Unknown. Final rule
26,459 words·~120 min read·
/register/2007/03/28/07-1521·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-2007-03-28.xml --- 72 59 Wednesday, March 28, 2007 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Forest Service See Natural Resources Conservation Service Army Army Department NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 14534-14540 07-1377 07-1378 07-1379 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Chief Operating Officer et al., 14578 07-1486 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Native American programs:
Native Americans Administration program policies and procedures; proposed adoption; correction, 14578-14579 E7-5630 State median income estimates for four-person families (2008 FY), 14579-14581 E7-5631 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge operations: Louisiana, 14418 E7-5612 Michigan, 14418-14420 E7-5717 Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.: Chesapeake Bay, Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD, 14420-14422 E7-5718 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission RULES Foreign futures and options transactions:
Exemptions— Taiwan Futures Exchange, 14413-14416 07-1521 Customs Customs and Border Protection Bureau NOTICES Commercial gauger and laboratory accreditation: Approval— Amspec Services, 14602-14603 E7-5707 Core Laboratories, Inc., 14602 E7-5705 Intertek Caleb Brett, 14603 E7-5708 E7-5710 Strawn Group, 14602 E7-5706 Tariff classification standards: Glass optical preforms, 14603-14605 E7-5712 Defense Defense Department See Army Department NOTICES Meetings: Armed Forces Code Committee, 14527 07-1496 Dependents’ Education Advisory Council, 14527 07-1494 Electron Devices Advisory Group, 14527-14528 07-1492 Privacy Act; systems of records, 14528-14534 07-1376 07-1495 07-1497 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-5596 14540-14542 E7-5598 E7-5720 E7-5721 Meetings:
Student Financial Assistance Advisory Committee, 14542-14543 07-1490 Energy Energy Department NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Savannah River Site, SC; surplus plutonium disposition, 14543-14546 E7-5591 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air programs: Stratospheric ozone protection— Foam blowing substitutes for ozone-depleting substances; unacceptable substitutes list, 14432-14443 E7-5491 Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas:
Arizona, 14422-14432 E7-5663 Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and raw agricultural commodities: Fluopicolide, 14443-14447 E7-5628 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas: Arizona, 14502-14503 E7-5662 NOTICES Air pollution control: California pollution control standards— Marine outboard, personal watercraft, and tier one inboard/sterndrive engine standards, 14546-14548 E7-5665 Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.:
Pesticide registration review; new dockets opened for review and comment, 14548-14551 E7-5574 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Pesticides— Boscalid tolerances; objections availability and comment request, 14551-14552 E7-5576 Superfund; response and remedial actions, proposed settlements, etc.: Denova Site; CA, 14552-14553 E7-5664 Executive Executive Office for Immigration Review PROPOSED RULES Immigration: Jurisdiction and venue in removal proceedings, 14494-14497 E7-5629 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:
Airbus, 14398-14400 E7-5555 Boeing, 14395-14397, 14400-14402 E7-5556 E7-5557 McDonnell Douglas, 14393-14394 E7-5554 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Airbus, 14497-14500 E7-5656 BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd., 14500-14502 E7-5650 NOTICES Exemption petitions; summary and disposition, 14638 E7-5681 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Radio stations; table of assignments: California, 14465-14466 E7-5565 Kansas and Oklahoma, 14464-14465 E7-5567 Michigan, 14464 E7-5564 Wyoming, 14465 E7-5563 PROPOSED RULES Radio stations; table of assignments:
Louisiana, 14513-14514 E7-5440 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14553-14554 07-1499 Common carrier services: Local exchange carriers; equal access and nondiscrimination obligations; review, 14554-14555 E7-5561 Wireless telecommunications services— Phase II 220 MHz service spectrum licenses auction, 14555-14572 E7-5639 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Alexandria Communications, Inc., et al., 14554 E7-5441 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Flood elevation determinations:
Georgia and Mississippi, 14461-14464 E7-5613 Various States, 14447-14461 E7-5608 E7-5615 E7-5618 PROPOSED RULES Flood elevation determinations: Various States, 14503-14513 E7-5611 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14605-14606 E7-5619 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements filed, etc., 14572-14573 E7-5683 Ocean transportation intermediary licenses: AAA Freight Forwarding Co., Inc., et al., 14573 E7-5686 Continental Services & Carrier, Inc., et al., 14573-14574 E7-5688 Gunhill Shipping & Receiving Headquarters, Inc., et al., 14574 E7-5685 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14638-14639 E7-5622 Exemption petitions, etc.:
Union Pacific Railroad Co., 14639-14641 E7-5616 E7-5620 Meetings: Informal safety inquiry; technical conference, 14641-14642 E7-5614 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 14574-14575 E7-5652 FTC Federal Trade Commission RULES Energy Policy and Conservation Act: Recycled oil; test procedures and labeling standards, 14410-14413 E7-5678 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14575-14577 E7-5677 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14581-14582 E7-5634 Medical devices:
Patent extension; regulatory review period determinations— Infuse Bone Graft/LT-Cage Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device, 14582-14583 E7-5635 Meetings: FDA clinical trial requirements; public workshop, 14583-14584 E7-5633 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* California Medline Industries, Inc.; medical supply warehousing and distribution facility, 14516 E7-5715 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14515 E7-5714 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See Indian Health Service See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Realizing the promise of pharmacogenomics; opportunities and challenges; report to Secretary of Health and Human Services; electronic availability, 14577-14578 07-1532 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Customs and Border Protection Bureau See Federal Emergency Management Agency Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-5623 14606-14608 E7-5624 E7-5625 Organization, functions, and authority delegations:
General Counsel Office; order of succession, 14608 E7-5626 Indian Indian Health Service NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: American Indians Into Psychology Program, 14584-14587 07-1498 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Chemical Weapons Convention regulations: Plant sites that produce unscheduled discrete organic chemicals; inspection status form change; records review and recordkeeping requirements, 14403-14410 E7-5594 Interior Interior Department See Land Management Bureau See Reclamation Bureau IRS Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-5600 14644-14647 E7-5601 E7-5602 E7-5604 E7-5605 E7-5606 Meetings:
Taxpayer Advocacy Panels, E7-5599 14647-14648 E7-5607 International International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Hidalgo County, TX; Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project, 14613-14614 E7-5644 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Petroleum wax candles from— China, 14518-14522 E7-5691 E7-5713 Stainless steel bar from— Spain, 14522-14525 E7-5690 Antidumping and countervailing duties:
Administrative review requests, 14516-14518 E7-5689 Justice Justice Department See Executive Office for Immigration Review Labor Labor Department See Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14614-14615 E7-5627 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Alaska Native claims selection: K’oyitl’ots’ina, Ltd., 14608-14609 E7-5659 Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Arizona, 14609-14610 E7-5538 California; correction, 14610-14611 E7-5657 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Safe Port Act:
Foreign-flag anchor handling vessels use in Beaufort or Chukchi Seas, AK, 14643 E7-5716 Mexico Mexico and United States, International Boundary and Water Commission See International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency records schedules; availability, 14616-14618 E7-5682 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14618-14621 E7-5643 E7-5645 E7-5646 E7-5648 E7-5649 E7-5661 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14587-14588 E7-5671 Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act:
Drugs for which pediatric studies are needed; priority list, 14588-14589 E7-5673 Inventions, Government-owned; availability for licensing, 14589-14594 E7-5670 E7-5675 E7-5676 Meetings: National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 14594 07-1516 National Eye Institute, 14594-14595 07-1519 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 14597-14598 07-1510 07-1517 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 14595 07-1503 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 07-1512 14597-14599 07-1518 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 07-1504 14595-14597 07-1509 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 14596 07-1507 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 14595-14599 07-1505 07-1506 07-1513 07-1514 07-1520 National Library of Medicine, 14599 07-1515 National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, 14599-14600 07-1511 Scientific Review Center, 07-1502 14600-14601 07-1508 Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive:
Angion Biomedica Corp., 14601 E7-5674 GlyGenix, Inc., 14601-14602 E7-5672 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Atlantic highly migratory species— Atlantic bluefin tuna, 14491-14493 07-1485 Marine mammals: Commercial fishing authorizations— Fisheries categorized according to frequency of incidental takes; 2007 list, 14466-14491 E7-5709 NOTICES Marine mammal permit applications, determinations, etc., 14525 E7-5680 Meetings:
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 14525-14526 E7-5636 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: National artificial reef plan; siting, construction, development, and assessment guidelines, 14526 E7-5711 Scientific research permit applications, determinations, etc., 14526-14527 E7-5679 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Field office technical guides; changes: Virginia, 14516 E7-5719 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee, 14625-14627 E7-5658 Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee, 14627 E7-5660 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* General Electric Co., 14621-14622 E7-5641 Mattocks, James Francis, 14622-14623 E7-5640 TXU Generation Co.
LP, 14623-14625 E7-5642 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14615-14616 E7-5597 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14627 07-1538 Railroad Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14627-14628 E7-5632 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Action, CA, 14611-14612 E7-5559 North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project, CA, 14612-14613 E7-5560 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Electronic filings (Regulation S-T): Mandated electronic submissions; technical amendments, 14416-14417 E7-5589 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14628 E7-5592 Self-regulatory organizations: NYSE Arca, Inc. and National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; regulatory responsibilities allocation plan, 14628-14629 E7-5637 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:
International Securities Exchange, LLC, 14630-14631 E7-5588 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 14631-14636 E7-5610 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 14636-14637 E7-5638 State State Department NOTICES Culturally significant objects imported for exhibition: Poussin and Nature, 14637 E7-5684 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005; safe water and sanitation strategy for developing countries; 2006 report to Congress, 14637-14638 E7-5687 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See Maritime Administration NOTICES Aviation proceedings:
Agreements filed; weekly receipts, 14638 E7-5593 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 14643 E7-5669 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 59 Wednesday, March 28, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No.
FAA-2006-25850; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-128-AD; Amendment 39-15004; AD 2007-07-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes. This AD requires revising the maintenance inspection program that provides for inspection of principal structural elements
(PSEs)and replacement of safe-life parts, to incorporate a new revision to the MD-11 Airworthiness Limitations Instructions. The revision reduces inspection intervals for fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, and expands the inspection area for a certain other PSE. This AD results from a revised damage tolerance analysis. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Moreland, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5238; fax
(562)627-5210. 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 all McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 20, 2006 (71 FR 54941). That NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance inspection program that provides for inspection of principal structural elements
(PSEs)and replacement of safe-life parts, to incorporate a new revision to the MD-11 Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI). The revision would reduce inspection intervals for fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, and expand the inspection area for a certain other PSE. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment received. Request To Extend Certain Initial Inspection Thresholds Boeing has requested that we provide an extension of the initial inspection threshold for certain airplanes. Boeing states that the ALI specified in the NPRM would require reducing the initial inspection threshold for PSE 54.52.01.1 from 19,000 total flight cycles to 10,200 total flight cycles. Boeing adds that for PSEs 54.21.01.1 (54.52.01.1), 57.21.02.1, and 57.23.01.1, a minimum of 24 months is required to accomplish the initial inspection after paragraph
(f)of the NPRM is done; the initial inspection times for these PSEs were reduced. Boeing also states that, as of July 2006, there are approximately 50 airplanes exceeding 10,000 total flight cycles. Boeing points out that the ALI would reduce the initial inspection threshold for PSEs 57.21.02.1 and 57.23.01.1 from 19,900 total flight cycles to 15,750 and 15,250 total flight cycles respectively. Boeing notes that, as of July 2006, there are six airplanes with more than 12,000 total flight cycles. Additionally, Boeing points out that the ALI would reduce the repetitive inspection interval for PSE 57.21.05.1 from 10,000 flight cycles to 3,200 flight cycles. Approximately 50 airplanes would have already accomplished the inspection, but would be planning for a 10,000-flight-cycle repetitive interval instead of a 3,200-flight-cycle repetitive interval. Boeing asserts that a substantial increase in the compliance time requirements for those PSE inspections is necessary to prevent an immediate hardship on the operators of these airplanes. For the reasons cited by Boeing, we agree with its request to extend certain inspection compliance times. We have determined that PSE number 54.21.01.1, as cited in Boeing's comment, is a typographical error and we have used the correct PSE number, 54.52.01.1, in this AD. We have added a new paragraph
(h)to this AD to specify those certain PSE inspection compliance times, and re-identified the remaining paragraphs accordingly. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. These changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 102 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 93 airplanes of U.S. registry. The maintenance and inspection program revision takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $7,440, or $80 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(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, 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): **2007-07-04 McDonnell Douglas:** Amendment 39-15004. Docket No. FAA-2006-25850; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-128-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective May 2, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to incorporate new inspections for fatigue cracking of principal structural elements (PSEs). Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to incorporate the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(i)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC)25-1529-1. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a revised damage tolerance analysis. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain principal structural elements (PSEs), which could adversely affect the structural integrity 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. Revision of Airworthiness Limitations Section
(f)Except as provided by paragraph
(h)of this AD: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI), according to a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Boeing MD-11 ALI, Report Number MDC-K5225, Revision 11, dated March 2006, is one approved method.
