derived from broiler chickens fed 25-OH D 3 —supplemented feed. The evaluation was based on FDA's review of published and unpublished information provided in the petition, including the safety evaluation performed by the expert panel (Ref. 7). Based on the available information and evaluation of the biological effects of 25-OH D 3 , the expert panel concluded that “The available information supports a Generally Recognized as Safe

(GRAS)classification of 25-hydroxyvitamin D 3 when supplied as a source of vitamin D activity in broiler feed at the intended level of use of about 68.8 µg (63.8 to 73.7 µg) per kilogram of feed.” Having evaluated the data and information contained in the petition, FDA preliminarily found that this use of 25-OH D 3 in broiler feed was safe; however, some concerns regarding the teratogenicity of 25-OH D 3 in the rabbit (the most sensitive species) remained. Specifically, Dutch Belted rabbits dosed at 25 and 50 µg/kg bodyweight (BW)/day by oral intubation from gestation day 6 to day 18 produced pups with skeletal and vascular anomalies. These dose-related effects included domed skulls, enlarged cardiac atria, and dilated pulmonary arteries. None of these abnormalities were noted in the negative controls or the 5 µg/kg BW/day group. This and other toxicity studies were previously reviewed by FDA in support of the use of 25-OH D 3 as the therapeutic drug for humans, calcifediol (Ref. 15). The petitioner argued that the rabbit's unique calcium metabolism and unusual sensitivity to the effects of vitamin D compounds rendered it too sensitive a model for assessing the teratogenic potential of vitamin D in humans (Ref. 16). In addition, the petitioner provided the testimony of Dr. Hector De Luca, a world-renowned expert (Ref. 5) on vitamin D, who noted that rabbits are extraordinarily sensitive to vitamin D and that they rapidly go into hyperglycemia at low doses of any form of vitamin D. Dr. De Luca stated that in the rabbit, hyperglycemia likely causes the observed teratogenic effects. In the expert's view, the rabbit should not be used as a toxicology model for man for studies of vitamin D compounds, because they almost stand alone in their sensitivity among species used for the safety studies. Based on information provided in the petition, FDA concurs that the rabbit is unusually sensitive to the effects of vitamin D compounds. However, the agency does not have sufficient information to disqualify the rabbit model in toxicity testing. While not disregarding the rabbit study, FDA took into account the high sensitivity of the rabbit model and used a 100-fold safety factor rather than the usual 1000-fold safety factor in calculating an acceptable daily intake

(ADI)for 25-OH D 3 . Consequently, FDA set the ADI based on current information at 0.05 µg/kg BW/day. The safe concentrations of 25-OH D 3 in chicken tissues based on an ADI of 0.05 µg/kg BW/day is 10 ppb in muscle, 30 ppb in liver, and 60 ppb in skin/fat. These values are well within the estimated safe concentrations for consumers (Ref. 17). Although liver concentrations of 25-OH D 3 were not measured, it is anticipated that these values similarly would be within the calculated acceptable levels. FDA concludes that the available data indicate that residue levels of 25-OH D 3 will not result in any unsafe residues of 25-OH D 3 in edible chicken tissues. In its evaluation of 25-OH D 3 , FDA has reviewed not only the safety of the product itself, but also the safety of the chemical impurities that may be present in the product from the manufacturing process. Residual amounts of reactants and manufacturing aids are commonly found as contaminants in chemical products, including products added to animal feeds. The biological stain, 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin (also known as FD&C Red No. 3 or erythrosin), is used as a photosensitizer in the production of 25-OH D 3 . This use of 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin may result in unintended residue levels of 50 ppm maximum in the finished 25-OH D 3 product (Ref. 18). At a 50 ppm concentration in the 25-OH D 3 final product, when the 25-OH D 3 is diluted in feed to a concentration of 69 ppb (69 µg/kg), 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin would be present at 3.45 parts per trillion

(ppt)in finished broiler chicken feed. FDA used risk assessment procedures to estimate the upper-bound of risk presented by 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin, a carcinogenic chemical (21 CFR 81.10(u)), that may be present in the 25-OH D 3 product. Using a worst case estimate, taking into account a bird feed efficiency of approximately 1.9 and 80 percent uptake, the worst case concentration of 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin in edible tissue would be 5.2 ppt (3.45 ppt x 1.9 x 0.8 = 5.2 ppt). Therefore, the agency would not expect this impurity to become a component of food at other than minute levels. However, because 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin is a carcinogenic chemical, FDA advised that the sponsor should either find a replacement for 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin or remove 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin from the final product in a consistent manner. Subsequently, the petitioner developed a purification process for complete removal of 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin from the final 25-OH D 3 product. The petitioner provided details on the experimental conditions and the supporting analytical data for the analytical method used to quantitate residual 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin in the 25-OH D 3 product. FDA found the purification process to be effective based on the analytical work submitted. The analytical method for the detection of the 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin has been appropriately validated by the petitioner and FDA found it to be accurate, precise, and acceptable for its purpose. IV. Conclusion FDA has determined that the petition provides information to support a determination that the use of 25-OH D 3 is GRAS as a source of vitamin D 3 activity for broiler chicken feeds and drinking water based upon the existence of an expert consensus that 25-OH D 3 has been shown to be safe based on scientific procedures. The determination was based upon published scientific data, corroborating unpublished studies, and other data and information. The agency has reached the following conclusions:

(1)25-OH D 3 is a suitable source of vitamin D 3 activity for broiler chickens;

(2)25-OH D 3 at levels up to 69 ppb in feed, or 34.5 ppb in drinking water, is safe to broiler chickens and to the people consuming the broiler chickens' edible meat products; and

(3)an expert panel also concluded that the available information supports a GRAS classification for 25-OH D 3 when supplied as a source of vitamin D activity in broiler feed at the intended level of use of 69 µg/kg of feed. The evaluation was based on the same type and quality of data as would be required to obtain FDA approval of 25-OH D 3 for use as a food additive. In addition, the majority of the data is published, and there is a consensus among qualified experts, based on the data, that this intended use of the substance is safe. Corroborating evidence has shown that 25-OH D 3 is a normal metabolite of vitamin D 3 and the principal circulating form of vitamin D 3 in mammals and birds. In addition, the petitioner provided testimony of a world-renowned expert on vitamin D who stated that 25-OH D 3 would be a safer dietary supplement than vitamin D, since it does not accumulate in the body and thus, would not cause toxicity because of accumulation to toxic levels. Therefore, the agency is issuing this final rule affirming that 25-OH D 3 is GRAS as a source of vitamin D 3 activity in broiler feeds and drinking water when given to broiler chickens at nutritional levels not to exceed 69 ppb in feed or 34.5 ppb in drinking water and when used in accordance with additional limitations. V. Environmental Impact FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is of the type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. VI. Effective Date As this rule recognizes an exemption from the food additive definition in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and from the approval requirements applicable to food additives, no delay in effective date is required by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). The rule therefore will be effective immediately (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). VII. References The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852 and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 1. Garret, R. H. and C. M. Grisham, “The Vitamin D Group,” in *Biochemistry* , 2d ed., Saunders College Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 604-605, 1999. 2. Ameenuddin, S., M. L. Sunde, E. M. Cook, *World's Poultry Science Journal* , vol. 41, pp. 52-63, 1985 (available in the petition: vol. 17, pp. 4463-4474). 3. National Research Council, “Vitamins,” p. 15, and “Nutrient Requirements of Chickens,” pp. 19-34, in *Nutrient Requirements of Poultry* , 9th ed., National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1994. 4. Ward, N. E., *Journal of Applied Poultry Research* , vol. 2, pp. 286-296, 1993 (available in the petition: vol. 19, pp. 5619-5629). 5. GRASP 2449, Amendment C-0032: “Safety of 25-OH D 3 to Consumers,” (testimony of Dr. Hector De Luca), November 1999. 6. National Research Council, “Vitamin D,” in *Vitamin Tolerance of Animals* , 1st ed., National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 11-22, 1987. 7. GRASP 2449, Appendix E: Expert Panel Report, Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Bethesda, MD, 1994. 8. Quarles, C. L., Safety study using 25-OH D 3 in broiler chickens, Colorado AM-1-93, Colorado Quality Research Inc., Fort Collins, CO, 1993, (available in the petition: vol. 11, pp. 02005-02493). 9. Quarles, C. L., Safety study using 25-OH D 3 and vitamin D 3 in broiler chickens, Colorado AM-2-94, Colorado Quality Research, Inc., Fort Collins, CO, 1994, (available in the petition: vol. 12, pp. 2494-2862). 10. Morrissey, J. L., et al., *Journal of Nutrition* , vol. 107, pp. 1027-10324, 1977 (available in the petition: vol. 19, pp. 5220-5227). 11. Janssen, W. M. M. A., H. A. J. Versteegh, P. J. W. Van Schagen, *Archiv fur Geflugelkunde* , vol. 45, pp. 194-200, 1981 (available in the petition: vol. 18, pp. 5018-5024). 12. Kaetzel, D. M., Jr. and J. H. Soares, Jr., *Journal of Nutrition* , vol. 109, pp. 1601-1608, 1979 (available in the petition: vol. 18, pp. 5033-5040). 13. Stevens, V. L. and R. Blair, *Nutrition Reports International* , vol. 35, pp. 755-764, 1987 (available in the petition: vol. 19, pp. 5465-5474). 14. GRASP 2449, Amendment C-0027: Safety Study Using 25-OH D 3 in Broiler Chickens (Project No. ISG-98-2). September 1998 (available in the petition: vol. 31-34). 15. Dutta, S. N., Clinical review and evaluation of NDA 018312 (Organon USA, Inc.'s CALDEROL brand of 25-OH D 3 ), 1979. 16. GRASP 2449, Amendment C-0028: Human Food Safety of the Use of 25-OH D 3 in Broiler Feed, February 1999. 17. FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, Guideline for Industry #3: “General Principles for Evaluating the Safety of Compounds Used in Food-Producing Animals,” Part 4: “Guideline for Establishing a Safe Concentration,” 1994. 18. GRASP 2449, Amendment C-0029: Safety of the Use of Erythrosin in the 25-OH D 3 Final Product, May 1999. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 584 Animal feeds, Food additives. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 584 is amended as follows: PART 584-FOOD SUBSTANCES AFFIRMED AS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS SAFE IN FEED AND DRINKING WATER OF ANIMALS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 584 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371. 2. Section 584.725 is added to subpart B to read as follows: § 584.725 25-Hydroxyvitamin D 3 .