(g)Except as provided by paragraph
(i)of this AD: After the actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD have been done, no alternative inspection intervals or replacement times may be approved for the PSEs and safe-life limited parts specified in Boeing MD-11 ALI Report Number MDC-K5225, Revision 11, dated March 2006. Compliance Times for Inspections
(h)Accomplish the initial threshold and repetitive inspection intervals specified in the ALI, as applicable, at the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
(1)For PSEs 54.52.01.1, 57.21.02.1, and 57.23.01.1: Accomplish the initial inspection within 24 months after accomplishment of the requirements in paragraph
(f)of this AD, or within the initial inspection interval specified in the ALI, whichever occurs later.
(2)For airplanes on which the initial inspection of PSE 57.21.05.1 has been accomplished as of the effective date of this AD: Repeat the inspection within 24 months after accomplishment of the requirements in paragraph
(f)of this AD, or within 3,200 flight cycles after accomplishment of the initial inspection, whichever occurs later. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,200 flight cycles. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by accomplishing the actions of this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(3)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Material Incorporated by Reference
(j)None. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 19, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5554 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2004-19755; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-23-AD; Amendment 39-15003; AD 2007-07-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive tests to detect hot air leaking from the trim air diffuser ducts or sidewall riser duct assemblies (collectively referred to in this AD as “TADDs”), related investigative actions, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive tests. This AD results from reports of sealant deteriorating on the outside of the center wing fuel tank and analysis that sealant may deteriorate inside the tank due to excess heat from leaking TADDs. We are issuing this AD to prevent leakage of fuel or fuel vapors into areas where ignition sources may be present, which could result in a fire or explosion. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 2, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Kinney, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6499; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56064). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require repetitive tests to detect hot air leaking from the trim air diffuser ducts or sidewall riser duct assemblies (collectively referred to in the AD as “TADDs”), related investigative actions, and corrective actions if necessary. That supplemental NPRM also provided an optional terminating action for the repetitive tests. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Supportive Comment Boeing has reviewed the supplemental NPRM and concurs with the content. Request To Delay Corrective Actions Lufthansa German Airlines asks that, if any hot air leak is found during any test required by paragraph
(f)of the supplemental NPRM, we give relief for the corrective actions specified in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of the supplemental NPRM. It suggests we do this by allowing deactivation of the zone trim air modulation valve of the affected TADDs for at least ten days. Lufthansa states that this would allow a delay in performing the inspection and corrective actions until after that extension ends; this delay would permit the operator to better plan the actions required if any hot air leak is found during the repetitive tests required by paragraph (f). We do not agree with the commenter. The zone trim air modulation valves are located downstream of the potential leakage area; therefore, deactivating them would not prevent hot air leakage from the TADDs. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Clarification of Test Requirements Specified in Paragraph
(f)Lufthansa asks for clarification of the test requirements specified in paragraph
(f)of the supplemental NPRM. Lufthansa states that the repetitive tests specified in paragraph
(f)are to be done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2418, Revision 4, dated November 17, 2005. Lufthansa adds that Note 2 of the supplemental NPRM refers to Chapters 21-61-20 and 21-61-21 of the Boeing 747 Airplane Maintenance Manual as an additional source of service information for the test and inspections of the TADDs. Lufthansa notes that those chapters describe the temperature measurement procedure for the repetitive hot air leak inspection and specify temperature measurements of all TADDs after thirty seconds, one minute, two minutes, and then every two minutes, for a duration of twenty minutes. Lufthansa states that it is not clear whether the temperature measurements must be performed simultaneously on all ducts, or sequentially with one or more ducts at a time; however, the description suggests performing the measurements simultaneously on all ducts. Lufthansa adds that performing the temperature measurements sequentially with one or more ducts would ease the measurement procedure. Lufthansa notes that it does not understand why the temperature has to be measured on all TADDs every two minutes for a duration of twenty minutes, mainly because the airplane maintenance manual for Model 747-200 Combi airplanes has only baseline and 10-minute measurements and there is no requirement for additional measurements. Lufthansa asks that the intervals be reduced to 1- and 10-minute intervals, with the possibility of performing each measurement sequentially. We acknowledge and agree with the commenter's concern and provide clarification. The temperature measurement procedure identified by the commenter does specify performing the measurements simultaneously on all ducts. If the procedure were done sequentially, before making each measurement, the initial conditions of the airplane would have to be re-established, and the time required for that would be prohibitive. Measuring the temperatures frequently allows detection of the highest achieved temperature, given that the temperature may not increase steadily. In addition, Model 747-200 Combi airplane configurations are different; therefore, different procedures are used for those airplanes and those procedures cannot be used for the other airplane models specified in this AD. However, according to the provisions of paragraph
(l)of this AD, we may approve requests for another method which accomplishes the intent of the maintenance manual tasks if the request includes data which prove that method would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed in the supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,081 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Hot air leak test 3 $80 $240, per test cycle 216 $51,840, per test cycle. General visual inspection 5 $80 $400, per inspection cycle 216 $86,400, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(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): **2007-07-03 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15003. Docket No. FAA-2004-19755; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-23-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective May 2, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; certificated in any category; line numbers 1 through 1316 inclusive. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of sealant deteriorating on the outside of the center wing fuel tank and analysis that sealant may deteriorate inside the tank due to excess heat from leaking trim air diffuser ducts or sidewall riser duct assemblies (collectively referred to in this AD as “TADDs”). We are issuing this AD to prevent leakage of fuel or fuel vapors into areas where ignition sources may be present, which could result in a fire or explosion. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Repetitive Tests and Inspections
(f)Do the actions in Table 1 of this AD at the times specified in Table 1 of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2418, Revision 4, dated November 17, 2005. When the compliance times for a hot air leak test and a general visual inspection coincide, the hot air leak test is not required at that time, but is required within 1,200 flight hours ( *i.e.* , one repeat interval) after the general visual inspection. Table 1.—Compliance Times Do this action— Initially at the later of— Then repeat within this interval until paragraph
(j)is done—
(1)Repetitive test to detect hot air leaking from TADDs. Prior to the accumulation of 21,200 total flight hours, or within 1,200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD 1,200 flight hours.
(2)General visual inspection for damage or discrepancies of the TADDs Prior to the accumulation of 32,000 total flight hours, or within 12,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD 12,000 flight hours. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Note 2: Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2418, Revision 4, refers to Chapters 21-61-20 and 21-61-21 of the Boeing 747 Airplane Maintenance Manual as an additional source for service information for the test and inspections of the TADDs.
(g)If any hot air leak is found during any test required by paragraph
(f)of this AD: Before further flight, do the general visual inspection for damage or discrepancies of the TADDs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2418, Revision 4, dated November 17, 2005. Corrective Actions
(h)If any damage or discrepancy is found during any general visual inspection for damage required by paragraph
(f)or
(g)of this AD: Do the actions in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD, as applicable. Do all of these actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2418, Revision 4, dated November 17, 2005.
(1)Before further flight: Perform a general visual inspection for damage of the primary and secondary fuel barriers of the center wing tank; structure adjacent to the discrepant TADD; and cables, cable pulleys, and raised cable seals in the over-wing area. If no damage is found on the side of the airplane where the damaged or discrepant TADD is found, inspecting the other side of the airplane is not required.
(2)Before further flight: Repair all damage or discrepancies found.
(3)Before further flight: Replace any damaged TADD with a new TADD having the same part number or a new or serviceable, improved TADD having a part number listed in the “New TADD Part Number” or “New Sidewall Riser Duct Assy Part Number” column, as applicable, of the tables in Section 2.C.2. of the service bulletin.
(4)Repeat the test and inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD at the times specified in Table 1 of this AD, except as provided by paragraphs
(i)and
(j)of this AD.
(i)For any original-material TADD that is replaced with a new TADD having the same part number as the TADD being replaced: Within 21,200 flight hours after the TADD is replaced, do the test to detect hot air leaking from the replaced TADD, and within 32,000 flight hours after the TADD is replaced, do the general visual inspection for damage, as specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the test and inspection at the repetitive intervals specified in Table 1 of this AD, except when the times for a hot air leak test and a general visual inspection coincide, the leak test is not required. Optional Terminating Action
(j)Replacing existing TADDs with new or serviceable, improved TADDs terminates repetitive test and inspection requirements as specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD. New or serviceable, improved TADDs are those having a part number listed in the “New TADD Part Number” or “New Sidewall Riser Duct Assy Part Number” column, as applicable, of the tables in Section 2.C.2. of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2418, Revision 3, dated December 21, 2004; or Revision 4, dated November 17, 2005.
(1)The repetitive general visual inspections required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD are terminated for each TADD that is replaced with a new or serviceable, improved TADD.
(2)Replacing all TADDs on one side of the airplane with new or serviceable, improved TADDs terminates all repetitive tests required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and all repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD only for the side of the airplane on which the improved TADDs are installed.
(3)Replacing all TADDs on both sides of the airplane with new or serviceable, improved TADDs terminates all repetitive tests required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and all repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Previously Accomplished Actions
(k)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2418, dated November 14, 2002; Revision 1, dated October 16, 2003; Revision 2, dated March 4, 2004; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2418, Revision 3, dated December 21, 2004; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(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. Material Incorporated by Reference
(m)You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2418, Revision 4, dated November 17, 2005, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the 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.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5557 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26250; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-104-AD; Amendment 39-15001; AD 2007-07-01] 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) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Airbus Model A300-600 airplanes. This AD requires an inspection to determine if certain spoiler actuators having certain part numbers are installed, and eventual replacement of all affected actuators. This AD results from failure of a distribution block, which was detected during fatigue qualification tests of certain spoiler actuators. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the distribution block, which could result in leakage of the hydraulic fluid that supplies those actuators. This failure could cause failure of one of the three spoiler actuators and the associated hydraulic circuits, which could result in loss of those hydraulic circuits and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 2, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive
(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300-600 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 6, 2006 (71 FR 64904). That NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine if certain spoiler actuators having certain part numbers are installed, and eventual replacement of all affected actuators. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Add Alternate Inspection of Distribution Blocks The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, FedEx Express, asks that the inspection procedure recommended by FedEx Express of the distribution blocks on the affected spoiler actuators be included in any future rulemaking. FedEx Express states that it accomplished the proposed inspection on its airplanes, and during the inspection it found that most spoiler actuators of the specified age no longer had data plates attached; therefore, no part number or serial number was available. FedEx Express performed a detailed inspection of the distribution block on the affected spoiler actuator at the inboard and outboard positions to determine the part number. If the part number was installed, FedEx Express replaced the spoiler actuator with a serviceable spoiler actuator. FedEx Express recommends that this inspection procedure be used in any future rulemaking requiring the same actions. FedEx Express states that the procedure was coordinated with Airbus and the parts manufacturer before implementation. We agree with the commenter's request to add an alternative inspection method of the distribution blocks on the spoiler actuators to determine the part number. Therefore, we have added an inspection to determine the part number of the distribution block of the spoiler actuator if the spoiler actuator part number cannot be found on the spoiler actuator. Paragraph
(f)of this AD has been changed accordingly. In addition, if the same actions are required by future rulemaking we may consider using this inspection procedure on a case-by-case basis. Request To State FAA Intent To Incorporate by Reference and To Publish Service Information in the Docket Management System
(DMS)The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) asks that the NPRM, and subsequent NPRMs, indicate which documents will be incorporated by reference, and adds that those documents should be published in the DMS concurrently with the NPRM. MARPA assumes that when the final rule is issued the FAA intends to incorporate by reference the service bulletin referenced in the NPRM. MARPA states that the NPRM is incomplete if that's the case, and MARPA is unable to address the substantive elements of the NPRM without having access to the documents that are incorporated by reference. We do not agree with the commenter's requests. When we refer to certain service information in a proposed AD, the public can assume we intend to incorporate by reference that service information, as required by the Office of the Federal Register. In regard to the request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Change Costs of Compliance Section FedEx Express asks that the cost estimate specified in the Costs of Compliance section be changed. FedEx Express states that there are two airplanes of U.S. registry affected by the NPRM; however, the NPRM specifies only one. The ATA, on behalf of FedEx Express, reiterates the above comment. FedEx Express adds that both of its Airbus Model A300-600 airplanes manufacturer serial numbers 361 and 365, are listed in the service bulletin effectivity and are operated by FedEx Express. We agree with the commenter for the reason provided, and have changed the Costs of Compliance section in this AD accordingly. 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. These changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 2 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection takes about 1 hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspection for U.S. operators is $160, or $80 per airplane. The replacements, if accomplished, take about 5 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost is minimal. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the replacements for U.S. operators is $800, or $400 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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-07-01 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15001. Docket No. FAA-2006-26250; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-104-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective May 2, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to 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); certificated in any category; as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6057, dated May 17, 2005. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from failure of a distribution block, which was detected during fatigue qualification tests of certain spoiler actuators. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the distribution block, which could result in leakage of the hydraulic fluid that supplies those actuators. This failure could cause failure of one of the three spoiler actuators and the associated hydraulic circuits, which could result in loss of those hydraulic circuits and consequent 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. Inspection for Actuator Part Numbers and Corrective Action
(f)Within 700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Inspect to determine if a spoiler actuator with part number P376A0002-04 or P376A0002-08 is installed, by doing all the applicable actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6057, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 17, 2005. If the part number cannot be found on the spoiler actuator: Operators may inspect the distribution block on the spoiler actuator to determine if part number P376A0089-00 is installed (distribution blocks having this part number are only on actuators with the affected part numbers).
(1)If no actuator with any part number identified in paragraph
(f)of this AD is installed, no further action is required by this paragraph.
(2)If any actuator with any part number identified in paragraph
(f)of this AD is installed and the three associated hydraulic circuits are affected (at least one actuator supplied by the yellow circuit and at least one actuator supplied by the blue circuit and at least one actuator supplied by the green circuit): Within 100 flight hours after accomplishing the inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, replace all affected actuators on one of the hydraulic circuits with new actuators in accordance with the service bulletin. Within 12 months after accomplishing that replacement, replace all the remaining affected actuators with new actuators in accordance with the service bulletin.
(3)If any actuator with any part number identified in paragraph
(f)of this AD is installed and one or two of the associated hydraulic circuits are affected: Within 12 months after accomplishing the inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, replace all affected actuators with new actuators in accordance with the service bulletin. Parts Installation
(g)After the effective date of this AD, no spoiler actuator with part number P376A0002-04 or P376A0002-08 may be installed on any airplane. No Reporting Required
(h)Although Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6057, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 17, 2005, specifies to submit an inspection report to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(j)French airworthiness directive F-2005-125, dated July 20, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6057, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 17, 2005, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact 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.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5555 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25336; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-070-AD; Amendment 39-15002; AD 2007-07-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800 and -900 Series Airplanes; and Model 757-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800 and -900 series airplanes; and Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD requires modifying the activation mechanism in the chemical oxygen generator of each passenger service unit (PSU). This AD results from several reports indicating that some chemical oxygen generators failed to activate during in-flight decompression events. These failures were due to fracture of components between the passenger oxygen mask and the release pin in the oxygen generator. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the activation mechanism in the chemical oxygen generator, which could result in the unavailability of supplemental oxygen and possible incapacitation of passengers and cabin crew during an in-flight decompression. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 2, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Letcher, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6474; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive
(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800 and -900 series airplanes; and Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 13, 2006 (71 FR 39593). That NPRM proposed to require modifying the activation mechanism in the chemical oxygen generator of each passenger service unit (PSU). Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Support for the NPRM Boeing and AirTran support the NPRM. Request To Change Compliance Time The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member, Delta Airlines, asks that the compliance time for accomplishing the modification be changed from 60 months to 72 months. Delta states that this would better align with airplane heavy maintenance visits. We do not agree with ATA and Delta. The commenters provided no technical justification for revising this compliance time. Chemical oxygen generators failing to activate during in-flight decompression events is a significant safety issue; therefore, we have determined that the proposed 60-month compliance time is warranted. This determination is based on the effectiveness of the modification and the fact that failure of the activation mechanism of the chemical oxygen generator could result in the unavailability of supplemental oxygen and possible incapacitation of passengers and cabin crew during an in-flight decompression. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered those safety issues, as well as the manufacturer recommendations, the availability of necessary repair parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required modification within an interval of time that corresponds to the normal maintenance schedules of most affected operators. In light of these factors, we have determined that the 60-month initial compliance time, as proposed, is appropriate. We do not find it necessary to change the AD in this regard. Request To Publish Service Information/Incorporate by Reference in NPRM The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that ADs are based on service information that originates from the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturers' service documents are privately authored instruments, generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA states that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an AD, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA notes that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated by reference. MARPA believes that public laws, by definition, should be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings for compliance. MARPA adds that the legal interpretation of a document is a question of law, not of fact; therefore, unless the service document is incorporated by reference, it cannot be considered. MARPA is concerned that failure to incorporate essential service information could result in a court decision invalidating the AD. MARPA also states that service documents incorporated by reference should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates those documents. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the **Federal Register** needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals. MARPA adds that, traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing, and/or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA notes that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument and published in DMS. We acknowledge MARPA's requests. The Office of the Federal Register
(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, as noted by the commenter, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. In regard to MARPA's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the AD is necessary in response to these comments. Request To Change Costs of Compliance Section ATA, on behalf of its member, Delta Airlines, states that since the NPRM is written against airplanes and not individual PSUs, it should reflect the cost per airplane. Delta states that its approximate cost per Model 757 airplane is over $10,000; the total cost for its Model 757 fleet is in excess of $350,000. Delta adds that for its Model 737-800 fleet, 71 airplanes are affected, each currently having 54 PSUs installed. Delta states that the approximate cost per Model 737-800 airplane is over $6,000; the total cost for its Model 737-800 fleet is over $440,000. We agree with the commenters. We have provided the approximate number of PSUs per airplane that are necessary to do the modification in the Costs of Compliance section below. Clarify Availability of Parts Continental Airlines has concerns regarding the availability of Boeing's material stock ( *i.e.* , service bulletin kits), as well as those ancillary PSU parts which may be needed during the modification. We infer that Continental wants verification of available parts. We have confirmed with Boeing that an ample number of required parts will be available to modify the U.S. fleet within the proposed compliance time. In light of this fact, we do not find it necessary to change the AD in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 3,283 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 815 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. The cost of the modification depends on the number of PSUs per airplane. The cost to modify all airplanes ranges from $4,342,320 up to $12,506,175. Estimated Costs Airplane Model Work hours Number of PSUs Average labor rate per hour Parts cost per PSU Cost per airplane 737-500 and -600 1 per PSU Between 36 and 40 $80 Between $68 and $75 Between $5,328 and $6,200. 737-300 and -700 1 per PSU Between 40 and 50 80 Between $68 and $75 Between $5,920 and $7,750. 737-400 and -800 1 per PSU Between 43 and 63 80 Between $68 and $75 Between $6,364 and $9,765. 737-900 1 per PSU Between 58 and 63 80 Between $68 and $75 Between $8,584 and $9,765. 757-200 1 per PSU Between 60 and 80 80 Between $68 and $75 Between $8,880 and $12,400. 757-300 1 per PSU Between 70 and 99 80 Between $68 and $75 Between $10,360 and $15,345. 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): **2007-07-02 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15002. FAA-2006-25336; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-070-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective May 2, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800 and -900 series airplanes; and Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in the applicable service bulletin in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Service Bulletins Boeing special attention Service Bulletin Dated— Applicable to model/series— 737-25-1545 September 8, 2005 737-600, -700, -800, and -900. 737-25-1548 November 22, 2005 737-300, -400, and -500. 757-25-0284 November 22, 2005 757-200. 757-25-0285 November 22, 2005 757-300. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from several reports indicating that some chemical oxygen generators failed to activate during in-flight decompression events. These failures were due to fracture of components between the passenger oxygen mask and the release pin in the oxygen generator. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the activation mechanism of the chemical oxygen generator, which could result in the unavailability of supplemental oxygen and possible incapacitation of passengers and cabin crew during an in-flight decompression. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Modification
(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the activation mechanism in the chemical oxygen generator of each passenger service unit
(PSU)by doing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 1 of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(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. Material Incorporated by Reference
(h)You must use the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 2 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 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 2.—Material Incorporated by Reference Boeing special attention Service Bulletin Date 737-25-1545 September 8, 2005. 737-25-1548 November 22, 2005. 757-25-0284 November 22, 2005. 757-25-0285 November 22, 2005. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 13, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5556 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 710, 715, 716, 719, and 721 [Docket No. 060831231-7030-02] RIN 0694-AD53 Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations: UDOC “Change in Inspection Status Form;” Amendments to Records Review and Recordkeeping Requirements; Additions to the List of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC)AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS)is publishing this final rule to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations
(CWCR)to expedite the collection of information concerning the inspection status of plant sites that produce unscheduled discrete organic chemicals (UDOCs) subject to the declaration requirements of the CWCR, to clarify the scope of the CWCR records review and recordkeeping requirements, and to update the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed for violations of the CWCR restrictions on imports of Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC)Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 chemicals. The CWCR include requirements to declare certain activities, involving scheduled chemicals and UDOCs, and to provide access for on-site verification by international inspectors of certain declared facilities in the United States. Specifically, this final rule amends the CWCR by revising the annual declaration requirements for UDOCs to allow a “declared” plant site currently subject to inspection, which anticipates that its production of UDOCs during the current calendar year will be below the inspection threshold level indicated in the CWCR, to submit a Change in Inspection Status Form to BIS by December 15th of the current calendar year. In addition, any such UDOC plant site containing at least one plant that anticipates producing an individual PSF chemical (i.e., a UDOC containing the elements phosphorus, sulfur or fluorine) in quantities that exceed the *declaration* threshold for such chemicals will have the option of submitting its Annual Declaration on Past Activities, in lieu of a Change in Inspection Status Form, by December 15th of the current calendar year. Otherwise, the CWCR require that the Annual Declaration on Past Activities be submitted by February 28th of the following year. The information provided to BIS, as a result of this change, will ensure that the plant site is not subject to inspection during the first 90 days of the next calendar year (i.e., the year after the UDOC activities took place), which is the period when the United States compiles its annual declaration on past activities for submission to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). In addition, this information will strengthen the verification regime of the CWC by allowing the OPCW to schedule inspections, on a year-round basis, of those UDOC facilities in the United States that meet or exceed the inspection threshold level indicated in the CWCR. This rule also amends the CWCR by revising the records review provisions to clarify that a facility must provide the OPCW Inspection Team with access to all supporting materials and documentation used by the facility to prepare declarations and to otherwise comply with the CWCR, including records related to activities that have taken place at the facility since the beginning of the previous calendar year (i.e., up to and including the date of the inspection), even if the facility has not submitted its current year Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS at the time the inspection takes place. In addition, this rule revises the CWCR records review and recordkeeping requirements to clarify that the types of records that are subject to these requirements include all supporting materials and documentation associated with the movement into, around, and from the facility of declared chemicals and their feedstock or any product chemicals formed from such chemicals and feedstock. The purpose of this clarification is to ensure that the CWCR records review and recordkeeping requirements fully conform with the inspection aims described in the inspection provisions of the CWCR, which include verifying the absence of Schedule 1 chemicals and the non-diversion of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 chemicals. This rule amends the enforcement provisions of the CWCR to increase the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed for violations of the CWCR restrictions on imports of CWC Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 chemicals from $11,000 to $50,000 to reflect amendments to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) made by the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which was enacted on March 9, 2006. Finally, this rule updates the list of countries that currently are States Parties to the CWC by adding the Central African Republic and Comoros, which recently became States Parties, and by replacing the listing for Serbia and Montenegro with a separate listing for each country. DATES: This rule is effective March 28, 2007. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this rule, identified by RIN 0694-AD53, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: publiccomments@bis.doc.gov.* Include “RIN 0694-AD53” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*
(202)482-3355. Please alert the Regulatory Policy Division, by calling
(202)482-2440, if you are faxing comments. • *Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:* Willard Fisher, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230, *ATTN:* RIN 0694-AD53. This rule contains a collection of information approved by OMB under Control Number 0694-0091 (Chemical Weapons Convention—Declaration and Report Forms). You may submit comments regarding this collection of information (identified by OMB Control No. 0694-0091), including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to
(202)395-7285; and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. Comments on this collection of information should be submitted separately from comments on the final rule (i.e., RIN 0694-AD53)—all comments on the latter should be submitted by one of the four methods outlined above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions of a general or regulatory nature, contact the Regulatory Policy Division, *telephone:*
(202)482-2440. For program information on declarations and reports, contact the Treaty Compliance Division, Office of Nonproliferation Controls and Treaty Compliance, *telephone:*
(703)605-4400; for legal questions, contact Rochelle Woodard, Office of the Chief Counsel for Industry and Security, *telephone:*
(202)482-5301. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This final rule amends the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations
(CWCR)to expedite the collection of information concerning the inspection status of plant sites that produce unscheduled discrete organic chemicals (UDOCs) that are subject to the declaration requirements of the CWCR. This rule also clarifies the scope of the CWCR records review and recordkeeping requirements. In addition, this rule updates the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed for violations of the CWCR restrictions on imports of CWC Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 chemicals. These changes were included in a proposed rule and request for comment that BIS published on October 6, 2006 (71 FR 59032). BIS did not receive any public comments on the proposed rule and is publishing this final rule to implement these changes. The CWCR include requirements to declare certain activities, involving scheduled chemicals and UDOCs, and to provide access for on-site verification by international inspectors of certain declared facilities in the United States. The CWCR implement the provisions of the Convention on the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, also known as the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC or Convention), affecting U.S. industry and U.S. persons, in accordance with the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (the Act or CWCIA) (22 U.S.C. 6701 et seq.). The Act authorizes the United States to require the U.S. chemical industry and other private entities to submit declarations, notifications and other reports and also to provide access for on-site inspections conducted by inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The CWC, which entered into force on April 29, 1997, is an arms control treaty with significant nonproliferation aspects. As such, the CWC bans the development, production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons and prohibits States Parties to the CWC from assisting or encouraging anyone to engage in a prohibited activity. The CWC provides for declaration and inspection of all States Parties' chemical weapons and chemical weapon production facilities, and oversees the destruction of such weapons and facilities. To fulfill its arms control and nonproliferation objectives, the CWC also establishes a comprehensive verification scheme and requires the declaration and inspection of facilities that produce, process or consume certain “scheduled” chemicals and UDOCs, many of which have significant commercial applications. Part IX of the Verification Annex of the CWC contains provisions that apply to declarations and inspection of “other chemical production facilities,” which are referred to as UDOC plant sites in Part 715 of the CWCR. Plant sites that declare under Part 715 of the CWCR must submit an Annual Declaration on Past Activities describing UDOC activities subject to declaration during the previous calendar year. These annual declarations must be submitted to BIS no later than February 28th of the year that follows the calendar year in which the UDOC activities took place. The U.S. Government compiles these declarations into the annual U.S. declaration on past activities, which it submits to the OPCW within 90 days after the beginning of the calendar year in which the UDOC plant sites submit their individual declarations to BIS. Part 716 of the CWCR states that a UDOC plant site is subject to inspection during a specific calendar year only if it produced in excess of 200 metric tons aggregate of UDOCs during the previous calendar year (see § 716.1(b)(4)). A plant site cannot be subject to inspection, for UDOC activities that took place during the previous calendar year, if:
(1)A declaration is not required to be submitted to the OPCW or
(2)a declaration is submitted to the OPCW with aggregate quantities of UDOCs below 200 metric tons. The due date for a UDOC plant site to submit its Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS is February 28th of the year following the calendar year in which the UDOC activities took place. Prior to the publication of this final rule, there was no mechanism in the CWCR that allowed the U.S. Government to determine which UDOC plant sites were subject to inspection and to notify the OPCW concerning the inspection status of such plant sites, prior to the due date for submitting the U.S. annual declaration on past activities to the OPCW (i.e., within 90 days after the beginning of the calendar year). Therefore, as a practical matter, UDOC plant sites in the United States did not become subject to inspection by the OPCW until the U.S. annual declaration on past activities had been submitted to the OPCW. BIS recognized that universal application of this approach would interfere with the conduct of UDOC inspections in States Parties for the first 90 days of each calendar year (i.e., a “90-day gap”), which could have the long-term effect of undermining the verification regime of the CWC. In order to eliminate this “90-day gap,” BIS is amending the CWCR by revising the annual declaration requirements for UDOCs to allow a “declared” plant site currently subject to inspection, which anticipates that its production of UDOCs during the current calendar year will be below the inspection threshold level indicated in the CWCR, to submit a Change in Inspection Status Form to BIS, so that BIS can inform the OPCW that the plant site will not be subject to inspection during the next calendar year. This new form must be submitted to BIS no later than December 15th of the current calendar year (i.e., the year in which UDOC production is anticipated to be below the inspection threshold level). The U.S. Government will then inform the OPCW that the plant site will not be subject to inspection during the next calendar year. Certain plant sites will be given the option of submitting their Annual Declaration on Past Activities in lieu of the Change in Inspection Status Form. In choosing this alternative, however, the plant sites will have to submit their Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS by December 15th of the current calendar year, instead of February 28th of the following year, as is normally required under the CWCR. The only UDOC plant sites that will be eligible to use this option are those that anticipate producing by synthesis one or more PSF chemicals (i.e., UDOCs containing the elements phosphorus, sulfur or fluorine) during the current calendar year, in quantities that would require them to submit an Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS, but that would be below the CWCR inspection threshold level for UDOCs (i.e., plant sites that contain at least one plant that anticipates producing in excess of 30 metric tons of an individual PSF chemical, but that do not anticipate producing by synthesis in excess of 200 metric tons aggregate of all UDOCs during the current calendar year). If, subsequent to submitting its Change in Inspection Status Form to BIS, a UDOC plant site determines that the production by synthesis of UDOCs at the plant site actually exceeded the UDOC inspection threshold level specified in § 715.1(d)(1) of the CWCR, the plant site must indicate this fact when it submits its Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS and explain, on Form B, why the plant site exceeded the UDOC inspection threshold. In addition, any UDOC plant site that chooses the option of submitting its Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS by December 15th, in lieu of a Change in Inspection Status Form, and subsequently determines that the production by synthesis of UDOCs at the plant site actually exceeded the UDOC inspection threshold level specified in § 715.1(d)(1) of the CWCR, must submit an amendment to its Annual Declaration on Past Activities (see § 715.2 of the CWCR) indicating this fact and explaining, on Form B, why the plant site exceeded the UDOC inspection threshold. Currently inspectable UDOC plant sites that do not submit either a Change in Inspection Status Form or an Annual Declaration on Past Activities by December 15th of the current calendar year, as provided in this rule, will remain subject to inspection through at least the 90-day period at the beginning of the next calendar year. This final rule also amends the CWCR to clarify the scope of the records review requirements for inspections. Prior to the publication of this rule, Section 716.4(e) of the CWCR was unclear concerning the extent to which an OPCW Inspection Team would have access to a facility's records that were related to activities that took place at the facility during the previous calendar year. This rule amends Section 716.4(e) of the CWCR to clarify that a facility undergoing inspection must provide the Inspection Team with access to all supporting materials and documentation used by the facility to prepare declarations and to otherwise comply with the CWCR, including records related to activities that have taken place at the facility since the beginning of the previous calendar year (i.e., up to and including the date of the inspection), regardless of whether or not the facility has submitted its Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS at the time of the inspection. In addition, this final rule amends Section 716.4(e) of the CWCR to ensure that the CWCR records review requirements for inspections fully conform with the inspection aims described in Part 716 of the CWCR. Since BIS began hosting inspections under the CWCR, the standard practice has been for facilities to provide, as appropriate, records associated with the movement into, around, and from the facility of declared chemicals and their feedstock or product chemicals formed from such chemicals and feedstock. The OPCW Inspection Team requires access to these types of records in order to accomplish the aims of the inspections, as described in Parts VI-IX of the Verification Annex of the CWC and in Part 716 of the CWCR. Parts VI-IX of the CWC Verification Annex establish the general and specific aims for inspections, including verification of the absence of Schedule 1 chemicals and the non-diversion of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 chemicals. Part 716 of the CWCR describes these CWC inspection aims and establishes requirements for providing Inspection Teams with access to records in order to achieve these aims. Prior to the publication of this rule, Section 716.4(e) of the CWCR did not clearly indicate that facilities were required to make available to the Inspection Team all supporting materials and documentation associated with the movement into, around, and from the facility of declared chemicals and their feedstock or any product chemicals formed from such chemicals and feedstock. Therefore, this rule amends Section 716.4(e) to clearly indicate that the facility must make all such records available to the Inspection Team. Consistent with the clarification to Section 716.4(e) of the CWCR described above, this final rule also amends the recordkeeping provisions in Section 721.2(a) of the CWCR to specifically require that each facility subject to inspection under Part 716 of the CWCR retain all records associated with the movement into, around, and from the facility of declared chemicals and their feedstock or any product chemicals formed from such chemicals. This rule amends the enforcement provisions in Part 719 of the CWCR to increase the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed for violations of the CWCR restrictions on imports of CWC Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 chemicals from $11,000 to $50,000 to reflect amendments to Section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1705) made by the USA PATRIOT ACT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177), which was enacted on March 9, 2006. Specifically, this rule amends Section 719.3(b) of the CWCR and the footnote thereto to increase the maximum civil penalty that BIS may impose under IEEPA. As a result of this amendment to the CWCR, any violations of the CWC Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 import restrictions described in Section 719.3(a) of the CWCR will be subject to the increased IEEPA maximum civil penalty of $50,000. Finally, this rule revises Supplement No. 1 to Part 710 of the CWCR (titled “States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction”) by adding the Central African Republic and Comoros, which recently became States Parties to the CWC. As a result of this change, the CWCR declaration and reporting requirements for these two countries will be the same as those that apply to other States Parties. In addition, the listing for Serbia and Montenegro is removed and both countries are now listed, separately. Each country is now a State Party to the CWC and the United States has recognized Montenegro as a sovereign state. See Press Release, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Recognizes Montenegro as Independent State (June 13, 2006), available at *http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/67839.htm.* Rulemaking Requirements 1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Control Number. This rule contains a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA. This collection has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0694-0091 (Chemical Weapons Convention—Declaration and Report Forms), which carries burden hour estimates, per respondent, of 10.6 hours for Schedule 1 Chemicals, 11.9 hours for Schedule 2 chemicals, 2.5 hours for Schedule 3 chemicals, 5.3 hours or 5.1 hours for unscheduled discrete organic chemicals (depending upon whether an Annual Declaration on Past Activities or a No Changes Authorization Form, respectively, is required), 0.17 hours for Schedule 1 notifications, and 1.7 hours for compliance review requests. These burden hour estimates also include all types of amendments required under the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR). The Declaration and Report Handbooks include a “Guide to Submission of Forms” which also identifies the specific forms that must be included in a declaration or report package. To calculate the number of hours it takes to complete a specific type of declaration or report, multiply the number of forms required for a specific declaration or report type by the number of hours estimated to complete each form. BIS will use the information contained in declarations and reports submitted by U.S. persons to compile the U.S. National Industrial Declaration in order to meet our obligations under the Chemicals Weapons Convention. BIS will submit the U.S. National Industrial Declaration to the United States National Authority who will forward the Declaration to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as required by the Convention. This rule will increase the burden hours under the approved collection (i.e., Control Number 0694-0091) by amending Section 715.1(d) of the CWCR to add a new requirement for the submission of a Change in Inspection Status Form that applies to any “declared” unscheduled discrete organic chemical
(UDOC)plant site currently subject to inspection, which anticipates that its production of UDOCs during the current calendar year will be below the inspection threshold level indicated in the CWCR. These UDOC plant sites are required to submit a Change in Inspection Status Form to BIS, by December 15th of the current calendar year, in order to ensure that they will not be subject to inspection during the first 90 days of the next calendar year. Prior to the publication of this rule, there was no mechanism in the CWCR that allowed the U.S. Government to determine which UDOC plant sites were subject to inspection and to notify the OPCW concerning the inspection status of such plant sites, before the due date for submitting the U.S. annual declaration on past activities to the OPCW (i.e., within 90 days after the beginning of the calendar year). Therefore, as a practical matter, UDOC plant sites in the United States did not become subject to inspection by the OPCW until the U.S. annual declaration on past activities had been submitted to the OPCW. Universal application of this approach would have interfered with the conduct of UDOC inspections in States Parties for the first 90 days of each calendar year (i.e., the “90-day gap”), which could have had the long-term effect of undermining the verification regime of the CWC. BIS estimates that the burden hours for completion and submission of the Change in Inspection Status Form will be 5.1 hours per respondent. The total burden hours for this additional collection of information are estimated to be 30.6 hours (i.e., 5.1 burden hours × 6 respondents). The estimated total cost of this additional collection of information will be $1,163 (30.6 burden hours × $38/hour). As a result of the changes made by this rule, the total estimated annual burden hours under the approved collection (i.e., Control Number 0694-0091) will increase from 4,471 burden hours to 4,501.6 burden hours. This estimate takes into consideration the fact that this rule provides certain “declared” UDOC plant sites (i.e., plant sites that anticipate producing one or more PSF chemicals during the current calendar year, in quantities that would require them to submit an Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS, but that would be below the CWCR inspection threshold level for UDOCs) with the option of submitting their Annual Declaration on Past Activities earlier than normally required (i.e., December 15th of the year in which the UDOC activities take place, instead of February 28th of the following year), in lieu of submitting a Change in Inspection Status Form. This rule also makes several amendments to the CWCR records review and recordkeeping requirements, none of which will affect the burden hours and associated costs under the approved collection (i.e., Control Number 0694-0091). This rule amends Section 716.4(e) of the CWCR to:
(1)Clarify the extent to which an OPCW Inspection Team will have access to a facility's records that are related to activities that took place at the facility during the previous calendar year (by requiring facilities undergoing inspection to provide the Inspection Team with access to all supporting materials and documentation used by the facility to prepare declarations and to otherwise comply with the CWCR, including records related to activities that have taken place at the facility since the beginning of the previous calendar year, i.e., up to and including the date of the inspection) and