(a)*Product* . 25-Hydroxyvitamin D 3 (9,10-secocholesta-5,7,10(19)-triene-3β, 25-diol).

(b)*Conditions of use* . This substance is generally recognized as safe as a source of vitamin D 3 activity in feed or drinking water of broiler chickens when used in accordance with the limitations in paragraph

(c)of this section.

(c)*Limitations.*

(1)Not to exceed 69 parts per billion

(ppb)in feed or 34.5 ppb in drinking water. It shall be used in accordance with good manufacturing and feeding practices.

(2)The product must comply with the following specifications:

(i)Not less than 94.0 percent 25-hydroxyvitamin D 3 .

(ii)Not more than 1 percent of any individual sterol.

(iii)Not more than 5 percent water.

(iv)Not more than 20 parts per million

(ppm)lead.

(v)Not more than 20 ppm aluminum.

(vi)Not more than 1.0 percent solvents and non-detectable levels of 2', 4', 5', 7'-tetraiodofluorescin.

(3)Product labeling shall bear the following:

(i)A statement to indicate that the maximum use level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D 3 must not exceed 69 ppb in feed or 34.5 ppb in drinking water.

(ii)Adequate use directions to ensure that 25-hydroxyvitamin D 3 (and all premixes) is uniformly blended throughout the feed or drinking water.

(iii)An expiration date on all premix labeling.

(iv)A statement on all premix labeling (feed and drinking water forms) that 25-hydroxyvitamin D 3 should not be used simultaneously in both feed and water. Dated: March 1, 2007. Stephen F. Sundlof, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-4796 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 2 RIN 2900-AM18 Delegations of Authority—National Cemetery Administration AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA)regulation, “Secretary's delegations of authority to certain officials.” The amendment updates the regulation governing certain delegations of authority exercised by the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs. This minor technical amendment provides delegation of authority from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs to accept monetary and/or non-monetary gifts and donations, made in any manner, which are made for the purpose of beautifying or benefiting national cemeteries. The authority to accept offers of land will remain with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Hallinan, Deputy Director, Office of Field Programs (41A), National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; telephone:

(202)273-5229 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The provisions of 38 U.S.C. 2407 authorize the Secretary to “accept gifts, devises, or bequests from legitimate societies and organizations or reputable individuals, made in any manner, which are made for the purpose of beautifying national cemeteries, or are determined to be beneficial to such cemetery.” Currently, under 38 CFR 2.6(f)(3), the Secretary has delegated authority to the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs “[t]o accept donations of a *minor* nature, such as, individual trees for planting in burial areas and privately purchased grave markers.” (Emphasis added) The current regulatory language no longer reflects the needs of the agency since the National Cemetery Administration frequently receives offers for donations that may be perceived as more than “minor in nature.” Such offers have included heavy equipment, rose gardens, cash, and electric vehicles. Providing authority to the National Cemetery Administration to accept donations, regardless of monetary value, would be commensurate with the authority that has been provided to the Veterans Health Administration and the Veterans Benefits Administration. The Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs will notify the Secretary when making decisions to accept or decline gifts and donations of offers that are unique, unusual or substantial in nature, or that may be of public interest because of the subject of the offer or identity of the donor. The authority to accept land will remain with the Secretary. The Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs will continue to refer all offers of land to the Secretary, with supporting information and a recommendation for action. This rule revises paragraph (f)(3) to 38 CFR 2.6 by removing the reference “[t]o accept donations of a minor nature, such as, individual trees for planting in burial areas and privately purchased grave markers” and adding “[t]o accept all donations, except offers of land, made in any manner, for the beautification or benefit of national cemeteries.” Administrative Procedure Act This final rule states rules of agency procedure or practice and is therefore exempt from the notice and public comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Further, this final rule is not a substantive rule and, consequently, the delayed effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) are not applicable. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This rule would have no such effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule would not directly impact any small entities or individuals. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603-604. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for the programs affected by this final rule are 64.201 and 64.202. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 2 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Veterans Affairs Department. Approved: March 2, 2007. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 38 CFR part 2 is amended as follows: PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 302, 552a; 38 U.S.C. 501, 512, 515, 1729, 1729A, 5711; 44 U.S.C. 3702, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 2.6 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows. § 2.6. Secretary's delegations of authority to certain officials (38 U.S.C. 512).

(f)* * *

(3)To accept donations, except offers of land, made in any manner, for the beautification or benefit of national cemeteries. [FR Doc. E7-4826 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 232 Conduct on Postal Property; Weapons Prohibition AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Postal Service is amending the rules for conduct on Postal Service property to clarify the prohibition of carrying or storing on Postal Service property any firearms or other dangerous weapons, or deadly weapons or explosives, except for official purposes. DATES: Effective March 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Katz, Inspector in Charge, Office of Counsel, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, 202-268-7732. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The amendment to the prohibition of carrying, either openly or concealed, or storing any firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons or explosives on Postal Service property is to clarify the rule, ensuring that these items are only possessed for official purposes. This change would eliminate potential conflicts with other laws, rules or regulations which may allow the possession of these articles for other than official purposes. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 232 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Crime, Federal buildings and facilities, Government property, Law enforcement officers, Postal Service, Security measures. In view of the considerations discussed above, the Postal Service adopts the following amendment to 39 CFR part 232. PART 232—CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY 1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read as follows: Authority: 18 U.S.C. 13, 3061; 21 U.S.C. 802, 844; 39 U.S.C. 401, 403(b)(3), 404(a)(7), 1201(2). 2. In § 232.1, paragraph

(l)is revised to read as follows: § 232.1 Conduct on postal property.

(l)*Weapons and explosives* . Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes. Stanley F. Mires, Chief Counsel, Legislative. [FR Doc. E7-4803 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0542; FRL-8285-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; Cook Composites and Polymers Company AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is approving Wisconsin's April 25, 2006, submittal of a source specific revision to revise its State Implementation Plan

(SIP)for the control of volatile organic compounds. The revision consists of language contained in an Administrative Decision, dated February 24, 2005, approving an equivalent control system to meet reasonably available control technology

(RACT)emission control requirements for Cook Composites and Polymers Company located in Saukville, Wisconsin, in Ozaukee County. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 15, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 16, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0542, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*

(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0542. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the 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 Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6031, *Hatten.Charles@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. General Information II. Review of Wisconsin's Plan III. What Change is Wisconsin Requesting? IV. Why is the Request Approvable? V. What Action is EPA Taking Today? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information This rulemaking applies to Cook Composites and Polymers Company located in Saukville, Wisconsin, in Ozaukee County, and the control of volatile organic compounds

(VOC)emissions from its synthetic resin manufacturing operations. The revision consists of language contained in a Administrative Decision (AM-05-200), dated February 24, 2005, approving the use of a high efficiency thermal oxidizer as an equivalent control system to meet VOC reasonably available control technology

(RACT)emission control requirements in section NR 412.05(2)(a)(2) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. II. Review of Wisconsin's Plan Wisconsin's Current SIP On August 15, 1994, EPA approved rule NR 421.05 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, as a VOC RACT requirement to control emissions from synthetic resin manufacturing facilities. See **Federal Register** 59 FR 41709. Under the existing federally-approved SIP for Wisconsin, the requirements in NR 421.05 apply to stationary sources located in the counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and Waukesha. Applicability of Wisconsin Rule NR 412.05 In chapter NR 421 of Wisconsin Administrative Code, section NR 421.05, this VOC RACT requirement specifically applies to the control of VOC emissions from “reaction tanks, thinning tanks, blending tanks and other process vessels used in any synthetic resin manufacturing facility.” The RACT rule prescribes the use of a surface condenser system for control of VOC emissions, but also allows for the use of an alternative control technology. The rule establishes a procedure for the State and EPA approval of alternative control technology. Section NR 421.05(2)(a) states, “any equally effective control method or equivalent system approved by the department under this paragraph shall be submitted to, and will not become effective for federal purposes until approved by, the administrator or designee as a source-specific revision to the department's state implementation plan for ozone. The emission control system shall be one of the following: 1. A surface condenser, or equally effective control device approved by the department, and a vapor recovery or control system that reduces emissions from the surface condenser or equally effective device by 85%. 2. An equivalent system or approach demonstrated to reliably control emissions from a process that does not include a condenser by not less than 90% as approved by the department.” III. What Change Is Wisconsin Requesting? On April 25, 2006, Wisconsin submitted to EPA a source specific SIP revision in the form of an Administrative Decision (AM-05-200) requesting approval to establish VOC RACT requirements for Cook Composites and Polymers Company, applicable to its synthetic resin manufacturing facility. Because Cook Composites and Polymers Company installed a thermal oxidizer instead of a surface condenser system as an emission control system, section NR 421.05(2)(a) requires Wisconsin to submit a request to EPA to approve the use of the thermal oxidizer as a source specific revision to Wisconsin's SIP. The VOC RACT requirement in section NR 421.05(2)(a)(2) requires an “equivalent control system or approach demonstrated to reliably control VOC emissions from a process that does not include a condenser by not less than 90%.” The Administrative Decision (AM-05-200) includes a decision by the State of Wisconsin approving the use of a high-efficiency thermal oxidizer to meet the VOC RACT emission control requirement in section NR 421.05(2)(a)(2). IV. Why Is the Request Approvable? The findings of fact contained in the Administrative Decision (AM-05-200), along with a copy of the compliance emission test report, show that the thermal oxidizer meets VOC RACT emission control requirements contained in section NR 421.05(2)(a)(2). The test to determine the thermal oxidizer's VOC destruction and removal efficiency demonstrated an average VOC destruction and removal efficiency of 99.7%, well within the parameters of “an equivalent system or approach demonstrated to reliably control emissions from a process that does not include a condenser by not less than 90%.” V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? Based on the rationale set forth above, EPA is approving the revision to the Wisconsin SIP regarding Administrative Decision (AM-05-200), concerning Cook Composites and Polymers Company (synthetic resin manufacturing facility) and its use of a high-efficiency thermal oxidizer to be an equivalent control system or approach to meet VOC RACT emission control requirements contained in section NR 421.05(2)(a)(2). We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective May 15, 2007 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by April 16, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective May 15, 2007. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” 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). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 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. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 15, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Ozone, and Volatile organic compounds. Dated: February 27, 2007. Steve Rothblatt, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart YY—Wisconsin 2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(115) to read as follows: § 52.2570 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(115)On April 25, 2006, Wisconsin submitted source specific SIP revision to revise its State Implementation Plan

(SIP)for the control of volatile organic compounds

(VOC)from synthetic resin manufacturing operations. The revision consists of language contained in an Administrative Decision (AM-05-200), dated February 24, 2005, approving the use of a high efficiency thermal oxidizer as an equivalent control system or approach to meet VOC RACT emission control requirements for Cook Composites and Polymers Company located in Saukville, Wisconsin, in Ozaukee County.

(i)Incorporation by reference.

(A)The Administrative Decision (AM-05-200), dated February 24, 2005, issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, establishes VOC RACT for Cook Composites and Polymers Company synthetic resin manufacturing facility located in Saukville, Wisconsin, in Ozaukee County. [FR Doc. E7-4771 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA-R01-RCRA-2007-0135; FRL-8287-8] Vermont: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Immediate final rule. SUMMARY: The State of Vermont has applied to EPA for final authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action. DATES: This final authorization will become effective on May 15, 2007 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by April 16, 2007. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that this authorization will not take immediate effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2007-0135, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *leitch.sharon@epa.gov* • *Fax:*

(617)918-0647, to the attention of Sharon Leitch • *Mail:* Sharon Leitch, Hazardous Waste Unit, EPA Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114-2023 • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Sharon Leitch, Hazardous Waste Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPA Region 1, One Congress Street, 11th Floor, (CHW), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Office's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Identify your comments as relating to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2007-0135. 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 claimed to be 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* . *Docket:* EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2007-0135. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although it may be listed in the index, some information might not be publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the following two locations: aves\rules.xml(i) EPA Region 1 Library, One Congress Street-11th Floor, Boston, MA 02114-2023; by appointment only; tel:

(617)918-1990; and

(ii)Agency of Natural Resources, 103 South Main Street-West Office Building, Waterbury, Vermont, 05671-0404; Business Hours: 7:45 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday; tel:

(802)241-3888. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Leitch, Hazardous Waste Unit, EPA Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114- 2023, telephone number:

(617)918-1647; fax number:

(617)918-0647, e-mail address: *leitch.sharon@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary? States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule? We have concluded that Vermont's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Vermont final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Vermont has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program covered by its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement any such requirements and prohibitions in Vermont, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. C. What Is the Effect of Today's Authorization Decision? The effect of this decision is that a facility in Vermont subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Vermont has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA also retains its full authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, authority to: • Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports • Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits • Take enforcement actions This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Vermont is being authorized by today's action are already effective under state law, and are not changed by today's action. D. Why Wasn't There a Proposed Rule Before Today's Rule? EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect adverse comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's **Federal Register** we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize the State program changes. E. What Happens if EPA Receives Comments That Oppose This Action? If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the **Federal Register** before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public comments in a later final rule based upon this proposed rule that also appears in today's **Federal Register.** You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you should do so at this time. If we receive adverse comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The **Federal Register** withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and which part is being withdrawn. F. What Has Vermont Previously Been Authorized for? The State of Vermont initially received final authorization on January 7, 1985, with an effective date of January 21, 1985 (50 FR 775) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. The Region published an immediate final rule for certain revisions to Vermont's program on May 3, 1993 (58 FR 26242) and reopened the comment period for these revisions on June 7, 1993 (58 FR 31911). This authorization became effective August 6, 1993 (58 FR 31911). The Region granted authorization for further revisions to Vermont's program on September 24, 1999 (64 FR 51702), effective November 23, 1999. On October 18, 1999 (64 FR 46174) the Region published a correction to the immediate final rule that was published on September 24, 1999. The Region granted authorization for further revisions to Vermont's program on October 26, 2000, effective December 26, 2000 (65 FR 64164). That **Federal Register** also made a technical correction. On June 23, 2005 (70 FR 36350) the Region published an immediate final rule for additional revisions to Vermont's program. This authorization became effective on August 22, 2005. G. What Changes Are We Authorizing With Today's Action? On January 31, 2007, Vermont submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization for their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. In particular, Vermont is seeking authorization for updated State regulations addressing federal requirements added from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2005, plus federal manifest rule changes, and the federal dyes and pigments listing, which took effect after June 30, 2005. Vermont is also seeking authorization for various changes it recently has made to its base program regulations. Finally, Vermont is seeking authorization for an additional extension of the special regulations governing the New England Universities' Laboratories XL project. We are now making an immediate final decision, subject to reconsideration only if we receive written comments that oppose this action, that Vermont's hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we grant Vermont final authorization for the following program changes. First, we are authorizing State regulations that track federal regulations adopted since July 1, 2003, as follows (the Federal Citation is followed by the analog from chapter 7 of the Vermont Environmental Protection Rules (Hazardous Waste Management Regulations), effective October 15, 2006): Federal: Recycled Used Oil Management Standards-Revisions [68 FR 44659, 7/30/03] (Checklist 203)—State: 7-805(d) and sections 7-809(c)(1) and (c)(2)(A) through (C); Federal: National Environmental Performance Track Program and Corrections [69 FR 21737, 4/22/04, and 69 FR 62217, 10/25/04] (Checklist 204)—State: 7-308(b)(2)(D); Federal: Nonwastewaters from Dyes and Pigments and Corrections [70 FR 9138, 2/24/05 and 70 FR 35032, 6/16/05] (Checklist 206)—State: 7-106, Appendix I , Appendix II, and Appendix IX; and, Federal: Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule and Corrections [70 FR 10776, 3/4/05 and 70 FR 35034, 6/16/05] (Checklist 207)—State: 7-103; 7-109(b)(3); 7-203(j); 7-203(j)(1)(B) and (C); 7-309(b)(1)(C); 7-309(b)(8); 7-504(e)(1); 7-510(c)(1); 7-702(a)(1); 7-702(b)(3); 7-702(b)(3)(A) and (B); 7-703(a); 7-703(b)(6) and (7); 7-704(a); 7-704(b); 7-704(b)(1), ( 2), (3),

(6)and (7); 7-704(c),

(d)and (f); 7-704(g)(1); 7-704(g)(1)(A),

(B)and (C); 7-704(g)(2), (3), and (4); 7-704(h); 7-704(h)(1) through (7); 7-705(b)(7)(C) and (E); 7-705(c)(1) and (3); 7-706(b)(3), (4), and (5); and, Appendix V. In addition to the regulations listed above, there are various previously authorized State program regulations to which the State has made changes. The EPA is also authorizing these changes. These changes are as follows: Federal: 40 CFR part 260-279—State: (general update to incorporation by reference) 7-109(a); Federal: Regulation of materials used in a manner constituting disposal, 40 CFR 261.2(c)(1)(i)—State: Revised and clarified, 7-204(a)(2)(A); Federal: Regulation of materials burned for energy recovery, 40 CFR 261.2(c)(2)(i)—State: Revised and clarified, 7-204(a)(2)(B); Federal: Exemption for certain commercial chemical products applied to the land, 40 CFR 261.2(c)(1)(ii)—State: Added and clarified, 7-204(k); Federal: Exemptions for commercial chemical products being reclaimed, 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3) and for certain commercial chemical products burned as fuels, 261.2(c)(2)(ii)—State: Added and clarified, 7-204(l); Federal: the definition of used oil, 40 CFR 279.1—State: Revised and clarified, 7-103 and 7-802; Federal: Generator requirements, 40 CFR 262.34—State: Revised and clarified the generator change in status notification requirement, 7-104(c); Federal: Marking requirements, 40 CFR 262.32 reflecting the hazardous waste determination at 262.11—State: Clarification, 7-202; Federal: Exemption for certain petroleum contaminated media and debris, 261.4(b)(10)—State: Clarified and more stringent, 7-203(p) and added definition of media, 7-103; Federal: Representative sampling methods, 40 CFR 261 Appendix I—State: Incorporation by reference, 7-219(c); Federal: Generator manifest requirements, 40 CFR 262.20—State: Clarification, 7-304(c); Federal, generator emergency response, 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4), incorporating 40 CFR part 265, Subpart D, and 40 CFR 262.34(d)—State: Clarification, 7-307(c)(10), 7-308(b)(2)(D), and 7-308(b)(11); Federal: Generator tank system closure, 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(ii), incorporating 40 CFR part 265, subpart J—State: Revised 7-309(c); Federal, transporter transfer facility requirements, 40 CFR 263.12—State, added and more stringent, 7-404-(c)(3); Federal: State authorization for consolidation of CESQG waste at certain small and large quantity generators, 261.5(g)(3)(iii)—State: Clarification, 7-502(q); and, additional requirements regarding 40 CFR parts 260-279—State: Allowance for the State to impose additional requirements on a case by case basis, 7-512. Note: Depending upon the nature of the requirements, the additional requirements may be more stringent than the federal program or they may be broader in scope. The State has also made changes to its previously authorized Project XL regulations. The EPA is also authorizing these changes. These changes are as follows: Federal: Extension of the Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for University Laboratories, 40 CFR 262.108—State: 7-109(c); Federal: Project XL requirements, 40 CFR 262.100-262.107—State: revised and clarified, 7-109(c). The Vermont Project XL regulations were originally authorized by the EPA and became part of the Federally enforceable VT RCRA program on October 26, 2000. See 65 FR 64164. Specifically, we are now authorizing an extension of approximately two and a half years to April 15, 2009. EPA amended its Federal regulations to extend the expiration date of the XL Project from September 30, 2006 to a new date of April 15, 2009. See 71 FR 35547. The State has adopted an extension of six years to September 30, 2012. The EPA is only able to authorize the extension for two and a half years at this time, but could consider another Federal extension should a longer one prove necessary. EPA believes an extension is appropriate since it has recently proposed a national set of alternative regulations for academic laboratories (see 71 FR 29712, May 23, 2006) and, pending promulgation of a national rule, the extension will allow the universities currently participating in the Labs XL Project to continue to build upon the successes of the project and not have to terminate their participation in the Project. The current extension of the expiration date also should be accompanied by an updated Final Project Agreement

(FPA)for this XL Project. We anticipate that the FPA will be updated (for this interstate Vermont-Massachusetts project) by the time that the EPA authorizes the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for changes it will be making to its hazardous waste program regulations. EPA expects that this will occur in the spring of 2007. The final authorization of new State regulations and regulation changes is in addition to the previous authorization of State regulations, which remain part of the authorized program. H. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal Rules? The most significant differences between the State rules being authorized and the Federal rules are summarized below. It should be noted that this summary does not describe every difference, or every detail regarding the differences that are described. Members of the regulated community are advised to read the complete regulations to ensure that they understand all of the requirements with which they will need to comply. 1. More Stringent Provisions There are aspects of the Vermont program which are more stringent than the Federal program. All of these more stringent requirements are, or will become, part of the Federally enforceable RCRA program when authorized by the EPA and must be complied with in addition to the State requirements which track the minimum Federal requirements. These more stringent requirements include the following:

(a)There is no State analog to the Federal rule at 40 CFR 261.5(j) because the State does not exempt conditionally exempt small quantity generators from the hazardous waste regulations;

(b)Vermont does not include the exclusion for leachate or gas condensate generated at non-hazardous landfills which is derived from previously disposed and newly-listed hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.4(b)(15)) in their rules;

(c)the State exemption at 7-203(p) for petroleum contaminated media and debris includes additional conditions that are not included in the Federal exemption at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(10);

(d)Vermont is also more stringent by not adopting the following optional rule: NESHAPS—Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks, Checklist 205; and,

(e)the State has revised its language regarding commercial chemical product fuels in 7-204(a)(2),

(k)and (l). The revised State exemption is equivalent to the combination of the Federal exemption for commercial chemical product fuels being burned for energy recovery and the Federal exemption for commercial chemical products being reclaimed, in 40 CFR 261.2(c)(2)(ii) and (c)(3), respectively. However, Vermont does not have the general exemption for commercial chemical products being reclaimed, but is adopting the exemption for commercial chemical products being reclaimed only when they are reclaimed to produce fuels, e.g., when water is removed from an off-spec unused fuel so that it can be burned. The State is more stringent in that it attaches conditions to the exemption for certain commercial chemical products burned as fuels. 2. Partially Broader in Scope Provisions There are also aspects of the Vermont program which are partially broader in scope than the Federal program. The portion of the State requirements which are broader in scope are not considered to be part of the Federally enforceable RCRA program. However, they are fully enforceable under State law and must be complied with by sources in Vermont. The various changes Vermont has made to its previously authorized base program regulations include partially broader in scope provisions. These provisions involve the State requirements for generator closure at 7-309(c). The State revised their requirements for generator closure with this update. The requirements are partially broader in scope since they apply to all generator closures and not just to closure of generator tanks systems as is the case under the Federal program. I. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect? Vermont will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer and enforce any RCRA and HSWA (Hazardous and Solid Waste Act) permits or portions of permits which it has issued in Vermont prior to the effective date of this authorization until the State incorporates the terms and conditions of the federal permits into the State RCRA permits. EPA will not issue any more new permits, or new portions of permits, for the provisions listed in this notice above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for any HSWA requirements for which Vermont is not yet authorized. J. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Vermont's Hazardous Waste Program as Authorized in This Rule? Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR Part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR Part 272, Subpart UU for this authorization of Vermont's program until a later date. K. Administrative Requirements The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action (RCRA State Authorization) from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action 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 action authorizes 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 action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 F.R. 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action nevertheless will be effective 60 days after it is published, because it is an immediate final rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). Dated: March 1, 2007. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. E7-4774 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 41 CFR Part 102-37 [FMR Amendment 2007-02; FMR Case 2007-102-1; Docket 2007-001; Sequence 1] RIN 3090-AI30 Federal Management Regulation; FMR Case 2007-102-1, Donation of Surplus Personal Property—Historic Light Stations AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The General Services Administration is amending the Federal Management Regulation

(FMR)by incorporating the provisions in Public Law 109-313 regarding donations to historic light stations. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Holcombe, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management (MT), at

(202)501-3828, or e-mail at *Robert.Holcombe@gsa.gov* for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405,

(202)501-4755. Please cite FMR Amendment 2007-02, FMR Case 2007-102-1. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Public Law 109-313, known as the General Services Administration Modernization Act, revised certain provisions of title 40 U.S.C. 549. This final rule reflects the changes made by Public Law 109-313. B. Executive Order 12866 The General Services Administration

(GSA)has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act This final rule is not required to be published in the **Federal Register** for comment. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply. D. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FMR 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.* E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This final rule is exempt from Congressional review under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel. List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 102-37 Government property management, Surplus government property. Dated: January 3, 2007. Lurita Doan, Administrator of General Services. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA amends 41 CFR part 102-37 as set forth below: PART 102-37—DONATION OF SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY 1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 102-37 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 549 and 121(c). 2. Amend § 102-37.380 by adding paragraph (b)(17) to read as follows: § 102-37.380 What is the statutory authority for donation of surplus Federal property made under this subpart?

(b)* * *

(17)Historic light stations as defined under section 308(e)(2) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470w-7(e)(2)), including a historic light station conveyed under subsection

(b)of that section, notwithstanding the number of hours that the historic light station is open to the public. 3. Amend Appendix C to part 102-37 by alphabetically adding the definition “Historic light station” to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 102-37—Glossary of Terms for Determining Eligibility of Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations *Historic light station* means a historic light station as defined under section 308(e)(2) of the National Historic Preservation Act 16 U.S.C. 470w-7(e)2), including a historic light station conveyed under subsection

(b)of that section, notwithstanding the number of hours that the historic light station is open to the public. [FR Doc. E7-4845 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 060314069-6069-01; I.D. 031307A] Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the Elephant Trunk Scallop Access Area to General Category Scallop Vessels AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Elephant Trunk Scallop Access Area

(ETAA)will close to general category scallop vessels until it re-opens on March 1, 2008. This action is based on the determination that 865 general category scallop trips into the ETAA are projected to be taken as of 0001 hr local time, March 15, 2007. This action is being taken to prevent the allocation of general category trips in the ETAA from being exceeded during the 2007 fishing year, in accordance with the regulations implementing Framework 18 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. DATES: The closure of the ETAA to all general category scallop vessels is effective 0001 hr local time, March 15, 2007, through February 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Silva, Fishery Management Specialist,

(978)281-9326, fax

(978)281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing fishing activity in the Sea Scallop Access Areas are found at §§ 648.59 and 648.60. Regulations specifically governing general category scallop vessel operations in the ETAA are specified at ' 648.59(e)(4)(ii). These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid general category scallop permit to fish in the ETAA under specific conditions, including a cap of 865 trips that may be taken by general category vessels during the 2007 fishing year. The regulations at § 648.59(e)(4)(ii) require the ETAA to be closed to general category scallop vessels once the Northeast Regional Administrator has determined that the allowed number of trips are projected to be taken. Based on Vessel Monitoring System

(VMS)trip declarations by general category scallop vessels fishing in the ETAA, and analysis of fishing effort, a projection concluded that, given current activity levels by general category scallop vessels in the area, the trip cap will be attained on March 15, 2007. Therefore, in accordance with the regulations at § 648.59(e)(4)(ii), the ETAA is closed to all general category scallop vessels as of 0001 hr local time, March 15, 2007. This closure is in effect for the remainder of the 2007 scallop fishing year. The ETAA is scheduled to re-open to scallop fishing, including trips for general category scallop vessels, on March 1, 2008, unless the schedule for scallop access areas is modified by the New England Fishery Management Council. Classification This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This action closes the ETAA to all general category scallop vessels until February 29, 2008. The regulations at § 648.59(e)(4)(ii) allow such action to ensure that general category scallop vessels do not take more than their allocated number of trips in the ETAA. The ETAA opened for the 2007 fishing year at 0001 hours on March 1, 2007. Data indicating the general category scallop fleet has taken all of the ETAA trips have only recently become available. To allow general category scallop vessels to continue to take trips in the ETAA during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule would result in vessels taking much more than the allowed number of trips in the ETAA. Excessive trips and harvest from the ETAA would result in excessive fishing effort in the ETAA, where effort controls are critical, thereby undermining conservation objectives of the FMP. Should excessive effort occur in the ETAA, future management measures would need to be more restrictive. Based on the above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), proposed rulemaking is waived because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to allow a period for public comment. Furthermore, for the same reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for this action. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 13, 2007. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-1304 Filed 3-13-07; 3:30 pm]

Connectionstraces to 41

Traces to 41 documents

U.S. Code