(2)ensure that the CWCR records review requirements for inspections fully conform with the inspection aims described in Part 716 of the CWCR (by requiring facilities to make available to the Inspection Team all supporting materials and documentation associated with the movement into, around, and from the facility of declared chemicals and their feedstock or any product chemicals formed from such chemicals and feedstock). Consistent with the changes to Section 716.4(e) of the CWCR, this final rule amends the recordkeeping provisions in Section 721.2(a) of the CWCR to specifically require that each facility subject to inspection under Part 716 of the CWCR retain all records associated with the movement into, around, and from the facility of declared chemicals and their feedstock or any product chemicals formed from such chemicals. In order to assess the extent to which requiring facilities to maintain and make available records to verify the non-diversion of CWC Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 chemicals would affect the burden hours and associated costs under the approved collection (Control Number 0694-0091), BIS conducted a voluntary survey of nine facilities, requesting these facilities to estimate the time that would be required to prepare and maintain records used to determine non-diversion of CWC Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 chemicals (e.g., records on chemical production, processing, consumption, inventory, transfers, and other dispositions). All five of the facilities that responded to the voluntary survey indicated that they already use and maintain such records to prepare their declarations (in accordance with the requirements of the CWCR) and for other internal procedures. Based on the results of this survey, BIS determined that amending the CWCR to require declared chemical facilities to maintain and make available records for verifying the non-diversion of CWC Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 chemicals would not impose any additional burden or associated costs under the approved collection. BIS also assessed the extent to which burden hours and associated costs under the approved collection (Control Number 0694-0091) would be affected by requiring facilities to provide the Inspection Team with access to all supporting materials and documentation used by the facility to prepare declarations and to otherwise comply with the CWCR, including records related to activities that have taken place at the facility since the beginning of the previous calendar year (i.e., up to and including the date of the inspection). BIS determined that there would be no additional burden or associated costs under the approved collection, as a result of this recordkeeping requirement, because facilities already maintained and provided access to such records in order to comply with the declaration, recordkeeping, and/or inspection requirements in the CWCR. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to
(202)395-7285; and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. 4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, however, if the head of an agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the statute does not require the agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant to section 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulations, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, that this final rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons explained below. No comments were received on the economic impact of the rule. Consequently, BIS did not prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact of this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business according to RFA default definitions for small business (based on SBA size standards),
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000, and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. BIS has determined that this final rule will affect only the first category of small entities (i.e., small businesses). The President reported to the Congress, in December 2003, as required under Section 309 of the CWC Implementation Act, that 297 U.S. companies representing 691 facilities, plant sites, and trading companies were subject to the declaration and reporting requirements under the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR). Although BIS estimates that the majority of these 297 companies are businesses that have more than 500 employees, BIS does not have sufficient information on these companies to definitively characterize them as large entities. The Small Business Administration
(SBA)has established standards for what constitutes a small business, with respect to each of the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC)code categories for “Chemicals and Allied Products.” However, BIS is not able to determine which of these SIC code categories apply to the companies that are subject to the declaration, reporting, advance notification, recordkeeping or inspection requirements of this rule. Therefore, for the purpose of assessing the impact of this final rule, BIS assumes that the 297 companies are small entities. The changes made by this final rule will not affect a substantial number of small entities. This final rule amends section 715.1(d) of the CWCR to add a new requirement for the submission of a Change in Inspection Status Form that applies to any “declared” UDOC plant site currently subject to inspection, which anticipates that its production of UDOCs during the current calendar year will be below the inspection threshold level indicated in the CWCR. These UDOC plant sites are required to submit a Change in Inspection Status Form to BIS, by December 15th of the current calendar year, in order to ensure that they will not be subject to inspection during the first 90 days of the next calendar year. BIS estimates that, of the 691 facilities, plant sites, and trading companies that are affected by the declaration and reporting requirements of the CWCR per calendar year, 600 of these are unscheduled discrete organic chemical
(UDOC)plant sites. Of these 600 UDOC plant sites, BIS estimates that no more than 6 UDOC plant sites per calendar year will be required to submit a Change in Inspection Status Form for the purpose of indicating that their annual UDOCs production will be below the inspection threshold level indicated in the CWCR. Since BIS can only estimate the total number of small entities per calendar year that are affected by the declaration and reporting requirements of the CWCR (i.e., 297 small entities, as indicated above), BIS must also estimate the number of small entities that own, operate, or otherwise control UDOC plant sites likely to be affected by this rule. Therefore, based on the estimate that only 6 UDOC plant sites (out of a total of 600 UDOC plant sites) will be required to submit a Change in Inspection Status Form each calendar year, BIS estimates, for the purpose of assessing the impact of this final rule, that no more than 6 small entities per calendar year will be affected by this new CWCR requirement. This estimate assumes that each UDOC plant site that will be affected by this final rule will be owned, operated, or otherwise controlled by a small entity. Since BIS estimates that no more than 6 small entities per calendar year will be affected by this new CWCR requirement, the requirement will not affect a substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed by this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. BIS estimates that the burden hours for completion and submission of the Change in Inspection Status Form will be 5.1 hours per respondent. The total annual burden hours for this additional collection of information are estimated to be 30.6 hours (i.e., 5.1 burden hours × 6 respondents). The estimated total annual cost of this additional collection of information for all affected entities will be $1,163 (30.6 burden hours × $38/hour). This estimate takes into consideration the fact that this rule provides certain “declared” UDOC plant sites (i.e., plant sites that anticipate producing one or more PSF chemicals during the current calendar year, in quantities that would require them to submit an Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS, but that would be below the CWCR inspection threshold level for UDOCs) with the option of submitting their Annual Declaration on Past Activities earlier than normally required (i.e., December 15th of the year in which the UDOC activities take place, instead of February 28th of the following year), in lieu of submitting a Change in Inspection Status Form. Based on these estimates, the total cost of these additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements will represent only a small percentage of the revenues generated by the affected companies. Therefore, this final rule will not affect a substantial number of small entities (no more than 6 UDOC plant sites of an estimated 600, per annum) and the total economic impact on the affected entities ( *i.e.* , $1,163) will not be significant. Since the revisions that this rule makes to the CWCR will not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, BIS has not prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule. List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 710 Chemicals, Exports, Foreign Trade, Imports, Treaties. 15 CFR Part 715 Chemicals, Exports, Foreign Trade, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 716 Chemicals, Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Search warrant, Treaties. 15 CFR Part 719 Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Penalties. 15 CFR Part 721 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, Parts 710, 715, 716, 719, and 721 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (15 CFR parts 710-729) are amended as follows: PART 710—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 710 continues to read as follows: Authority: 22 U.S.C. 6701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13128, 64 FR 36703, 3 CFR 1999 Comp., p. 199. 2. Supplement No. 1 to Part 710 is amended by revising the undesignated center heading “List of States Parties as of March 25, 2006” to read “List of States Parties as of November 1, 2006”, by removing the country “Serbia and Montenegro”, and by adding in alphabetical order the countries “Central African Republic”, “Comoros”, “Montenegro”, and “Serbia”. PART 715—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 715 continues to read as follows: Authority: 22 U.S.C. 6701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13128, 64 FR 36703. 4. Section 715.1 is amended by adding a Note immediately following paragraph (b)(1) and by revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 715.1 Annual declaration requirements for production by synthesis of unscheduled discrete organic chemicals (UDOCs).
(b)* * *
(1)* * * Note to § 715.1(b)(1): If there is a change in the inspection status of your plant site, as described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, you may submit an Annual Declaration on Past Activities, in lieu of a Change in Inspection Status Form, under the circumstances described in Note 3 to paragraph (d)(2). In this case, the due date for submitting the Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS, covering UDOC production at your plant site during the *current* calendar year, would be December 15th of the *current* calendar year, instead of February 28th of the next calendar year (also see Supplement No. 3 to this part). If you choose to submit your Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS by December 15th and, subsequently, you determine that the production by synthesis of UDOCs at your plant site actually exceeded the UDOC inspection threshold level specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, you must submit an amendment to your Annual Declaration on Past Activities (see § 715.2 of the CWCR) and indicate, on Form B, the reason your plant site exceeded the UDOC inspection threshold.
(d)*Routine inspections of declared UDOC plant sites.*
(1)*Inspection requirement.* A “declared” UDOC plant site is subject to routine inspection by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW)(see part 716 of the CWCR) if it produced by synthesis more than 200 metric tons aggregate of UDOCs during the previous calendar year.
(2)*Change in inspection status.* You may complete the Change in Inspection Status Form, to ensure that your facility does not remain subject to inspection during the first 90 days of the next calendar year (i.e., prior to the submission of the U.S. declaration to the OPCW), if:
(i)Your plant site is currently subject to inspection, pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, based on your plant site's production by synthesis of UDOCs during the *previous* calendar year; and
(ii)Your plant site's production by synthesis of UDOCs in the *current* calendar year will be below the inspection threshold level specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section by the deadline indicated in Supplement No. 3 to this part, and is anticipated to remain below that threshold level through the remainder of the *current* calendar year. Note 1 to § 715.1(d)(2): Upon receipt of the Change in Inspection Status Form, BIS will inform the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW)that your plant site is not subject to inspection during the *next* calendar year. Note 2 to § 715.1(d)(2): If, after submitting your Change in Inspection Status Form to BIS, you determine that the production by synthesis of UDOCs at your plant site actually exceeded the UDOC inspection threshold level specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, you must indicate this fact when you submit your Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS and indicate, on Form B, the reason your plant site exceeded the UDOC inspection threshold. Note 3 to § 715.1(d)(2): You may submit the Annual Declaration on Past Activities described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, instead of the Change in Inspection Status Form, if you anticipate that UDOC production at your plant site during the *current* calendar year will be below the inspection threshold level specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, but you expect your plant site to remain subject to the UDOC declaration requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. In this case, the due date for the Annual Declaration on Past Activities will be December 15th of the current calendar year, instead of February 28th of the *next* calendar year. Note that any changes to information contained in the Annual Declaration on Past Activities must be addressed in accordance with the amendment requirements in § 715.2 of the CWCR. For example, if subsequent to the submission of your Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS on December 15th, you determine that the production by synthesis of UDOCs at your plant site actually exceeded the UDOC inspection threshold level specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, you must submit an amendment to your Annual Declaration on Past Activities (see § 715.2 of the CWCR) and indicate, on Form B, the reason your plant site exceeded the UDOC inspection threshold. Note 4 to § 715.1(d)(2): Currently inspectable UDOC plant sites that do not submit either a Change in Inspection Status Form or Annual Declaration of Past Activities by December 15th of the current calendar year, in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section, will remain subject to inspection through at least the 90-day period at the beginning of the next calendar year. 5. Section 715.4 is amended by revising the section heading and introductory text, by revising paragraph (c), and by adding a new paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 715.4 Deadlines for submitting UDOC declarations, No Changes Authorization Forms, Change in Inspection Status Forms, and amendments. Declarations, No Changes Authorization Forms, Change in Inspection Status Forms, and amendments required under this part must be postmarked by the appropriate dates identified in Supplement No. 3 to this part 715 of the CWCR. Required documents under this part include:
(c)*Change in Inspection Status Form* —May be completed and submitted to BIS if your plant site is currently subject to inspection, pursuant to § 715.1(d)(1) of the CWCR, and you anticipate that the production of UDOCs at your plant site during the *current* calendar year will remain below the inspection threshold level indicated therein (i.e., 200 metric tons aggregate); and
(d)Amended declaration. 6. Supplement No. 3 to part 715 is revised to read as follows: Supplement No. 3 to Part 715 [Deadlines for Submission of Declarations, No Changes Authorization Forms, Amendments for Unscheduled Discrete Organic Chemical
(UDOC)Facilities, and Change in Inspection Status Forms] Declarations Applicable forms Due dates Annual Declaration on Past Activities (previous calendar year) Declared plant site. Certification, UDOC, A (as appropriate), B (optional) February 28 of the year following any calendar year in which the production by synthesis of UDOCs exceeded the applicable declaration threshold in § 715.1(a)(1) of the CWCR.* No Changes Authorization Form (declaration required, but no changes to data contained in previously submitted annual declaration on past activities—previous calendar year) Declared plant site No Changes Authorization Form February 28 of the year following any calendar year in which the production by synthesis of UDOCs exceeded the applicable declaration threshold in § 715.1(a)(1) of the CWCR. Amended Declaration: Certification, UDOC, A (as appropriate), B (optional) —Declaration information —15 calendar days after change in information. —Company information —30 calendar days after change in information. —Post-inspection letter —45 calendar days after receipt of letter. Change in Inspection Status Form (applies only if your plant site is currently subject to inspection, pursuant to § 715.1(d)(1) of the CWCR, and you anticipate that the production by synthesis of UDOCs at your plant site during the current calendar year will remain below the inspection threshold level specified therein) Change in Inspection Status Form December 15th of any calendar year in which the production by synthesis of UDOCs is anticipated to be below the inspection threshold level specified in § 715.1(d)(1) of the CWCR.* * You may submit the Annual Declaration on Past Activities
(ADPA)described in § 715.1(b)(1), instead of the Change in Inspection Status Form, if you anticipate that UDOC production at your plant site during the current calendar year will be below the inspection threshold level specified in § 715.1(d)(1), but you expect your plant site to remain subject to the UDOC declaration requirements in § 715.1(a)(1). In this case, the due date for the Annual Declaration on Past Activities will be December 15th of the current calendar year, instead of February 28th of the *next* calendar year. PART 716—[AMENDED] 7. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 716 continues to read as follows: Authority: 22 U.S.C. 6701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13128, 64 FR 36703, 3 CFR 1999 Comp., p. 199. 8. Section 716.1 is amended by adding a new Note 3 to paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 716.1 General information on the conduct of initial and routine inspections.
(b)* * *
(4)* * * Note 3 to paragraph (b)(4): Any UDOC plant site that is eligible, in accordance with § 715.1(d)(2) of the CWCR, to submit a Change in Inspection Status Form or an Annual Declaration on Past Activities by December 15th of the current calendar year ( *i.e.* , a plant site that will be below the inspection threshold level indicated in paragraph (b)(4) of this section during the current calendar year), but that fails to do so, will remain subject to inspection through at least the 90-day period at the beginning of the next calendar year. 9. Section 716.4 is amended by revising paragraph
(e)to read as follows: § 716.4 Scope and conduct of inspections.
(e)*Records review.*
(1)The facility must provide the Inspection Team with access to all supporting materials and documentation used by the facility to prepare declarations and to otherwise comply with the requirements of the CWCR. These supporting materials and documentation shall include records related to activities that have taken place at the facility since the beginning of the previous calendar year, regardless of whether or not the facility has submitted its current year Annual Declaration on Past Activities to BIS at the time of the inspection. The facility shall also make available for inspection all records associated with the movement into, around, and from the facility of declared chemicals and their feedstock or any product chemicals formed from such chemicals and feedstock. All supporting materials and documentation subject to the requirements of this paragraph
(e)must be retained by the facility in accordance with the requirements of § 721.2 of the CWCR. The facility also must permit access to and copying of these records, upon request by BIS or any other agency of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with the requirements of § 721.1 of the CWCR.
(2)The facility must provide access to these supporting materials and documentation in appropriate formats ( *e.g.* , paper copies, electronic remote access by computer, microfilm, or microfiche), through the U.S. Government Host Team to Inspection Teams, during the inspection period or as otherwise agreed upon by the Inspection Team and Host Team Leader.
(3)The facility must provide the Inspection Team with appropriate accommodations in which to review these supporting materials and documentation.
(4)If a facility does not have access to supporting materials and documentation for activities that took place under previous ownership, because such records were not transferred to the current owner of the facility by the previous owner ( *e.g.* , as part of the contract involving the sale of the facility), the previous owner must make such records available to the Host Team for provision to the Inspection Team in accordance with section 305 of the Act. However, the current owner of a facility, upon receiving notification of an inspection (see § 716.5 of the CWCR), is responsible for informing BIS if the previous owner did not transfer records for activities that took place under the previous ownership—this will allow BIS to contact the previous owner of the facility, to arrange for access to such records, if BIS deems them relevant to the inspection activities. PART 719—[AMENDED] 10. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 719 continues to read as follows: Authority: 22 U.S.C. 6701 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR 1994, Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13128, 64 FR 36703, 3 CFR 1999 Comp., p. 199. § 719.3 [Amended] 11. Section 719.3 is amended: a. By revising the dollar amount “$11,000” to read “$50,000” in paragraph
(b)and in the footnote to paragraph (b); and b. By revising the parenthetical “(15 CFR 6.4(a)(3))” at the end of the footnote to paragraph
(b)to read “(15 CFR 6.4(a)(5))”. PART 721—[AMENDED] 12. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 721 continues to read as follows: Authority: 22 U.S.C. 6701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13128, 64 FR 36703, 3 CFR 1999 Comp., p. 199. 13. Section 721.2 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 721.2 Recordkeeping.
(a)*Requirements.* Each person, facility, plant site or trading company required to submit a declaration, report, or advance notification under parts 712 through 715 of the CWCR must retain all supporting materials and documentation used by a unit, plant, facility, plant site or trading company to prepare such declaration, report, or advance notification to determine production, processing, consumption, export or import of chemicals. Each facility subject to inspection under Part 716 of the CWCR must retain all supporting materials and documentation associated with the movement into, around, and from the facility of declared chemicals and their feedstock or any product chemicals formed from such chemicals and feedstock. In the event that a declared facility is sold, the previous owner of the facility must retain all such supporting materials and documentation that were not transferred to the current owner of the facility ( *e.g.* , as part of the contract involving the sale of the facility)—otherwise, the current owner of the facility is responsible for retaining such supporting materials and documentation. Whenever the previous owner of a declared facility retains such supporting materials and documentation, the owner must inform BIS of any subsequent change in address or other contact information, so that BIS will be able to contact the previous owner of the facility, to arrange for access to such records, if BIS deems them relevant to inspection activities involving the facility (see § 716.4 of the CWCR). Dated: March 21, 2007. Christopher A. Padilla, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E7-5594 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 311 Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has completed its regulatory review of the Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil (“Recycled Oil Rule” or “Rule”), as part of the Commission's systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides. The Commission, with the exception of incorporating by reference American Petroleum Institute Publication 1509, Fifteenth Edition, and updating incorporation by reference approval language, has determined to retain the Recycled Oil Rule in its current form. DATES: This action is effective as of March 28, 2007. The incorporation by reference of the American Petroleum Institute Publication 1509, Fifteenth Edition, listed in this Rule, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this notice should be sent to the Consumer Response Center, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. The notice also is available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site, *http://www.ftc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Podoll Frankle,
(202)326-3022, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. E-mail: *jfrankle@ftc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Commission has determined, as part of its oversight responsibilities, to review its rules and guides periodically to seek information about their costs and benefits, as well as their regulatory and economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. II. Background Section 383 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. 6363, mandated that the FTC promulgate a rule prescribing testing procedures and labeling standards for recycled oil. This section of EPCA is intended to encourage the recycling of used oil, promote the use of recycled oil, reduce consumption of new oil by promoting increased utilization of recycled oil, and reduce environmental hazards and wasteful practices associated with the disposal of used oil. 42 U.S.C. 6363(a). EPCA also mandated that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) develop (and report to the FTC) test procedures to determine whether processed used oil is substantially equivalent to new oil for a particular end use. 42 U.S.C. 6363(c). Within 90 days after receiving NIST's test procedures, EPCA required that the FTC prescribe, by rule, substantial equivalency test procedures, as well as labeling standards for recycled oil. 42 U.S.C. 6363(d)(1)(A). EPCA also required that the Commission's rule permit any container of recycled oil to bear a label indicating any particular end use ( *e.g.* , engine lubricating oil), for which a determination of “substantial equivalency” with new oil has been made in accordance with the NIST test procedures. 42 U.S.C. 6363(d)(1)(B). On July 27, 1995, NIST reported to the FTC test procedures for determining the substantial equivalence of processed used engine oil with new engine oil. The NIST test procedures and performance standards are the same as those adopted by the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) for engine lubricating oils generally, regardless of origin. The Rule, 16 CFR part 311, which was issued on October 31, 1995 (60 FR 55421), implements EPCA's requirements by permitting a manufacturer or other seller to “represent, * * * on a container of processed used oil, that such oil is substantially equivalent to new oil for use as engine oil only if the manufacturer has determined that the oil is substantially equivalent to new oil for use as engine oil” in accordance with the test procedures entitled “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System,” American Petroleum Institute Publication 1509, Thirteenth Edition, January 1995. 1 1 The Commission's 1995 **Federal Register** notice explained that the Rule “does not require manufacturers to * * * explicitly state that their engine oil is substantially equivalent to new oil” and does not mandate any qualifiers or specific disclosures. (60 FR 55418-55419). Until NIST develops test procedures for other end uses, the Recycled Oil Rule is limited to recycled oil used as engine oil. Moreover, because NIST's test procedures and performance standards are the same as those adopted by API for engine oils, the Commission must limit the Rule's scope to categories of engine oil that are covered by the API Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System, as prescribed in API Publication 1509. As part of the Commission's ongoing project to review periodically its rules and guides to determine their current effectiveness and impact, on July 6, 2006, the Commission published a **Federal Register** notice (“FRN”) seeking comment on the Recycled Oil Rule. 2 The Commission sought comment on:
(1)The continuing need for the Rule as currently promulgated;
(2)the benefits the Rule has provided to purchasers;
(3)whether the Rule has imposed costs on purchasers;
(4)what changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase purchasers' benefits and how the changes would affect the costs to firms;
(5)what significant burdens or costs the Rule has imposed on firms;
(6)what changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce burdens or costs to firms;
(7)whether the Rule overlaps or conflicts with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations;
(8)what effects, if any, have changes in relevant technology or economic conditions had on the Rule; and
(9)whether the updated version of American Petroleum Institute Publication 1509 (Fifteenth Edition) should be incorporated by reference into the Rule. 2 71 FR 38321 (July 6, 2006). III. Regulatory Review Comments The Commission received comments 3 from four trade associations 4 and three companies. 5 These comments are discussed below. 3 The comments are cited in this notice by reference to the name of the commenter. The comments are on the public record and are available for public inspection in the Consumer Response Center, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The comments also are available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site, *http://www.ftc.gov.* 4 The trade associations are: American Petroleum Institute, Automotive Oil Change Association, National Automobile Dealers Association, and National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (comment received after comment period closed). 5 The companies are: ExxonMobil Lubricants & Specialities Company, Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., and Pennzoil-Quaker State Company. 1. Is there a continuing need for the Rule as currently promulgated? All of the comments stated that the Recycled Oil Rule should remain in effect. The Automotive Oil Change Association (“AOCA”), which stated that it is the national representative for over 3,000 small business fast-lube facilities that both generate significant quantities of used oil and collect “do-it-yourselfer” used oil from the public, commented that the Rule furthers the success of the used oil recycling chain. AOCA also commented that consumers and the automotive service industry need uniformity in motor oil container labeling and that without the Rule some states might require recycled oil content labeling “that differs from other states thereby causing confusion and placing a burden on commerce.” The National Automobile Dealers Association (“NADA”), which stated that it represents 20,000 franchised automobile and truck dealers who sell new and used vehicles and service, provide auto repair, and sell auto parts, commented that the Rule indirectly impacts car and truck dealerships that purchase motor oil for vehicle use and collect used oil from the vehicles they service. NADA commented that since car and truck dealerships use only API certified motor oils, “the Rule's requirement that used oil processors take appropriate steps when manufacturing ‘substantially equivalent' motor oils helps make those oils potentially marketable to dealerships.” NADA further stated that by not requiring that “substantially equivalent” recycled oils be labeled “recycled” or “re-refined,” used oil processors are able to market their products effectively. NADA also advised that the Rule has facilitated the growth of consumer acceptance of recycled oil. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. (“Safety-Kleen”), which stated that it re-refines about 160 million gallons of used oil each year, commented that the Department of Energy, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, recently completed a study that, in part, concluded that re-refining used oil is beneficial to the environment and noted the need to encourage the use of recycled oil. 6 Similarly, ExxonMobil Lubricants & Specialties Company (“ExxonMobil”) commented that the Rule “contributes to the goal of encouraging responsible used oil management practices to protect the public and the environment.” 6 The study is entitle “Used Oil Re-refining Study to Address Energy Policy Act of 2005 Section 1838.” 2. What benefits has the Rule provided to purchasers of the products or services affected by the Rule? Safety-Kleen stated that because the Rule sets forth the criteria that re-refined oil must meet to be “substantially equivalent” to new oil, end users are assured that the oil will perform as intended in their vehicles. Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Shell Oil Company (“Shell”), which is the manufacturer, marketer, and seller of a number of engine oils, including Pennzoil, Quaker State, Q, ROTELLA, and Formula Shell, and the owner of Jiffy Lube stores, commented that the Rule has eliminated the requirement that engine oils made with recycled base oils be labeled as such; thus, consumers can shop for engine oils with the assurance that engine oil that meets API's standards will be sufficient for their vehicles, whether the base oil used is virgin or recycled. 3. Has the Rule imposed costs on purchasers? Both Safety-Kleen and Shell stated that they were not aware of any additional costs to purchasers due to the Rule. No other comments addressed this question. 4. What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase the benefits of the Rule to purchasers? How would these changes affect the costs the Rule imposes on firms subject to its requirements? How would these changes affect the benefits to purchasers? The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (“NPRA”), Shell, and Safety-Kleen, while supporting the Rule, suggested certain modifications. NPRA, which stated that it is a national trade association with 450 members, including those who own or operate virtually all U.S. refining capacity, in addition to most of the nation's petrochemical manufacturers, commented that the Rule's definition of “recycled oil” 7 “is too broad and could result in sub-standard products in the marketplace.” NPRA attached to its comment three proposed definitions for recycled oil (“re-refining,” 8 “re-conditioning,” 9 and “re-processing.” 10 ), which it said “reflect today's current manufacturing procedures and would help ensure uniform, reliable products.” 7 Section 311.1(d) of the Rule defines “recycled oil” as “processed used oil” that the manufacturer has determined, pursuant to the Rule's required test procedures is “substantially equivalent to new oil for use as engine oil.” 8 NPRA stated that “re-refined stock shall be substantially free from materials introduced through additization and use. Re-refining produces a base oil comparable to virgin base oils. It is capable of meeting current guidelines required to produce most current engine oil categories and licensing requirements as defined by API. (API Base Oil Interchangeability Guidelines, E.1.2.1 and API 1509 requirements.)” 9 NPRA defined “re-conditioning” as “[u]se of a filtration system to remove insoluble impurities, combines with replenishment of key additives, to extend the lubricant's life.” 10 NPRA defined “re-processing” as “chemical or physical operations designed to produce from used oil, or to make used oil more amenable for production of, fuel oils, lubricants, or other used oil-derived products. Processing includes, but is not limited to: blending used oil with virgin petroleum products, blending used oils to meet the fuel specification, filtration, simple distillation.” NPRA, however, did not explain how the manufacturing processes underlying its proposed new definitions impact the performance characteristics of recycled oil. Significantly, Congress was primarily concerned with the performance characteristics of recycled oil, not the recycling process used to manufacture the oil. 11 The current definition of recycled oil, requiring that the oil perform substantially equivalently to new oil, meets this goal. Furthermore, the Commission has not received any complaints or any other comments regarding the current definition of “recycled oil.” 11 H.R. Rep. No. 96-1415, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. 6 (1980), reproduced at 1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 4354, 4356. (“Oil should be labeled on the basis of performance characteristics and fitness for its intended use, and not on the basis of the origin of the oil.”) Shell commented that the “ ‘substantially equivalent' criterion is solely performance-based and does not include a consideration of the possible health effects of engine oils and other products manufactured with recycled base oils, rather than virgin petroleum base oils.” 12 Thus, Shell recommended that the FTC “require 'substantial equivalency' to include health-based criteria in addition to the performance-based criteria.” 13 12 Shell contends that recycled oils vary in how well the impurities are removed during their manufacture. Shell further asserts that these impurities “present” a skin cancer hazard. However, Shell did not present any studies that showed a link between recycled oil and any health ailments. Rather, Shell stated that limited health data on re-refined base oils is available as compared to studies of virgin base oils. Shell also did not propose a specific study protocol for evaluating the health effects of recycled oil. 13 Attachment 1 to Shell's comment contains a detailed discussion of this matter and the basis for Shell's recommendation. The Commission observes that Exxon Company, U.S.A., in connection with the 1995 Recycled Oil rulemaking, also proposed that the Recycled Oil Rule establish health-based “substantial equivalency” standards. In addressing Exxon's concerns, the Commission found that consideration of the potential health effect of recycled oil was beyond its statutory mandate and that “it is clear from the legislative history of EPA that Congress was concerned only with the performance characteristics of recycled oil, not potential health consequences * * *. Although Exxon's concerns may be important, they cannot be addressed in this proceeding. The Commission has no factual or legal basis to address the health effects, or any other nonperformance qualities, of recycled oil in this rulemaking.” 14 Accordingly, the Commission reiterates that it is beyond the Commission's legislative mandate to amend the Rule to incorporate health-based criteria. 14 60 FR 55418 (October 31, 1995). Additionally, Safety-Kleen suggested that the Commission consider labeling changes that emphasize that “re-refined motor oil is ‘recycled' and environmentally preferable to other end uses of used motor oil.” 15 As the Commission stated in the 1995 Recycled Oil rulemaking: “Because the rule does not mandate the use of specific disclosures, recycled oil manufacturers or other sellers have flexibility to promote the performance of their products and their ‘substantial equivalency' with new oil * * *. Manufacturers can voluntarily label recycled oil with terms such as ‘recycled' to assist in the marketing of their products.” 16 In the present Rule review, the Commission continues to adhere to that position because the Rule already provides manufacturers and sellers the discretion to label and market their processed used engine oil as “recycled.” 15 Specifically, Safety-Kleen commented that re-refined motor oil requires less energy to produce than motor oil derived from crude oil and results in fewer emissions. 16 60 FR 55419. The Commission, however, explained that manufacturers using such terms need to consider the Commission's Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims. *See, e.g.* , 16 CFR 260.7(e). 5. What significant burdens or costs, including costs of compliance, has the Rule imposed on firms subject to its requirements? Has the Rule provided benefits to such firms? If so, what benefits? Safety-Kleen commented that by referencing the API certification, the Rule has minimized duplication of costs in obtaining engine oil approval. Safety-Kleen commented that it would oppose any requirements beyond those specified by the API because any additional testing or requirements would be a burden. 17 Shell commented that it did not have any data regarding the compliance costs for manufacturers of refined oil. 17 Safety-Kleen also noted that any requirements that only apply to recycled oil, and not to new oil, would be counter to the Rule's purpose. 6. What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the burdens or costs imposed on firms subject to its requirements? How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the Rule? 18 18 Safety-Kleen's response to this question referred back to its response to question 4. Shell recommended that the Commission make no changes to the performance-based criteria but reiterated its recommendation that the Commission include health-based criteria. 7. Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations? Safety-Kleen commented that the Rule is consistent with federal efforts to encourage re-refining used oil and that there is no significant overlap between the Rule and other government initiatives. 19 Shell commented that it is not aware of any conflict or overlap with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations. 19 Safety-Kleen responded that the Rule is consistent with Executive Orders 13101
(1998)and 13149
(2000)that direct the federal government to buy re-refined oil when it is available at the same quality and price as new oil. 8. Since the Rule was issued, what effects, if any, have changes in relevant technology or economic conditions had on the Rule? Safety-Kleen commented that “[t]he rising price of crude oil and the political instability in many crude-producing regions has made re-refining more attractive both economically and strategically.” Safety-Kleen observed that advances in re-refining have “led re-refined oil to be warranty approved by all major U.S. manufacturers as long as the oil is API approved.” 9. Since the Rule was issued, the API has published the Fifteenth Edition of Publication 1509. 20 Should this updated version of Publication 1509 be incorporated by reference into the Rule? 20 The current Rule references the Thirteenth Edition. All of the comments recommended that the Commission incorporate by reference the Fifteenth Edition of Publication 1509 into the Rule and that the Commission amend the Rule's reference to Publication 1509 to accommodate edition updates. API observed that the Sixteenth Edition of API 1509 is “expected to be issued shortly” and thus recommended that the reference to API Publication 1509 in Section 311.4 of the Rule be amended to read “latest edition.” API stated that adopting the “latest edition” language will prevent confusion as new editions are issued. Although this suggestion has considerable merit, each statement of incorporation by reference in regulatory text must specifically identify the material to be incorporated, including the title, date, edition, author, publisher, and identification number of the publication. 21 Therefore, the Commission does not have discretion to refer generally to the “latest” or “current” edition of API Publication 1509 in the Rule. 22 Because Publication 1509 is in its Fifteenth Edition, the Commission is incorporating it by reference by publishing an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations in the current rulemaking. 21 See, National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, “Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook,” ch. 6 (1998). This handbook contains the rules federal agencies must follow to incorporate materials by reference into regulatory text. This handbook is issued under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. 1501-1511) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR 15.10). 22 Comments made in connection with the Recycled Oil rulemaking in 1995 similarly suggested that the final rule require use of test procedures found in the “latest” or “current” version of API Publication 1509. In addressing comments made in connection with the 1995 rulemaking, the Commission's Federal Register notice detailed why such proposals were not feasible. (60 FRN 55417-55418). IV. Conclusion The comments provide evidence that the Rule serves a useful purpose, while imposing minimal costs on the industry; and the Commission has no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, with the exception of incorporating by reference API Publication 1509, Fifteenth Edition, and adding an updated explanation of incorporation by reference in Section 311.4, the Commission has determined to retain the Recycled Oil Rule in its current form. V. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to provide a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with the final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603-605. The Rule permits rather than requires any container of recycled oil to bear a label indicating that it is substantially equivalent to new engine oil, if such determination has been made in accordance with the prescribed test procedures. The Rule imposes no reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and it permits recycled oil to be labeled with information that is basic and easily ascertainable. In addition, the Rule does not require recycled oil manufacturers to conduct substantial equivalency tests themselves and maintain their own testing equipment. Rather, they may use third parties to minimize testing costs. In any event, the Commission believes the Rule, as amended, does not affect a substantial number of small entities because relatively few companies currently manufacture and sell recycled oil as engine oil, and that most would not be “small entities” under applicable regulations, 13 CFR part 121. Although there may be some “small entities” among private-label retail sellers or distributors of recycled engine oil, the Rule's labeling standards should continue to have only a minimal impact on such entities, because the Rule is limited to voluntary labeling disclosures beyond the labeling costs that such entities already incur. Accordingly, for the reasons above, the Commission certifies that the Rule, as amended, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This document serves as notice of that determination to the Small Business Administration. VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). The amended Rule does not involve the “collection of information” under the PRA and, therefore, OMB approval is not required. List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 311 Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Recycled oil, Trade practices. Text of Amendments For the reason set forth in the preamble, 16 CFR part 311 is amended as follows: PART 311—TEST PROCEDURES AND LABELING STANDARDS FOR RECYCLED OIL 1. The authority citation for part 311 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6363(d). 2. Revise § 311.4 to read as follows: § 311.4 Testing. To determine the substantial equivalency of processed used oil with new oil for use as engine oil, manufacturers or their designees must use the test procedures that were reported to the Commission by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) on July 27, 1995, entitled “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System,” American Petroleum Institute (“API”), Publication 1509, Thirteenth Edition, January 1995. API Publication 1509, Thirteenth Edition has been updated to API Publication 1509, Fifteenth Edition, April 2002. API Publication 1509, Fifteenth Edition, April 2002, is incorporated by reference. This incorporation by reference is approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be obtained from: API, 1220 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Copies may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, 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.* By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5678 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 30 Foreign Futures and Options Transactions AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Order. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission or
(CFTC)is granting an exemption to firms designated by the Taiwan Futures Exchange (TAIFEX) from the application of certain of the Commission's foreign futures and option regulations based upon substituted compliance with certain comparable regulatory and self-regulatory requirements of a foreign regulatory authority consistent with conditions specified by the Commission, as set forth herein. This Order is issued pursuant to Commission Regulation 30.10, which permits persons to file a petition with the Commission for exemption from the application of certain of the Regulations set forth in Part 30 and authorizes the Commission to grant such an exemption if such action would not be otherwise contrary to the public interest or to the purposes of the provision from which exemption is sought. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence B. Patent, Esq., Deputy Director, Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. *Telephone:*
(202)418-5439. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission has issued the following Order: Order Under CFTC Regulation 30.10 Exempting Firms Designated by the Taiwan Futures Exchange (TAIFEX) From the Application of Certain of the Foreign Futures and Option Regulations the Later of the Date of Publication of the Order Herein in the **Federal Register** or After Filing of Consents by Such Firms and TAIFEX, as Appropriate, to the Terms and Conditions of the Order Herein. Commission Regulations governing the offer and sale of commodity futures and option contracts traded on or subject to the regulations of a foreign board of trade to customers located in the U.S. are contained in Part 30 of the Commission's regulations. 1 These regulations include requirements for intermediaries with respect to registration, disclosure, capital adequacy, protection of customer funds, recordkeeping and reporting, and sales practice and compliance procedures that are generally comparable to those applicable to transactions on U.S. markets. 1 Commission regulations referred to herein are found at 17 CFR Ch. I (2006). In formulating a regulatory program to govern the offer and sale of foreign futures and option products to customers located in the U.S., the Commission, among other things, considered the desirability of ameliorating the potential extraterritorial impact of such a program and avoiding duplicative regulation of firms engaged in international business. Based upon these considerations, the Commission determined to permit persons located outside the U.S. the subject to a comparable regulatory structure in the jurisdiction in which they were located to seek an exemption from certain of the requirements under Part 30 of the Commission's regulations based upon substituted compliance with the regulatory requirements of the foreign jurisdiction. Appendix A to Part 30 “Interpretative Statement With Respect to the Commission's Exemptive Authority Under § 30.10 of Its Rules” (Appendix A), generally sets forth the elements the Commission will evaluate in determining whether a particular regulatory program may be found to be comparable for purposes of exemptive relief pursuant to Regulation 30.10. 2 These elements include:
(1)Registration, authorization or other form of licensing, fitness review or qualification of persons that solicit and accept customer orders;
(2)minimum financial requirements for those persons that solicit and accept customer orders;
(3)protection of customer funds from misapplication;
(4)recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
(5)sales practice standards;
(6)procedures to audit for compliance with, and to take action against those persons who violate, the requirements of the program; and
(7)information sharing arrangements between the Commission and the appropriate governmental and/or self-regulatory organization to ensure Commission access on an “as needed” basis to information essential to maintaining standards of customer and market protection within the U.S. 2 52 FR 28990, 29001 (August 5, 1987). Moreover, the Commission specifically stated in adopting Regulation 30.10 that no exemption of a general nature would be granted unless the persons to whom the exemption is to be applied:
(1)Submit to jurisdiction in the U.S. by designating an agent for service of process in the U.S. with respect to transactions subject to Part 30 and filing a copy of the agency agreement with the National Futures Association (NFA);
(2)agree to provide access to their books and records in the U.S. to Commission and Department of Justice representatives; and
(3)notify NFA of the commencement of business in the U.S. 3 3 52 FR 28980, 28981 and 29002. On September 20, 2005, TAIFEX petitioned the Commission on behalf of its member firms, located and doing business in Taiwan, for an exemption from the application of the Commission's Part 30 Regulations to those firms. In support of its petition, TAIFEX states that granting such an exemption with respect to such firms that it has authorized to conduct foreign futures and option transactions on behalf of customers located in the U.S. would not be contrary to the public interest or to the purposes of the provisions from which the exemption is sought because such firms are subject to a regulatory framework comparable to that imposed by the Commodity Exchange Act
(Act)and the regulations thereunder. Based upon a review of the petition, supplementary materials filed by TAIFEX and the recommendation of the Commission's staff, the Commission has concluded that the standards for relief set forth in Regulation 30.10 and, in particular, Appendix A thereof, have been met and that compliance with applicable Taiwanese law and TAIFEX regulations may be substituted for compliance with those sections of the Act and regulations thereunder more particularly set forth herein. By this Order, the Commission hereby exempts, subject to specified conditions, those firms identified to the Commission by TAIFEX as eligible for the relief granted herein from: —Registration with the Commission for firms and for firm representatives; —The requirement in Commission Regulation 30.6(a) and (d), 17 CFR § 30.6(a) and (d), that firms provide customers located in the U.S. with the risk disclosure statements in Commission Regulation 1.55(b), 17 CFR § 1.55(b), and Commission Regulation 33.7, 17 CFR § 33.7, or as otherwise approved under Commission Regulation 1.55(c), 17 CFR § 1.55(c); —The separate account requirement contained in Commission Regulation 30.7, 17 CFR § 30.7; —Those sections of Part 1 of the Commission's financial regulations that apply to foreign futures and options sold in the U.S. as set forth in Part 30; and —Those sections of Part 1 of the Commission's regulations relating to books and records which apply to transactions subject to Part 30, based upon substituted compliance by such persons with the application statutes and regulations in effect in Taiwan. This determination to permit substituted compliance is based on, among other things, the Commission's finding that the regulatory framework governing persons in Taiwan who would be exempted hereunder provides:
(1)A system of qualification or authorization of firms who deal in transactions subject to regulation under Part 30 that includes, for example, criteria and procedures for granting, monitoring, suspending and revoking licenses, and provisions for requiring and obtaining access to information about authorized firms and persons who act on behalf of such firms;
(2)Financial requirements for firms including, without limitation, a requirement for a minimum level of working capital and daily mark-to-market settlement and/or accounting procedures;
(3)A system for the protection of customer assets that is designed to preclude the use of customer assets to satisfy house obligations and requires separate accounting for such assets;
(4)Recordkeeping and reporting requirements pertaining to financial and trade information;
(5)Sales practice standards for authorized firms and persons acting on their behalf that include, for example, required disclosures to prospective customers and prohibitions on improper trading advice;
(6)Procedures to audit for compliance with, and to redress violations of, the customer protection and sales practice requirements referred to above, including, without limitation, an affirmative surveillance program designed to detect trading activities that take advantage of customers, and the existence of broad powers of investigation relating to sales practice abuses; and
(7)Mechanisms for sharing of information between the Commission, TAIFEX, and the Taiwanese regulatory authorities on an “as needed” basis including, without limitation, confirmation data, data necessary to trace funds related to trading futures products subject to regulation in Taiwan, position data, and data on firms' standing to do business and financial condition. Commission staff have concluded, upon review of the petition of TAIFEX and accompanying exhibits, that Taiwan's regulation of futures and options exchanges is comparable to that of the U.S. in the areas specified in Appendix A of Part 30, as described above. This Order does not provide an exemption from any provision of the Act or regulations thereunder not specified herein, such as the antifraud provision in Regulation 30.9. Moreover, the relief granted is limited to brokerage activities undertaken on behalf of customers located in the U.S. with respect to transactions on or subject to the regulations of TAIFEX for products that customers located in the U.S. may trade. 4 The relief does not extend to regulations relating to trading, directly or indirectly, on U.S. exchanges. For example, a firm trading in U.S. markets for its own account would be subject to the Commission's large trader reporting requirements. 5 Similarly, if such a firm were carrying positions on a U.S. exchange on behalf of foreign clients and submitted such transactions for clearing on an omnibus basis through a firm registered as a futures commission merchant under the Act, it would be subject to the reporting requirements applicable to foreign brokers. 6 The relief herein is inapplicable where the firm solicits or accepts orders from customers located in the U.S. for transactions on U.S. markets. In that case, the firm must comply with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations, including the requirement to register in the appropriate capacity. 4 *See, e.g.,* Sections 2(a)(1)(C) and
(D)of the Act. 5 *See, e.g.,* 17 CFR part 18 (2006). 6 *See, e.g.,* 17 CFR parts 17 and 21 (2006). The eligibility of any firm to seek relief under this exemptive Order is subject to the following conditions:
(1)The regulatory or self-regulatory organization responsible for monitoring the compliance of such firms with the regulatory requirements described in the Regulation 30.10 petition must represent in writing to the CFTC 7 that: 7 As described below, these representations are to be filed with NFA.
(a)Each firm for which relief is sought is registered, licensed or authorized, as appropriate, and is otherwise in good standing under the standards in place in Taiwan; such firm is engaged in business with customers in Taiwan as well as in the U.S.; and such firm and its principals and employees who engage in activities subject to Part 30 would not be statutorily disqualified from registration under Section 8a(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 12a(2);
(b)It will monitor firms to which relief is granted for compliance with the regulatory requirements for which substituted compliance is accepted and will promptly notify the Commission or NFA of any change in status of a firm that would affect its continued eligibility for the exemption granted hereunder, including the termination of its activities in the U.S.;
(c)All transactions with respect to customers resident in the U.S. will be made on or subject to the regulations of TAIFEX and the Commission will receive prompt notice of all material changes to the relevant laws in Taiwan, any regulations promulgated thereunder and TAIFEX regulations;
(d)Customers located in the U.S. will be provided no less stringent regulatory protection than Taiwanese customers under all relevant provisions of Taiwanese law; and
(e)It will cooperate with the Commission with respect to any inquiries concerning any activity subject to regulation under the Part 30 Regulations, including sharing the information specified in Appendix A on an “as needed” basis and will use its best efforts to notify the Commission if it becomes aware of any information that in its judgment affects the financial or operational viability of a member firm doing business in the U.S. under the exemption granted by this Order.
(2)Each firm seeking relief hereunder must represent in writing that it:
(a)Is located outside the U.S., its territories and possessions and, where applicable, has subsidiaries or affiliates domiciled in the U.S. with a related business ( *e.g.* , banks and broker/dealer affiliates) along with a brief description of each subsidiary's or affiliate's identity and principal business in the U.S.;
(b)Consents to jurisdiction in the U.S. under the Act by filing a valid and binding appointment of an agent in the U.S. for service of process in accordance with the requirements set forth in Regulation 30.5;
(c)Agrees to provide access to its books and records related to transactions under Part 30 required to be maintained under the applicable statutes and regulations in effect in Taiwan upon the request of any representative of the Commission or U.S. Department of Justice at the place in the U.S. designated by such representative, within 72 hours, or such lesser period of time as specified by that representative as may be reasonable under the circumstances after notice of the request;
(d)Has no principal or employee who solicits or accepts orders from customers located in the U.S. who would be disqualified under Section 8a(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 12a(2), from doing business in the U.S.;
(e)Consents to participate in any NFA arbitration program that offers a procedure for resolving customer disputes on the papers where such disputes involve representations or activities with respect to transactions under Part 30, and consents to notify customers located in the U.S. of the availability of such a program;
(f)Undertakes to comply with the applicable provisions of Taiwanese laws and TAIFEX regulations that form the basis upon which this exemption from certain provisions of the Act and Regulations thereunder is granted. As set forth in the Commission's September 11, 1997 Order delegating to NFA certain responsibilities, the written representations set forth in paragraph
(2)shall be filed with NFA. 8 Each firm seeking relief hereunder has an ongoing obligation to notify NFA should there be a material change to any of the representations required in the firm's application for relief. 8 62 FR 47792, 47793 (September 11, 1997). Among other duties, the Commission authorized NFA to receive requests for confirmation of Regulation 30.10 relief on behalf of particular firms, to verify such firms' fitness and compliance with the conditions of the appropriate Regulation 30.10 Order and to grant exemptive relief from registration to qualifying firms. This Order will become effective as to any designated TAIFEX firm the later of the date of publication of the Order in the **Federal Register** or the filing of the consents set forth in paragraphs (2)(a)-(f). Upon filing of the notice required under paragraph (1)(b) as to any such firm, the relief granted by this Order may be suspended immediately as to that firm. That suspension will remain in effect pending further notice by the Commission, or the Commission's designee, to the firm and TAIFEX. This Order is issued pursuant to Regulation 30.10 based on the representations made and supporting material provided to the Commission and the recommendation of the staff, and is made effective as to any firm granted relief hereunder based upon the filings and representations of such firms required hereunder. Any material changes or omissions in the facts and circumstances pursuant to which this Order is granted might require the Commission to reconsider its finding that the standards for relief set forth in Regulation 30.10 and, in particular, Appendix A, have been met. Further, if experience demonstrates that the continued effectiveness of this Order in general, or with respect to a particular firm, would be contrary to public policy or the public interest, or that the systems in place for the exchange of information or other circumstances do not warrant continuation of the exemptive relief granted herein, the Commission may condition, modify, suspend, terminate, withhold as to a specific firm, or otherwise restrict the exemptive relief granted in this Order, as appropriate, on its own motion. The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of its program to exempt firms located in jurisdictions generally deemed to have a comparable regulatory program from the application of certain of the foreign futures and option regulations and will make necessary adjustments if appropriate. Issued in Washington, DC on March 23, 2007. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 07-1521 Filed 3-27-07: 8:45 am) BILLING CODE 6351-01-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 200 and 232 [Release No. 34-55502]
Connectionstraces to 24
Traces to 24 documents
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Definitions§ 6701
- Penalties§ 1705
- Purposes§ 3501
- Definitions§ 601
- Rule making§ 553
- Termination of existing declared emergencies§ 1601
- Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities§ 1701
- Federal actions with respect to recycled oil§ 6363
- Definitions§ 3502
- Registration of commodity dealers and associated persons; regulation of registered entities§ 12a
CFR
- General.§ 91.403
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Application.§ 21.303
- Effective date of adjustments for inflation to civil monetary penalties.§ 6.4
- Compostable Claims.§ 260.7
- Information on drafting and publication.§ 15.10
- Disclosure.§ 30.6
- Public disclosures by futures commission merchants.§ 1.55
- Disclosure.§ 33.7
- Treatment of foreign futures or foreign options secured amount.§ 30.7
19 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- Pub. L. 109-177
- 15 CFR 710
- 15 CFR 715
- 15 CFR 716
- 15 CFR 719
- 15 CFR 721
- 3 CFR 1999
- 3 CFR 1994
- 16 CFR 311
- 44 USC 1501-1511
- 5 USC 601-612
- 5 USC 603-605
- 13 CFR 121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 5 CFR 1320.3(c)
- 17 CFR 30
- 17 CFR 18
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite1 CFR 51
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-177
Cites 43 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources