Rules and Regulations. Final rule: notice of correction

42,387 words·~193 min read·/register/2007/04/05/07-1670

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P and 4310-93-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 101 [Docket No. RM04-12-000] Accounting and Financial Reporting for Public Utilities Including RTOs; Correction March 30, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Final rule: notice of correction. SUMMARY: On December 16, 2005, the Commission issued a Final Rule amending the accounting and financial reporting requirements for public utilities. The Commission is issuing a notice correcting certain plant-related line references in one of its schedules for FERC Form No. 1 and correcting the quarterly and annual designations for three other schedules that were all included in Appendix B of the order.

DATES: Effective March 30, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Okrak (Technical Information), Division of Financial Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-8280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Correction On December 16, 2005, the Commission issued Order No. 668, 1 amending the accounting and financial reporting requirements for public utilities. Certain general plant-related line references included on page 206 of the FERC Form No. 1 that were not revised by Order No. 668 were inadvertently deleted from the revised Electric Plant In Service schedule included in Appendix B to the order. Additionally, pages 231, 331, and 400a were inadvertently designated as annual reporting schedules in Appendix B, instead of their proper designation as both quarterly and annual reporting schedules. 1 *Accounting and Financial Reporting for Public Utilities Including RTOs, Order No. 668, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,199

(2005)113 FERC ¶ 61,276, reh'g denied, Order No. 668-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,215 (2006), reh'g denied, 115 FERC ¶ 61,080 (2006), 70 FR 77627 (December 30, 2005).* This notice of correction corrects page 206 of the FERC Form No. 1 to include those general plant-related line references inadvertently omitted from the revised schedule. 2 Additionally, pages 231, 331, and 400a are revised to properly designate them as both quarterly and annual reporting schedules. The corrected pages 206, 231, 331 and 400a are attached to this notice of correction as Appendix A. 2 *Lines inadvertently omitted were line 95,

(398)Miscellaneous Equipment; line 96, Subtotal (Enter Total of lines 86 thru 95); line 97,

(399)Other Tangible Property; line 98, (399.1) Asset Retirement Costs for General Plant and line 99, Total General Plant (Enter Total of lines 96, 97 and 98).* Philis J. Posey, Deputy Secretary. BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ER05AP07.000 ER05AP07.001 ER05AP07.002 ER05AP07.003 [FR Doc. E7-6213 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-C SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA 2006-0097] RIN 0960-AG35 Temporary Extension of Attorney Fee Payment System to Title XVI; 5-Year Demonstration Project Extending Fee Withholding and Payment Procedures to Eligible Non-Attorney Representatives; Definition of Past-Due Benefits; and Assessment for Fee Payment Services AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Interim final rules with request for comments. SUMMARY: We are issuing these interim final rules to reflect in our regulations three self-implementing statutory provisions in the Social Security Protection Act of 2004

(SSPA)and three related self-implementing provisions in earlier legislation. These earlier provisions are in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA), the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (SSIPIA), and the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (TWWIIA). DATES: These rules are effective April 5, 2007. To be sure your comments are considered, we must receive them no later than June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may give us your comments by: Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov;* e-mail to *regulations@ssa.gov;* telefax to

(410)966-2830; or letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, Baltimore, MD 21235-7703. You may also deliver them to the Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. Comments are posted on the Federal eRulemaking Portal, or you may inspect them on regular business days by making arrangements with the contact person shown in this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marg Handel, Supervisory Social Insurance Specialist, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, 239 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,

(410)965-4639 or TTY

(410)966-5609. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at *http://www.socialsecurity.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Version The electronic file of this document is available on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Background Sections 206(a) and 1631(d) of the Social Security Act

(Act)direct the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) to determine the maximum fees representatives may charge claimants for services that they perform in claims before the Social Security Administration

(SSA)under title II or title XVI of the Act. For claims under title II in which the claimant is found entitled to past-due benefits, section 206 of the Act further authorizes the Commissioner to pay attorneys' fees, approved by the Commissioner or by a Federal court, out of a portion of the past-due benefits in the case. Prior to enactment of the SSPA (Pub. L. 108-203), we were not authorized to withhold and pay fees approved for attorneys in title XVI cases or for non-attorney representatives in cases under either title of the Act. Direct Payment of Attorneys' Fees in Title XVI Section 302 of the SSPA amended section 1631(d)(2) of the Act to extend the attorney fee withholding and direct payment procedures to claims under title XVI of the Act. The amendments made by section 302 apply with respect to attorney fees that were first required to be paid from title XVI past-due benefits on or after February 28, 2005, and we began paying fees directly to attorneys in cases effectuated on or after that date. Section 302 includes a sunset provision. Under that provision, the amendments made by section 302 will not apply to claims for benefits with respect to which the claimant and the representative enter into the agreement for representation after February 28, 2010. Direct Payment of Fees to Eligible Non-Attorney Representatives Section 303 of the SSPA directs the Commissioner to carry out a 5-year nationwide demonstration project to determine the potential results of extending the fee withholding and direct payment procedures that apply to attorneys under titles II and XVI of the Act, to non-attorney representatives who meet certain minimum prerequisites specified in section 303 and any additional prerequisites that the Commissioner may prescribe. Under the prerequisites specified in section 303, individuals applying to participate in the demonstration project must have a bachelor's degree or equivalent education, possess liability insurance or equivalent insurance adequate to protect claimants in the event of malpractice by the representative, pass a criminal background check ensuring fitness to practice before SSA, pass an examination testing knowledge of the relevant provisions of the Act and the most recent developments in Agency and court decisions, and demonstrate ongoing completion of qualified continuing education courses. In addition, the Commissioner has required that individuals applying to participate in the demonstration project show that they have sufficient prior experience representing claimants before SSA. More detailed information about these prerequisites may be found in the **Federal Register** notices published at the start of the demonstration project in 2005 (70 FR 2447, January 13, 2005; 70 FR 14490, March 22, 2005; and 70 FR 41250, July 18, 2005). The 5-year demonstration project on direct payment of fees to eligible non-attorneys under section 303 of the SSPA commenced on February 28, 2005. We began making direct payment to non-attorneys under the demonstration project on July 28, 2005, the date on which we determined that the initial group of applicants had satisfied the prerequisites for participation in the project. The demonstration project established by SSPA section 303 applies to claims for benefits with respect to which the agreement for representation is entered into after February 27, 2005, and before March 1, 2010. In these interim final rules, we are amending our regulations to reflect the fact that non-attorney representatives participating in the demonstration project may have their approved fees withheld from their clients' past-due benefits and paid directly to them. Definition of “Past-Due Benefits” The amount of “past-due benefits” is important in calculating the fees of representatives and in determining the maximum amount we can pay directly for representation. Since we last defined the term “past-due benefits” in our regulations, there have been several legislative enactments that affect the definition of past-due benefits. In section 5106 of the OBRA (Pub. L. 101-508), section 321(f) of the SSIPIA (Pub. L. 103-296), and section 302 of the SSPA, the Act was amended to exclude from past-due benefits any continued benefits paid pursuant to § 404.1597a of part 404, any interim benefits paid pursuant to section 223(h) of the Act, any continued benefits paid pursuant to § 416.996 of part 416, any continued benefits paid pursuant to § 416.1336(b) of part 416, and any interim benefits paid pursuant to section 1631(a)(8) of the Act; to specify how a reduction under section 1127 of the Act (for receipt of benefits for the same period under both title II and title XVI) affects the past-due benefit computation; and to address the effect of interim assistance reimbursement payments. We are amending our regulations to reflect these statutory changes. Assessment on Direct Payment of Fees Section 406 of the TWWIIA (Pub. L. 106-170) amended section 206 of the Act by adding section 206(d), which imposed an assessment on attorneys for the services we provide in determining and paying fees directly to attorneys from the benefits due claimants under title II of the Act. When that provision took effect on February 1, 2000, the amount of the assessment was 6.3 percent of the direct payment amount, with a provision allowing the Commissioner to determine for future years the percentage (not to exceed 6.3 percent) necessary to achieve full recovery of the costs of determining and paying fees to attorneys. Effective September 1, 2004, section 301 of the SSPA revised section 206(d) to cap the assessment at the lesser of the amount calculated using the percentage rate determined by the Commissioner or $75, and to provide for annual adjustment of the $75 cap based on the cost-of-living computation in section 215(i)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Sections 302 and 303 of the SSPA extended this assessment to the direct payment of fees to attorneys under title XVI and to the direct payment of fees to non-attorney representatives participating in the demonstration project authorized by section 303. Explanation of Changes We are amending our regulations on representation in 20 CFR parts 404 and 416 to reflect the legislative changes to sections 206, 1127 and 1631(d) of the Act that were enacted under section 5106 of OBRA, section 321(f) of the SSIPIA, section 406 of the TWWIIA, and sections 301 and 302 of the SSPA. In addition, we are revising the regulations to reflect the provisions of section 303 of the SSPA. We are making only those substantive changes necessary to conform our regulations to these currently applicable statutory provisions. In these changes we are: • Amending § 404.1703 to revise the definition of “past-due benefits” to explain that we determine past-due benefits before any applicable reduction for receipt of benefits for the same period under title XVI and that past-due benefits do not include continued payment of disability benefits during appeal or interim benefits in cases of delayed final decision. • Adding to § 416.1503 the definition of “past-due benefits” for title XVI benefits to explain that when we determine the amount of past-due benefits, we subtract the amount of any reduction under section 1127 for the concurrent receipt of benefits for the same period under both title II and title XVI, regardless of whether the actual reduction was applied to the title II benefits or to the title XVI benefits, and that past-due benefits do not include continued benefits or interim benefits. • Adding new §§ 404.1717 and 416.1517 to reflect the demonstration project extending benefit withholding and direct fee payment to non-attorneys under title II and title XVI. These sections also define “eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project” and describe the claims to which the demonstration project applies. • Amending § 404.1720 to revise paragraph (b)(4) to provide that we make direct fee payments from title II past-due benefits both to attorneys and to non-attorney representatives eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project, and that we assume no responsibility for the payment of any fee that we have authorized to a non-attorney if the representative is not eligible to participate in the demonstration project. We are also revising paragraph (c)(3) to provide that our notice of a fee determination will state whether we are responsible for paying the representative's fee from past-due benefits. • Amending § 416.1520 to add a new paragraph (b)(4) stating that we make direct payment of fees from past-due benefits under title XVI to attorneys and to non-attorneys eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project, and that we assume no responsibility for the payment of any fee that we have authorized to a non-attorney if the representative is not eligible to participate in the demonstration project. We are revising paragraph (c)(3) to state that our notice of fee determination will state whether we are responsible for paying the fee, rather than that we are not responsible for paying the fee. We are also revising paragraph (d)(3) to state that we assume no responsibility for fee payment based on a revised determination if the representative does not file the request for administrative review timely. • Revising § 416.1528 to place the existing text in a newly designated paragraph

(a)having the heading, “Representation of a party in court proceedings” and to add a new paragraph

(b)that has the heading “Attorney fee allowed by a Federal court.” Paragraph

(b)states that the court may allow a reasonable fee to an attorney as part of its favorable judgment in a proceeding under title XVI of the Act and that we may pay the attorney the amount of the fee out of, but not in addition to, the amount of the past-due benefits payable to the claimant by reason of the court judgment. • Amending § 404.1730 to insert a previously omitted “the” in paragraph (a), to add a cross-reference to the definition of “past-due benefits” in § 404.1703, and to reflect in paragraphs

(b)and

(c)the extension of the direct payment of fees from past-due benefits under title II to non-attorneys eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project. We are also adding a new paragraph

(d)to reflect that we impose an assessment on the representative when we pay a fee directly to the representative; to explain how we calculate the assessment; and to state that the representative may not, directly or indirectly, request or otherwise obtain reimbursement of the amount of the assessment from the claimant. • Adding new § 416.1530 to state that direct payment of fees under title XVI extends to attorneys for fees we authorize and for fees a Federal court allows, and extends to non-attorneys eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project for fees we authorize. This section also describes the maximum amount we will pay to the representative; shows that we impose an assessment on the representative when we pay a fee directly to the representative; explains how we calculate the assessment; and states that the representative may not, directly or indirectly, request or otherwise obtain reimbursement of the amount of the assessment from the claimant. In addition to these substantive changes, we are revising §§ 404.1720(b)(4) and 404.1730(a), (b), and

(c)to refer to the person claiming a right under the old-age, disability, dependents', or survivors' benefits program in the second person, and thus make the language in these sections consistent with the use of the second person throughout the regulations. Regulatory Procedures Pursuant to sections 205(a), 702(a)(5) and 1631(d)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(a), 902(a)(5) and 1383(d)(1), we follow the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 in the development of our regulations. The APA provides exceptions to its prior notice and public comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In the case of these rules, we believe that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), good cause exists for issuing these regulatory changes as interim final rules, without prior public comment. In these rules, we are merely revising our existing regulations on representation of parties to reflect statutory changes made by section 5106 of OBRA, section 321(f) of the SSIPIA, section 406 of the TWWIIA, and sections 301, 302 and 303 of the SSPA. Our intent is to conform our regulations to the changes enacted in those statutes, all of which are already in effect and all of which we have already implemented. We also have no discretion not to apply these statutory enactments. Therefore, we believe opportunity for prior public comment is unnecessary, and we are issuing these regulations as interim final rules. However, we recognize that the statutory provisions reflected in these rules are of considerable importance to those who are affected by them. We also are considering the possibility that some affected individuals may disagree with our interpretation of the numerous statutory provisions reflected in these interim final rules. Therefore, we are inviting public comment on the changes made by these interim final rules, and will consider any responsive comments received within 60 days of the publication of these interim final rules. In addition, we find good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of a substantive rule, provided for by 5 U.S.C. 553(d). As explained above, we are revising our title II and title XVI rules on representation of parties to reflect legislative provisions that are already in effect, and that we have been applying since they became effective. Without these changes, our rules will not reflect current law or our operating policy and procedures, and thus may mislead the public. Therefore, we find that it is in the public interest to make these rules effective upon publication. Executive Order 12866 We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and determined that these interim final rules meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258. Thus, they were subject to OMB review. We have also determined that these rules meet the plain language requirement of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Also, these final regulations simply reflect legislation already in effect. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act These rules contain reporting requirements at §§ 404.1717, 404.1730(c)(1), 404.1730(c)(2)(i), 404.1730(c)(2)(ii), 416.1528(a), 416.1530(c)(1), 416.1530(c)(2)(i), and 416.1530(c)(2)(ii). Following is a chart describing the burdens posed by these regulation sections. Most of the Information Collections contained in this rule have been cleared under pre-existing OMB control numbers 0960-0699 (Non-Attorney Representative Demonstration Project), 0960-0737 (Continuing Education Information Collection under Non-Attorney Demonstration Project), and 0960-0104 (SSA-1560-U4, the Petition to Obtain Approval of a Fee for Representing a Claimant before the Social Security Administration). The 1-hour placeholder burden figures in the chart indicate that the burdens for these sections were already cleared by OMB in ICRs submitted prior to the publication of these interim final rules. For the sections not covered by existing Information Collections, we have provided specific burden information. Regulation section Description of public reporting requirement Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) 404.1717 To establish eligibility to participate in the demonstration project 1 hour (placeholder burden). 404.1730(c)(1) To receive direct payment of fees from beneficiaries' past-due benefits, their representatives must file a request for approval of a fee, or written notice of intent to file a request, at an SSA office within 60 days of the date a favorable determination notice is mailed 1 hour (placeholder burden). 404.1730(c)(2)(i) If representatives do not file a request within 60 days, they will receive a notice telling them to do so within 20 days of the notice date 841 10 30 4,205 404.1730(c)(2)(ii) Representatives must send beneficiaries copies of time extension requests they made to SSA 600 1 3 30 416.1517 Same as for 404.1717, except this section applies to Title XVI beneficiaries 1 hour (placeholder burden). 416.1528(a) If representatives have provided the beneficiary services relating to dealings with SSA, they must specify what portion of the fee they want to charge for those services; representatives must file the request for charging fees 1 hour (placeholder burden). 416.1530(c)(1) Same as for 404.1730(c)(1), except this section applies to Title XVI beneficiaries 1 1 1 1 hour (placeholder burden). 416.1530(c)(2)(i) Same as for 404.1730(c)(2)(i), except this section applies to Title XVI beneficiaries 561 10 30 2,805 416.1530(c)(2)(ii) Same as for 404.1730(c)(2)(ii), except this section applies to Title XVI beneficiaries 400 1 3 20 Totals N/A 2,402 7,065 Information Collection Requests have been submitted to OMB for those information collections that require revisions as a result of this rule. While these rules will be effective upon publication, these burdens will not be effective until cleared by OMB. We will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** upon OMB approval of the information collection requirement(s). Not all Information Collections will be revised as a result of this rule. Nevertheless, we are soliciting comments on the burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be faxed or e-mailed to the OMB desk officer for SSA at the following fax number or e-mail address: Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax Number: 202-395-6974, E-mail address: *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov* . A comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule. To receive a copy of the OMB clearance package, you may call the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or e-mail at *OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security-Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security-Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security-Survivors Insurance; and 96.006, Supplemental Security Income) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404 Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security. 20 CFR Part 416 Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income. Dated: December 1, 2006. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending subpart R of part 404 and subpart O of part 416 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILTIY INSURANCE (1950-) Subpart R—[Amended] 1. Revise the authority citation for subpart R of part 404 to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 205(a), 206, 702(a)(5), and 1127 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), 406, 902(a)(5), and 1320a-6); sec. 303, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 493. 2. Amend § 404.1703 by revising the definition of “past-due benefits” to read as follows: § 404.1703 Definitions. *Past-due benefits* means the total amount of benefits under title II of the Act that has accumulated to all beneficiaries because of a favorable administrative or judicial determination or decision, up to but not including the month the determination or decision is made. For purposes of calculating fees for representation, we determine past-due benefits before any applicable reduction under section 1127 of the Act (for receipt of benefits for the same period under title XVI). Past-due benefits do not include:

(1)Continued benefits paid pursuant to § 404.1597a of this part; or

(2)Interim benefits paid pursuant to section 223(h) of the Act. 3. Add § 404.1717 to read as follows: § 404.1717 Demonstration project on direct payment of fees to non-attorneys.

(a)Section 303 of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA), Public Law 108-203, requires the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) to develop and implement a 5-year nationwide demonstration project that extends attorney fee withholding and direct payment procedures to any non-attorney representative who meets minimum prerequisites for participating in the project specified in section 303 of the SSPA and any additional prerequisites prescribed by the Commissioner. The objective of the demonstration project is to determine the effect of extending to certain non-attorneys the fee withholding and direct payment procedures that apply to attorneys. A final report on the results of the demonstration project is to be completed and transmitted to Congress within 90 days of the project termination date, February 28, 2010.

(b)As used in this subpart, the term “eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project” refers to the status of a non-attorney who we have determined meets the prerequisites for participation in the demonstration project.

(c)The provisions of section 303 authorizing the direct payment of fees to non-attorneys and the withholding of title II benefits for that purpose apply in claims for benefits with respect to which the agreement for representation is entered into after February 27, 2005, and before March 1, 2010. 4. Amend § 404.1720 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(3) to read as follows: § 404.1720 Fee for a representative's services.

(b)* * *

(4)If your representative is an attorney, or a non-attorney who is eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project, as defined in § 404.1717, and you are entitled to past-due benefits, as defined in § 404.1703, we will pay the authorized fee, or a part of the authorized fee, directly to the representative out of the past-due benefits, subject to the limitations described in § 404.1730(b)(1). If the representative is a non-attorney who is not eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project, we assume no responsibility for the payment of any fee that we have authorized.

(c)* * *

(3)Whether we are responsible for paying the fee from past-due benefits; and 5. Revise § 404.1730 to read as follows: § 404.1730 Payment of fees.

(a)*Fees allowed by a Federal court.* We will pay a representative who is an attorney, out of your past-due benefits, as defined in § 404.1703, the amount of the fee allowed by a Federal court in a proceeding under title II of the Act. The payment we make to the attorney is subject to the limitations described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(b)*Fees we may authorize—(1) Attorneys and non-attorneys eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project.* Except as provided in paragraph

(c)of this section, if we make a determination or decision in your favor and you were represented by an attorney or a non-attorney who is eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project, as defined in § 404.1717, and as a result of the determination or decision you have past-due benefits, as defined in § 404.1703, we will pay the representative out of the past-due benefits, the smaller of the amounts in paragraph (b)(1)(i) or

(ii)of this section, less the amount of the assessment described in paragraph

(d)of this section.

(i)Twenty-five percent of the total of the past-due benefits; or

(ii)The amount of the fee that we set.

(2)*Non-attorneys not eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project.* If the representative is a non-attorney who is not eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project, we assume no responsibility for the payment of any fee that we have authorized. We will not deduct the fee from your past-due benefits.

(c)*Time limit for filing request for approval of fee in order to obtain direct payment.*

(1)In order to receive direct payment of a fee from your past-due benefits, a representative who is either an attorney or a non-attorney who is eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project should file a request for approval of a fee, or written notice of the intent to file a request, at one of our offices within 60 days of the date the notice of the favorable determination is mailed. (2)(i) If no request is filed within 60 days of the date the notice of the favorable determination is mailed, we will mail a written notice to you and your representative at your last known addresses. The notice will inform you and the representative that unless the representative files, within 20 days from the date of the notice, a written request for approval of a fee under § 404.1725, or a written request for an extension of time, we will pay all the past-due benefits to you.

(ii)The representative must send you a copy of any request made to us for an extension of time. If the request is not filed within 20 days of the date of the notice, or by the last day of any extension we approved, we will pay all past-due benefits to you. We must approve any fee the representative charges after that time, but the collection of any approved fee is a matter between you and the representative.

(d)*Assessment when we pay a fee directly to a representative.*

(1)Whenever we pay a fee directly to a representative from past-due benefits, we impose an assessment on the representative.

(2)The amount of the assessment is equal to the lesser of:

(i)The product we obtain by multiplying the amount of the fee we are paying to the representative by the percentage rate the Commissioner of Social Security determines is necessary to achieve full recovery of the costs of determining and paying fees directly to representatives, but not in excess of 6.3 percent; and

(ii)The maximum assessment amount. The maximum assessment amount was initially set at $75, but by law is adjusted annually to reflect the increase in the cost of living. (See §§ 404.270 through 404.277 for an explanation of how the cost-of-living adjustment is computed.) If the adjusted amount is not a multiple of $1, we round down the amount to the next lower $1, but the amount will not be less than $75. We will announce any increase in the maximum assessment amount and explain how the increase was determined in the **Federal Register** .

(3)We collect the assessment by subtracting it from the amount of the fee to be paid to the representative. The representative who is subject to an assessment may not, directly or indirectly, request or otherwise obtain reimbursement of the assessment from you. PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart O—[Amended] 6. Revise the authority citation for subpart O of part 416 to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1127 and 1631(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1320a-6 and 1383(d)); sec. 303, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 493. 7. Amend § 416.1503 by adding a new definition, in alphabetical order, to read as follows: § 416.1503 Definitions. *Past-due benefits* means the total amount of payments under title XVI of the Act, the Supplemental Security Income

(SSI)program, including any Federally administered State payments, that has accumulated to you and your spouse because of a favorable administrative or judicial determination or decision, up to but not including the month the determination or decision is made. For purposes of calculating fees for representation, we first determine the SSI past-due benefits before any applicable reduction for reimbursement to a State (or political subdivision) for interim assistance reimbursement, and before any applicable reduction under section 1127 of the Act (for receipt of benefits for the same period under title II). We then reduce that figure by the amount of any reduction of title II or title XVI benefits that was required by section 1127. We do this whether the actual offset, as provided under section 1127, reduced the title II or title XVI benefits. Past-due benefits do not include:

(1)Continued benefits paid pursuant to § 416.996 of this part;

(2)Continued benefits paid pursuant to § 416.1336(b) of this part; or

(3)Interim benefits paid pursuant to section 1631(a)(8) of the Act. 8. Add § 416.1517 to read as follows: § 416.1517 Demonstration project on direct payment of fees to non-attorneys.

(a)Section 303 of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA), Public Law 108-203, requires the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) to develop and implement a 5-year nationwide demonstration project that extends attorney fee withholding and direct payment procedures to any non-attorney representative who meets minimum prerequisites for participating in the project specified in section 303 of the SSPA and any additional prerequisites prescribed by the Commissioner. The objective of this demonstration project is to determine the effect of extending to certain non-attorneys the fee withholding and direct payment procedures that apply to attorneys. A final report on the results of the demonstration project is to be completed and transmitted to Congress within 90 days of the project termination date, February 28, 2010.

(c)The provisions of section 303 authorizing the direct payment of fees to non-attorneys and the withholding of title XVI benefits for that purpose apply in claims for benefits with respect to which the agreement for representation is entered into after February 27, 2005, and before March 1, 2010. 9. Amend § 416.1520 by adding paragraph (b)(4) and revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (d)(3) to read as follows: § 416.1520 Fee for a representative's services.

(b)* * *

(4)If your representative is an attorney, or a non-attorney who is eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project, as defined in § 416.1517, and you are entitled to past-due benefits, as defined in § 416.1503, we will pay the authorized fee, or a part of the authorized fee, directly to the representative out of the past-due benefits, subject to the limitations described in § 416.1530(b)(1). If the representative is a non-attorney who is not eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project, we assume no responsibility for the payment of any fee that we have authorized.

(c)* * *

(3)Whether we are responsible for paying the fee from past-due benefits; and

(d)* * *

(3)*Payment of fees.* We assume no responsibility for the payment of a fee based on a revised determination if the request for administrative review was not filed on time. 10. Revise § 416.1528 to read as follows: § 416.1528 Proceedings before a State or Federal court.

(a)*Representation of a party in court proceedings.* We shall not consider any service the representative gave you in any proceeding before a State or Federal court to be services as a representative in dealings with us. However, if the representative also has given service to you in the same connection in any dealings with us, he or she must specify what, if any, portion of the fee he or she wants to charge is for services performed in dealings with us. If the representative charges any fee for those services, he or she must file the request and furnish all of the information required by § 416.1525.

(b)*Attorney fee allowed by a Federal court.* If a Federal court in any proceeding under title XVI of the Act makes a judgment in favor of the claimant who was represented before the court by an attorney, and the court, under section 1631(d)(2) of the Act, allows to the attorney as part of its judgment a fee not in excess of 25 percent of the total of past-due benefits to which the claimant is eligible by reason of the judgment, we may pay the attorney the amount of the fee out of, but not in addition to, the amount of the past-due benefits payable. We will not pay directly any other fee your representative may request. 11. Add § 416.1530 to read as follows: § 416.1530 Payment of fees.

(a)*Fees allowed by a Federal court.* Commencing February 28, 2005, we will pay a representative who is an attorney, out of your past-due benefits, as defined in § 416.1503, the amount of the fee allowed by a Federal court in a proceeding under title XVI of the Act. The payment we make to the attorney is subject to the limitations described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(b)*Fees we may authorize* —(1) Attorneys and non-attorneys eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project. Except as provided in paragraphs

(c)and

(e)of this section, commencing February 28, 2005, if we make a determination or decision in your favor and you were represented by an attorney or a non-attorney who is eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project, as defined in § 416.1517, and as a result of the determination or decision you have past-due benefits, as defined in § 416.1503, we will pay the representative out of the past-due benefits, the smallest of the amounts in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through

(iii)of this section, less the amount of the assessment described in paragraph

(d)of this section.

(i)Twenty-five percent of the total of the past-due benefits, as determined before any payment to a State (or political subdivision) to reimburse the State (or political subdivision) for interim assistance furnished you, as described in § 416.525 of this part, and reduced by the amount of any reduction in benefits under this title or title II pursuant to section 1127 of the Act;

(ii)The amount of past-due benefits remaining after we pay to a State (or political subdivision) an amount sufficient to reimburse the State (or political subdivision) for interim assistance furnished you, as described in § 416.525 of this part, and after any applicable reductions under section 1127 of the Act; or

(iii)The amount of the fee that we set.

(c)*Time limit for filing request for approval of fee in order to obtain direct payment.*

(1)In order to receive direct payment of a fee from your past-due benefits, a representative who is either an attorney or a non-attorney who is eligible to participate in the direct payment demonstration project should file a request for approval of a fee, or written notice of the intent to file a request, at one of our offices within 60 days of the date the notice of the favorable determination is mailed. (2)(i) If no request is filed within 60 days of the date the notice of the favorable determination is mailed, we will mail a written notice to you and your representative at your last known addresses. The notice will inform you and the representative that unless the representative files, within 20 days from the date of the notice, a written request for approval of a fee under § 416.1525, or a written request for an extension of time, we will pay all the past-due benefits to you.

(ii)The representative must send you a copy of any request made to us for an extension of time. If the request is not filed within 20 days of the date of the notice, or by the last day of any extension we approved, we will pay to you all past-due benefits remaining after we reimburse the State for any interim assistance you received. We must approve any fee the representative charges after that time, but the collection of any approved fee is a matter between you and the representative.

(d)*Assessment when we pay a fee directly to a representative.*

(1)Whenever we pay a fee directly to a representative from past-due benefits, we impose an assessment on the representative.

(2)The amount of the assessment is equal to the lesser of:

(ii)The maximum assessment amount. The maximum assessment amount was initially set at $75, but by law is adjusted annually to reflect the increase in the cost of living. (See §§ 404.270 through 404.277 for an explanation of how the cost-of-living adjustment is computed.) If the adjusted amount is not a multiple of $1, we round down the amount to the next lower $1, but the amount will not be less than $75. We will announce any increase in the maximum assessment amount, and explain how that increase was determined in the **Federal Register** .

(e)*Effective dates for extension of direct payment of fee to attorneys.* The provisions of this subpart authorizing the direct payment of fees to attorneys and the withholding of title XVI benefits for that purpose, apply in claims for benefits with respect to which the agreement for representation is entered into before March 1, 2010. [FR Doc. E7-6383 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CCGD05-07-023] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Willoughby Point Located on Langley Air Force Base, Back River, Hampton, VA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in support of the Langley Air Force Base Air Show event occurring on April 27, 28 and 29, 2007 on the Back River in the vicinity of Willoughby Point in Hampton, VA. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic on Back River as necessary to protect mariners from the hazards associated with the air show. DATES: This rule is effective from 2 p.m. on April 27, 2007 until 4:30 p.m. on April 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-07-023 and are available for inspection or copying at the Sector Hampton Roads, Norfolk Federal Building, 200 Granby St., 7th Floor, Norfolk, VA 23510, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sector Hampton Roads maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Norfolk Federal Building between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade TaQuitia Winn, Assistant Chief, Waterways Management Division, Sector Hampton Roads, at

(757)668-5580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM in the **Federal Register** . This safety zone of short duration is needed to provide for the safety of persons and vessels in the vicinity of the Air Show. Immediate action is needed to protect mariners and vessels transiting the area from the hazards associated with the airplanes flying overhead. However, advance notifications will be made via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Background and Purpose On April 27, 28 and 29, 2007, the Langley Air Force Base Air Show event will be held on Back River in the vicinity of Willoughby Point in Hampton, VA. Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the air show, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted and no vessels may anchor within the following area described below. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that encompasses all waters within the following area 37°-05′-35″ N / 076°-20′-47″ W, 37°-05′-46″ N / 076°-20′-04″ W, 37°-05′-12″ N / 076°-19′-59″ W, 37°-05′-12″ N / 076°-20′-18″ W in the vicinity of the Willoughby Point in Hampton, VA. This regulated area will be established in the interest of public safety during the Langley Air Force Base Air Show event and will be enforced from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on April 27, 28 and 29, 2007. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this regulation restricts access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because:

(i)The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration and

(ii)the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zone will be in place for a limited duration of time and maritime advisories will be issued allowing the mariners to adjust their plans accordingly. However, this rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in that portion of the Back River from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on April 27, 28 and 29, 2007. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade TaQuitia Winn, Assistant Chief, Waterways Management Division, Sector Hampton Roads at

(757)668-5580. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. An “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting & Record Keeping Requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 165 Subpart C as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add Temporary § 165.T05-023, to read as follows: § 165.T05-023 Safety Zone: Langley Air Force Base Air Show, Willoughby Point, Hampton, VA.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters within the following area of the Back River in the vicinity of Willoughby Point in Hampton, VA, encompassed by a line connecting in 37°-05′-35″ N / 076°-20′-47″ W, 37°-05′-46″ N / 076°-20′-04″ W, 37°-05′-12″ N / 076°-19′-59″ W, 37°-05′-12″ N / 076°-20′-18″ W.

(b)*Definition.* As used in this section: Designated Representative means Any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, VA, to act on his behalf.

(c)*Regulation.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone as described in paragraph

(a)of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.

(2)The operator of any vessel in the safety zone must:

(i)Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.

(ii)Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.

(3)The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads and the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, VA, can be contacted at telephone number

(757)668-5555 or

(757)484-8192.

(4)The Captain of the Port or his designated representatives enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM 13 and 16.

(d)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 2 p.m. on April 27, 2007, until 4:30 p.m. on April 29, 2007.

(e)*Enforcement period.* This regulation will be enforced from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on April 27, 28, and 29, 2007. Dated: March 19, 2007. Patrick B. Trapp, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads. [FR Doc. E7-6262 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 4 RIN 2900-AM60 Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Appendices A, B, and C; Correction AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule; correction. SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA)published a document in the **Federal Register** of March 20, 2007, revising its Schedule for Rating Disabilities, Appendices A, B, and C. The document inadvertently contained two typographical errors, and this document corrects those errors. DATES: Effective Date: This correction is effective April 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trude Steele, Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,

(202)273-7210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The VA published a document in the **Federal Register** on March 20, 2007, (72 FR 12983) revising its Schedule for Rating Disabilities, Appendices A, B, and C to include all current diagnostic codes. In FR Doc. E7-4914, published on March 20, 2007, two typographical errors were inadvertently published. This document corrects those errors. In rule FR Doc. E7-4914 published on March 20, 2007, (72 FR 12983) make the following corrections. On page 12984, in the third column, to the right of Diagnostic code No. 5264, the date “September 9, 1795” is corrected to read “September 9, 1975.” In addition, on page 12989, in the third column, to the right of Diagnostic code No. 9403, remove the phrase “criterion February 3, 1988” that appears immediately following the identical phrase “criterion February 3, 1988”. Approved: March 29, 2007. Robert C. McFetridge, Assistant to the Secretary for Regulation Policy and Management. [FR Doc. E7-6286 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P 72 65 Thursday, April 5, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service 7 CFR Part 3560 RIN 0575-AC66 Reserve Account AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Through this action, the Rural Housing Service

(RHS)is proposing to amend its regulation to change the requirements of the Reserve Account for the Sections 514/516 Farm Labor Housing program and the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing

(RRH)program. The intended effect of this action is to address reserve account requirements of new construction rental housing funded under Sections 514/516 and Section 515 and does not affect reserve accounts for existing portfolios. DATES: Written or e-mail comments must be received on or before June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to this rule by any of the following methods: • *Agency Web site: http://www. rurdev..usda.gov/regs.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Web site. • *e-mail: comments@one.usda.gov.* Include the RIN number (0575-AC66) and the word “MFH” in the subject line of the message. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Submit written comments via the U.S. Postal Service to the Branch Chief, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Submit written comments via Federal Express Mail or another mail courier service requiring a street address to the Branch Chief, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 300 7th Street, SW., 7th Floor, Suite 701, Washington DC 20024. All written comments will be available for public inspection during regular hours at the 300 7th Street, SW., address listed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tammy S. Daniels, Senior Loan Specialist, Multi-Family Housing Processing Division, Rural Housing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0781, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0781. *Telephone:* 202-720-0021 (this is not a toll-free number); e-mail: *tammy.daniels@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Classification This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule has been reviewed under E. O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted:

(1)Unless otherwise specifically provided, all state and local laws that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted;

(2)no retroactive effect will be given to this rule except as specifically prescribed in the rule; and

(3)administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division of the Department of Agriculture (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before bringing suit. Regulatory Flexibility Act The proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The undersigned has determined and certified by signature on this document that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking action does not involve a new or expanded program nor does it require any more action on the part of a small business than required of a large entity. Paperwork Reduction Act There are no new reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule. E-Government Act Compliance RHS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, by promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies in order to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information, services, and other purposes. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

(UMRA)This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Environmental Impact Statement This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” RHS determined that the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. Therefore in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Programs Affected The programs affected by this regulation are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under numbers 10.405—Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants; 10.415—Rural Rental Housing Loans; and 10.427—Rural Rental Assistance Payments. Federalism For the reasons discussed above, this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. Intergovernmental Consultation These loans are subject to the provisions of E.O. 12372 which require intergovernmental consultation with state and local officials. RHS conducts intergovernmental consultations for each loan in a manner delineated in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart J (available in any Rural Development office and on the Internet at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov* ). Background Information A life-cycle cost analysis that meets Rural Development approval will be prepared by the project architect. The life cycle cost analysis will be used to determine the expected usable life of a building component and furnishing and to determine which building components or furnishings are the most cost efficient over the life to the building. The reserve account deposit level will be maintained through steady deposits to meet the needs of the project as they become due. Adjustments may be made at five or ten year intervals, either through an updated Comprehensive Needs Assessment or a part of the original plan. The requirement for a life cycle cost analysis will be used for new construction rental housing funded under Sections 514/516 and Section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949. The new requirement is intended to assure quality construction as well as long term viability of complexes. Reserve levels will be based on life cycle costs in order to ensure necessary resources are available when needed to replace essential building components. Existing loan agreement forms will have an addendum that is properly executed by the borrower establishing the terms of the life cycle analysis and reserve requirement. The current interim final rule requires an annual minimum deposit of 1 percent of the total development cost be put in a reserve account. This regulatory change is proposed to assure that we have the reserve accounts properly sized to meet the capital needs anticipated at the time of construction. This change will only affect reserve account requirements of new construction rental housing funded under Sections 515 RRH or Sections 514/516 Farm Labor Housing. Due to the recent increase in the use of third party money to leverage Rural Development funding, the Agency has found that the arbitrary nature of the existing reserve account funding formula sometimes causes the reserve account to be set artificially high. While the objective of the proposed change is to primarily produce an accurately measured reserve account funding requirement, the change may actually lead to reduced funding levels in MFH new construction projects that utilize leveraged financing. List of Subjects in 7 CFR 3560 Accounting, Accounting servicing, Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Farm labor housing, Foreclosure, Grant programs—Housing and community development, Government acquired property, Government property management, Handicapped, Insurance, Loan programs—Agriculture, Loan programs—Housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Low and moderate income housing—Rental, Migrant labor, Mortgages, Nonprofit organizations, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Rural housing, Sale of government acquired property, Surplus government property. Therefore, chapter XXXV, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 3560—DIRECT MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING LOANS AND GRANTS 1. The authority citation for Part 3560 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1480. Subpart B—Direct Loan and Grant Origination 2. Section 3560.65 is revised to read as follows: § 3560.65 Reserve account. To meet major capital expenses of a housing project, applicants must establish and fund a reserve account that meets requirements of § 3560.306. The applicant must agree to make monthly contributions to the reserve account pursuant to a reserve account analysis developed by Rural Development which sets forth how the reserve account funds will meet the capital needs of the property over a 20-year period. The reserve account analysis is based on either a capital needs assessment or life cycle cost analysis, provided to Rural Development by the applicant. Dated: March 27, 2007. Russell T. Davis, Administrator, Rural Housing Service. [FR Doc. E7-6287 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AH76 Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the 2004 Edition of Section III, Division 1 and Section XI, Division 1 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code) and the 2004 Edition of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) to provide updated rules for constructing and inspecting components and testing pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints (snubbers) in light-water nuclear power plants. NRC also proposes to require the use of ASME Code Cases N-722 and N-729-1, both with conditions, and to remove certain obsolete requirements specified in § 50.55a. This action is in accordance with the NRC's policy to periodically update the regulations to incorporate new editions and addenda of the ASME Codes by reference and is intended to maintain the safety of nuclear reactors and make NRC activities more effective and efficient. DATES: Comments regarding the proposed amendment must be submitted by June 19, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include RIN 3150-AH76 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety on the NRC rulemaking Web site. Personal information will not be removed from your comments. *Mail comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, *ATTN:* Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. *E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov* . If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at

(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher

(301)415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov* . *Hand deliver comments to:* 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays. (Telephone

(301)415-1966). *Fax comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at

(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Banic, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone

(301)415-2771, *e-mail: mjb@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Summary of Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR 50.55a III. Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report IV. Availability of Documents V. Plain Language VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Environmental Assessment VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement IX. Regulatory Analysis X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Backfit Analysis I. Background The NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference the 2004 Edition of Section III, Division 1 and Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code and the 2004 Edition of the ASME OM Code. Section 50.55a requires the use of Section III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code for the construction of nuclear power plant components; Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code for the inservice inspection

(ISI)of nuclear power plant components; and the ASME OM Code for the inservice testing

(IST)of pumps and valves. In a separate proposed rule, published on March 13, 2006 (71 FR 12781), the Commission proposed to add language to the introductory paragraph of § 50.55a to establish the applicability of the conditions therein to licenses and approvals issued under Part 52. Specifically, that proposed rule would add two new sentences: “Each combined license for a utilization facility is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in § 50.55, except that each combined license for a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility is subject to the conditions in paragraphs

(f)and

(g)of this section, but only after the Commission makes the finding under § 52.103(g)” and “Each manufacturing license, standard design approval, and standard design certification application under part 52 of this chapter is subject to the conditions in paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(4), (c), (d), (e), (f)(3), and (g)(3) of this section.” The Commission expects that the March 13, 2006, proposed rule will become final before the proposed rule updating § 50.55a to the 2004 Edition. The net effect then is that combined licenses would be subject to the updated requirements when the rulemaking proposed in this notice becomes final. The ASME BPV Code and OM Code are national voluntary consensus standards, and are required by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, to be used by government agencies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. It has been the NRC's practice to review new editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes and periodically update § 50.55a to incorporate newer editions and addenda by reference. New editions of the subject codes are issued every 3 years; addenda to the editions are issued yearly except in years when a new edition is issued. The editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes were last incorporated by reference into the regulations in a final rule dated October 1, 2004, (69 FR 58804). In that rule, § 50.55a was revised to incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition and 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Sections III and XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code and the 2001 Edition and 2002 and 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code. The NRC is now proposing to incorporate by reference: Section III of the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV Code; Section XI of the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV Code subject to proposed modifications and limitations; and the 2004 Edition of the ASME OM Code. *The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations as follows:* 1. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), concerning components exempt from examination. 2. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) concerning the provisions of Code Case N-523-1, “Mechanical Clamping Devices for Class 2 and 3 Piping.” 3. Modify 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to implement Appendix VIII of Section XI of the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV Code. 4. Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) to require nondestructive examination

(NDE)provision in IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of Section XI when performing system leakage tests after repair and replacement activities. 5. Revise 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) to be consistent with the NRC's imposed condition for Code Case N-648-1 in Regulatory Guide

(RG)1.147, Revision 14. 6. Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) to correct a typographical error regarding an exponent in the evaluation of pressurized water reactor

(PWR)reactor vessel head penetration nozzles. 7. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) and associated paragraphs on the augmented examination of the reactor vessel. 8. Add a paragraph

(D)Reactor Vessel Head Inspections to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii) to require an inservice inspection program augmented by the provisions of ASME Code Case N-729-1, “Alternative Examination Requirements for PWR Reactor Vessel Upper Heads With Nozzles Having Pressure-Retaining Partial-Penetration Welds, Section XI, Division 1” subject to conditions and remove Footnote 10. 9. Add a paragraph

(E)Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Visual Inspections to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)—Augmented Inspection of Class 1 Components Fabricated with Alloy 600/82/182 Materials to require an inservice inspection program augmented by the provisions of ASME Code Case N-722, “Additional Inspections for PWR Pressure Retaining Welds in Class 1 Pressure Boundary Components Fabricated with Alloy 60/82/182 Materials, Section XI, Division 1” subject to conditions. II. Summary of Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR 50.55a The changes to paragraphs

(b)and

(g)of 10 CFR 50.55a are discussed below. Paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), and

(f)would remain unchanged because the requirements in these sections would not be changed by virtue of the incorporating by reference of the 2004 Edition of the ASME Code, Sections III and XI, and the OM Code. Section III, ASME BPV Code The proposed rule would revise § 50.55a(b)(1) to incorporate by reference the 2004 Edition of Section III of the ASME BPV Code. The NRC does not propose to adopt any limitations with respect to the 2004 Edition of Section III. Section Xl, ASME BPV Code The proposed rule would revise § 50.55a(b)(2) to incorporate by reference the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section XI, Division 1, subject to the proposed modifications and limitations discussed below: 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi)—Class 1 piping Paragraph 50.55a(b)(2)(xi) states that “licensees may not apply IWB-1220, “Components Exempt from Examination,” of Section XI, 1989 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and shall apply IWB-1220, 1989 Edition.” Subarticle IWB-1220 of the 1989 Edition of the ASME Section XI, exempts certain components (such as small bore piping) from the volumetric and surface examinations. However, welds or portions of welds that are inaccessible due to being encased in concrete, buried underground, located inside a penetration, or encapsulated by guard pipe were included in components for exemption from examination and incorporated in the edition and addenda of the ASME Section XI after the 1989 Edition. The NRC did not agree with the incorporation of these types of welds for exemption from examination because the NRC believed that these welds should be examined to monitor their structural integrity. Therefore, the NRC prohibited the use of 1989 addenda through the latest editions and addenda of the ASME Section XI regarding the application of IWB-1220 in Paragraph 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi) (64 FR 51394). The proposed revision would remove 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), thereby permitting the use of ASME Section XI IWB-1220 of any edition or addenda of ASME Section XI incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a. The condition placed upon Section XI, IWB-1220 in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi) is no longer necessary because

(1)licensees can select an alternate weld for inspection that does not have limitations,

(2)licensees have committed to perform augmented inspections of break exclusion zone

(BEZ)welds, which are located in inaccessible areas such as containment penetrations or encapsulated by guard pipe, to the extent practical under the BEZ criteria,

(3)Boiling water reactor

(BWR)licensees have followed the provisions of Generic Letter 88-01, “NRC Position on IGSCC [intergranular stress corrosion cracking] in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping,” and the associated NRC report, NUREG-0313, “Technical Report on Material Selection and Process Guidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping,” and the provisions of the BEZ criteria (Reference: Branch Technical Position MEB 3-1 attached to Standard Review Plan 3.6.2) apply to the examination of the welds such as those that are located inside containment penetrations or encapsulated by guard pipe, and

(4)licensees of plants whose construction permits were issued after January 1, 1971 are required to have ASME Class 1 and Class 2 components designed and provided with access to enable the performance of inservice inspections. 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii)—Mechanical Clamping Devices Paragraph 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) permits licensees to use the provisions of Code Case N-523-1, “Mechanical Clamping Devices for Class 2 and 3 Piping.” The proposed revision would remove 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) because Code Case N-523-2, which provides updated requirements to those of Code Case N-523-1, has been accepted in RG 1.147, Revision 14, “Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,” which is incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(I) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(ii). 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)—Appendix VIII Specimen Set and Qualification Requirements Paragraph 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) specifies implementation of Appendix VIII of Section XI, the 1995 Edition through the 2001 Edition of the ASME BPV Code with regard to ultrasonic examinations of piping systems. The proposed change would reference and allow the use of the 2004 Edition of the ASME Code. 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xx)—System Leakage Tests Paragraph 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) would be revised to require that after system leakage tests performed during repair and replacement activities by welding or brazing under the 2003 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2), NDE must be performed in accordance with IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of Section XI. This provision would require that

(1)the NDE method and acceptance criteria of the 1992 edition or later of Section III be met prior to returning the system to service, and that

(2)a system leakage test be performed in accordance with IWA-5000 prior to or as part of returning the system to service. Subarticle IWA-4540(a) of the 1995 edition of ASME Section XI requires that after welding on a pressure retaining boundary or installing an item by welding or brazing, a system hydrostatic pressure test be performed. The industry asserted that the hydrostatic pressure test creates a significant hardship. Subsequently, the ASME Committee developed Code Case N-416-3, “Alternative Pressure Test Requirements for Welded Repairs or Installation of Replacement Items by Welding Class 1, 2, and 3, Section XI, Div. 1,” which provides an alternative to the hydrostatic pressure test. (NRC has accepted Code Case N-416-3 in RG 1.147, Revision 14 which has been incorporated by reference and approved in 10 CFR 50.55a (70 FR 56809; Sept 29, 2005). Code Case N-416-3 allows that instead of performing a hydrostatic pressure test for welding and brazing repair/replacement activities, performing a system leakage test if two requirements are met. The first requirement is that a NDE be performed on welded or brazed repairs and fabrication and installation joints in accordance with the methods and acceptance criteria of the applicable subsection of the 1992 Edition of Section III. Depending on the category of the weld, the NDE must consist of, in most cases, radiography and examination by either the liquid penetrant or magnetic particle method. The second requirement is that prior to or immediately upon return to service, a visual examination (VT-2) of welded or brazed repairs, fabrication, and installation joints be performed in conjunction with a system leakage test at nominal operating pressure and temperature in accordance with paragraph IWA-5000 of the 1992 edition of Section XI. The technical provisions of ASME Code Case N-416-3 were incorporated into the 2001 Edition of ASME Section XI, IWA-4540(a) and maintained, with minor editorial changes, through the 2002 Addenda to ASME Section XI. The 2003 Addenda of the Code, IWA-4540(a) eliminated reference to the NDE requirements of the 1992 Edition of Section III. When the ASME developed the 2003 Addenda, the arguments in support of the Code action state that imposing the NDE requirement in accordance with Section III (i.e., radiography) on all repair and replacement activities is excessively burdensome. The industry argued that the purpose of the radiography requirements is to support the piping joint efficiency factors used in the design. As such, the requirements are appropriately imposed by the construction code or the design specification but radiography for repair and replacement activities would be excessive. The industry also contended that a system leakage test compared to a hydrostatic pressure test revealed very few cases in which leakage occurred at the hydrostatic pressure but not at the lower pressure of the system leakage test. Those cases involved only a small amount of leakage and the source of the leakage would not have been detected by additional NDE and is therefore not warranted. NRC observes that the arguments to eliminate the NDE are from an operational rather than a safety perspective. A safety assessment has not been provided to demonstrate that without volumetric examination, a system leakage pressure test alone provides a level of safety equivalent to a hydrostatic pressure test, only that a volumetric examination is excessively burdensome. NRC therefore concludes that to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety, when performing a system leakage test in lieu of a hydrostatic test after repair/replacement activities, a NDE must be performed. It must be performed in accordance with the NDE provision in IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of Section XI because the agency has already accepted this provision by virtue of approving Code Case N-416-3 in RG 1.147, Revision 14. That provision states that:

(a)The NDE method and acceptance criteria of the 1992 edition or later of Section III shall be met prior to return to service; and

(b)a system leakage test shall be performed in accordance with IWA-5000 prior to or as part of returning to service. 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi)—Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Requirements Paragraph 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi)(A) would be revised to be consistent with the condition for Code Case N-648-1, “Alternative Requirements for Inner Radius Examination of Class 1 Reactor Vessel Nozzles, Section XI, Division 1,” in RG 1.147, Revision 14, which requires the assumption of a limiting flaw aspect ratio when using the allowable flaw length criteria in Table IWB-3512-1 during an enhanced visual examination. *The proposed revision would state:* “A visual examination with enhanced magnification that has a resolution sensitivity to detect a 1-mil (0.001 inch) width wire or crack, using the allowable flaw length criteria in Table IWB-3512-1, 1997 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, with a limiting assumption on the flaw aspect ratio (i.e., a/l=0.5, where a and l are the depth and length of the crack, respectively), may be performed instead of an ultrasonic examination * * *”. This limitation is needed because visual examination cannot determine the depth of cracks. A visual examination requirement may be applied only when a limiting flaw aspect ratio of 0.5 is assumed. A flaw aspect ratio of less than 0.5 would not be conservative. As shown in Table IWB-3512-1, there are no flaw aspect ratios higher than 0.5. 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii)—Evaluation Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for PWR Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles In the 2004 Edition of ASME Section XI, IWA-3660 specifies evaluation procedure and acceptance criteria for flaws that are detected in upper and lower reactor vessel head penetration nozzles in PWRs. The procedure and acceptance criteria in IWB-3660 were adopted from Code Case N-694-1, “Evaluation Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for PWR Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles Section XI, Division 1.” Under IWB-3660, IWB-3662 specifies that the flaw shall be evaluated using analytical procedures such as those described in non-mandatory Appendix O, “Evaluation of Flaws in PWR Reactor Vessel Upper Head Penetration Nozzles,” to the ASME Code, Section XI. There is a typographical error in paragraph O-3220(b), equation S <sup>R</sup> = [ 1 −0.82R] −22 . The exponent should be −2.2, not −22. Paragraph 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) would be added to the regulation to ensure that the correct exponent is used. The exponent in Appendix O was shown to be erroneous by an NRC report, NUREG/CR-6721, “Effects of Alloy Chemistry, Cold Work, and Water Chemistry on Corrosion Fatigue and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Nickel Alloys and Welds,” April 2001. 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)—Augmented Examination of Reactor Vessel Paragraph 50.55a(g)(6)(ii) which requires a one-time augmented inservice inspection programs for those systems and components for which the Commission determines that added assurance of structural reliability is necessary would be removed. Paragraph 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) was incorporated in the regulations in 1992 to require all current licensees to conduct a one-time expedited implementation of the reactor vessel shell weld examinations specified in the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code, Section XI, Division 1, in item B1.10, “Shell Welds,” of Examination Category B-A, “Pressure Retaining Welds in Reactor Vessel,” in Table IWB-2500-1 of the ASME Code, Section XI. Since all the licensees have completed the subject augmented examination of the reactor vessel shell welds, the requirements in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) and associated subparagraphs are no longer needed. Future licensees need not conduct this augmented examination, because new Code provisions should adequately address the degradation to which the augmented examination was directed. 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D)—Augmented Inspection of PWR Reactor Vessel Heads. Paragraph 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D) of the proposed rule would be added to require licensees to comply with the reactor vessel head inspection requirements of ASME Code Case N-729-1, subject to conditions. Compliance to Code Case N-729-1 with conditions would be equivalent to complying with NRC Order EA-03-009, dated February 11, 2003, and First Revised Order EA-03-009, dated February 20, 2004. Footnote 10 to 10 CFR 50.55a would be removed because Code Case N-729-1, as conditioned, would replace the requirements of the NRC Order EA-03-009 cited in that footnote. *That footnote states:* Supplemental inservice inspection requirements for reactor vessel pressure heads have been imposed by Order EA-03-09 issued to licensees of pressurized water reactors. The NRC expects to develop revised supplemental inspection requirements, based in part upon a review of the initial implementation of the order, and will determine the need for incorporating the revised inspection requirements into 10 CFR 50.55a by rulemaking. Conditions are imposed on Code Case N-729-1 regarding inspection frequency, examination coverage, qualification of ultrasonic examination, and reinspection intervals. These conditions are being imposed to make the requirements in N-729-1 equivalent to those of the Order. 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E)—Augmented Inspection of Class 1 Components Fabricated With Alloy 600/82/182 Materials A new paragraph, 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E) Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Visual Inspections would be added to require all current and future licensees to apply ASME Code Case N-722, with conditions. The application of ASME Code Case N-722 is necessary because current inspections are inadequate and the safety consequences can be significant. NRC's determination that existing inspections of the reactor coolant pressure boundary

(RCPB)are inadequate are based upon the degradation of RPV head penetration nozzles at Davis-Besse and the discovery of leaks and cracking at other plants, such as Oconee and Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1. The absence of an effective inspection regime could, over time, result in unacceptable circumferential cracking or the degradation of reactor coolant system components by corrosion from leaks in the RCPB. These degradation mechanisms increase the probability of a loss of coolant accident. The inspections required by the 2004 edition of the ASME Code, Section are inadequate because Table IWB-2500-1, “Examination Category B-P of Section XI” only requires a visual examination of the reactor vessel during a system leakage test each refueling outage. Visual inspections may not detect gradual leakage as confirmed by industry experience. Both the NRC and the industry took short-term actions to address primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) in the RCS pressure boundary because of limitations of the ASME BPV Code inspection programs to address PWSCC in the RCPB. In addition to issuing bulletins, NRC issued Order EA-03-009 and First Revised Order EA-03-009 to quickly establish interim inspection requirements for RPV upper heads at PWRs. However, these measures addressed the issue only temporarily and for specific locations. The industry also responded with measures, but these were only short term, such as by specifying that a one-time bare-metal visual inspection of all RCS nickel-based alloy components and weld locations be performed within two refueling outages. ASME also took actions to address PWSCC. An ASME task group concluded that more rigorous inspections than those currently provided by the ASME Code are needed in the areas most susceptible to PWSCC. The task group developed ASME Code Case N-722 to enhance the current ASME Code requirements for detection of leakage and corrosion in the components considered to be susceptible to PWSCC. The code case specifies bare-metal visual examinations for all RCS pressure retaining components fabricated from Alloy 600/82/182 materials. This Code Case was approved by ASME in July 2005 and was published in Supplement 6 to the 2004 Code Cases; however, the Code Case is not mandatory for industry to follow. The Code Case improves upon existing ASME Code inspection requirements, because it specifies *bare metal* visual examinations; however, such examinations are inadequate. Visual inspections do not always detect through-wall leakage or related corrosion until significant degradation has occurred. Beyond the base metal visual inspection requirements and frequencies of inspections, ASME Code Case N-722 is relatively limited in scope. The NRC proposes to require non-visual inspection for items where leakage is identified in Class 1 components. The additional non-visual NDE would be required to determine whether circumferential cracking is present in the flawed material and if multiple circumferential flaws have initiated. Leakage detected by visual examination only identifies that a flaw exists, and is not able to characterize flaw orientations and locations. The NRC proposes to require NDE scope expansion once a circumferential flaw is identified in these components because once flaws are found, favorable conditions must be assumed to exist for additional flaws to develop in other similar components in similar environments. Circumferential cracking has occurred and is a particularly serious safety concern because it could, if undetected by NDE, lead to a complete severance of the piping and a loss-of-coolant-accident. Therefore, the NRC proposes to require the application of Code Case N-722 with additional conditions; namely, to require additional NDE when leakage is detected and expansion of the sample size if a circumferential PWSCC flaw is detected. Operating experience has shown that bare metal visual inspections alone are not sufficient and that NDE is necessary in order to detect cracking. ASME OM Code The proposed revision to § 50.55a(b)(3) would incorporate by reference the 2004 Edition of the ASME OM Code subject to no new modifications or limitations. Paragraph (b)(3)(iv)(D) would be revised to be less specific with regard to paragraph references in subsection ISTC [In-service testing, the Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants] to eliminate inconsistencies in paragraph numbering. This is considered to be an editorial change that does not affect the intent or implementation of the current modification regarding the discontinuance of Appendix II condition monitoring programs of check valves. III. Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report In September 2005, the NRC issued, “Generic Aging Lessons Learned

(GALL)Report,” NUREG-1801, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1, for applicants to use in preparing their license renewal applications. The GALL report evaluates existing programs and documents the bases for determining when existing programs are adequate without change or augmentation for license renewal. Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code is one of the existing programs in the GALL report that is evaluated as an aging management program

(AMP)for license renewal. Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL of the 2001 Edition up to and including the 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code for in-service inspection were evaluated in the GALL report and the conclusions in the GALL report are valid for this edition and addenda. In the GALL report, Sections XI.M1, “ASME Section XI In-service Inspection, Subsections IWB, IWC, and IWD,” XI.S1, “ASME Section XI, Subsection IWE,” XI.S2, “ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL,” and XI.S3, “ASME Section XI, Subsection IWF,” describe the evaluation and technical bases for determining the adequacy of Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL, respectively. In addition, many other AMPs in the GALL report rely in part, but to a lesser degree, on the requirements in the ASME Code, Section XI. The NRC has evaluated Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, 2004 Edition as part of the § 50.55a amendment process to incorporate by reference the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV Code to determine if the conclusions of the GALL report also apply to AMPs that rely upon the ASME Code edition that is proposed for incorporation by reference into § 50.55a by this proposed rule. NRC finds that the 2004 Edition of Sections III and XI of the ASME BPV Code are acceptable and the conclusions of the GALL report remain valid. Accordingly, an applicant may use Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV Code as acceptable alternatives to the requirements of the 2001 Edition up to and including the 2003 Addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, referenced in the GALL AMPs in its plant-specific license renewal application. Similarly, a licensee approved for license renewal that relied on the GALL AMPs may use Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME Code edition and addenda used in the plant-specific license renewal application as acceptable alternatives to the AMPs described in the GALL report. However, a licensee must assess and follow applicable NRC requirements with regard to changes to its licensing basis. The GALL report identified AMPs of the 2001 Edition through the 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code that require augmentation (additional requirements) for license renewal. These areas that require augmentation also apply when implementing the 2004 edition. A license renewal applicant may either augment its AMPs in these areas as described in the GALL report or propose alternatives for NRC review in its plant-specific license renewal application. IV. Availability of Documents The NRC is making the documents identified below available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods as indicated. Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC Public Document Room is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Rulemaking Web site (Web). The NRC's interactive rulemaking Web site is located at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . These documents may be viewed and downloaded electronically via this Web site. NRC's Electronic Reading Room. The NRC's public electronic reading room is located at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . NRC Staff Contact. Single copies of the **Federal Register** Notice (which includes the draft Environmental Assessment) and draft Regulatory Analysis can be obtained from Lee Banic, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 or at

(301)415-2771, *or via* *e-mail at: mjb@nrc.gov* . Document PDR Web ADAMS No. NRC staff ASME BPV Code* N/A X ASME OM Code* N/A X ASME Code Case N-722 X ML070170676 X ASME Code Case N-729-1 X ML070170679 X Proposed Federal Register Notice X X ML070240552 X Draft Regulatory Analysis X X ML070290497 X EA-03-009 X X ML030380470 X First Revised NRC Order EA-03-009 X X ML040220181 X GALL Report, NUREG-1801 X ML012060392 ML012060514 ML012060521 ML012060539 X Staff Requirements Memorandum

(SRM)dated September 10, 1999 ML003751061 RG 1.147, Revision 14 X X ML052510117 X *Available on the ASME Web site. V. Plain Language The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” directed that the Federal government's writing must be in plain language. This memorandum was published on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comments on this proposed rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the ADDRESSES caption above. VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, requires agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Pub. L. 104-113 requires Federal agencies to use industry consensus standards to the extent practical; it does not require Federal agencies to endorse a standard in its entirety. The law does not prohibit an agency from generally adopting a voluntary consensus standard while taking exception to specific portions of the standard if those provisions are deemed to be “inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.” Furthermore, taking specific exceptions furthers the Congressional intent of Federal reliance on voluntary consensus standards because it allows the adoption of substantial portions of consensus standards without the need to reject the standards in their entirety because of limited provisions which are not acceptable to the agency. The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference a more recent edition of Sections III and XI of the ASME BPV Code and ASME OM Code, for construction, in-service inspection, and in-service testing of nuclear power plant components. ASME BPV and OM Codes are national consensus standards developed by participants with broad and varied interests, in which all interested parties (including the NRC and licensees of nuclear power plants) participate. In an SRM dated September 10, 1999, the Commission indicated its intent that a rulemaking identify all parts of an adopted voluntary consensus standard that are not adopted and to justify not adopting such parts. The parts of the ASME BPV Code and OM Code that the NRC proposes not to adopt, or to partially adopt, are identified in Section 2 of the preceding section and the draft regulatory analysis. The justification for not adopting parts of the ASME BPV Code, as set forth in these statements of consideration and the draft regulatory analysis for this proposed rule, satisfy the requirements of Section 12(d)(3) of Pub. L. 104-113, Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Circular A-119, and the Commission's direction in the SRM dated September 10, 1999. In accordance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and OMB Circular A-119, the NRC is requesting public comment regarding whether other national or international consensus standards could be endorsed as an alternative to the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code. VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability This proposed action is in accordance with NRC's policy to incorporate by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a new editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes to provide updated rules for constructing and inspecting components and testing pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints (snubbers) in light-water nuclear power plants. ASME Codes are national voluntary consensus standards and are required by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, to be used by government agencies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. NEPA requires Federal government agencies to study the impacts of their “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” and prepare detailed statements on the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action (United States Code, Vol. 42, Section 4332(C) [42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)]; NEPA § 102(C)). The Commission has determined under NEPA, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The proposed rulemaking will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents; no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off-site; there is no increase in occupational exposure; and there is no significant increase in public radiation exposure. Some of the proposed changes concerning ensuring the integrity of the RCPB would reduce the probability of accidents and radiological impacts on the public. The proposed rulemaking does not involve non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, no significant non-radiological impacts are associated with the proposed action. The determination of this draft environmental assessment is that there will be no significant off-site impact to the public from this action. However, the NRC is seeking public comment of the draft environmental assessment. Comments on any aspect of the environmental assessment may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading of this document. The NRC is sending a copy of the environmental assessment and this proposed rule to every State Liaison Officer and requesting their comments on the environmental assessment. VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule increases the burden on licensees to report requirements and maintain records for examination requirements in ASME Code Section XI IWB-2500(b). The public burden for this information collection is estimated to average 3 hours every ten years per request. Because the burden for this information collection is insignificant, OMB clearance is not required. Existing requirements were approved by the OMB, approval number 3150-0011. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. IX. Regulatory Analysis The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed rule. The draft analysis is available for review in the NRC's PDR, located in One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. In addition, copies of the draft regulatory analysis may be obtained as indicated in Section 4 of this document. The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis and comments may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this proposed amendment will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed amendment would affect the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set forth in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121. XI. Backfit Analysis The NRC's Backfit Rule in 10 CFR 50.109 states that the Commission shall require the backfitting of a facility only when it finds the action to be justified under specific standards stated in the rule. Section 50.109(a)(1) defines backfitting as the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position after issuance of the construction permit or the operating license or the design approval. Section 50.55a requires nuclear power plant licensees to construct ASME BPV Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components in accordance with the rules provided in Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code; inspect Class 1, 2, 3, Class MC, and Class CC components in accordance with the rules provided in Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code; and test Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints (snubbers) in accordance with the rules provided in the ASME OM Code. This proposed rule would incorporate by reference the 2004 Edition of Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code; Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code; and the ASME OM Code. Incorporation by reference of more recent editions and addenda of Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code does not affect a plant that has received a construction permit or an operating license or a design that has been approved, because the edition and addenda to be used in constructing a plant are, by rule, determined on the basis of the date of the construction permit, and are not changed thereafter, except voluntarily by the licensee. Thus, incorporation by reference of a more recent edition and addenda of Section III, Division 1, does not constitute a “backfitting” as defined in § 50.109(a)(1). Incorporation by reference of more recent editions and addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code affect the ISI and IST programs of operating reactors. However, the Backfit Rule does not apply to incorporation by reference of later editions and addenda of the ASME BPV Code (Section XI) and OM Code. The NRC's policy has been to incorporate later versions of the ASME Codes into its regulations. This practice is codified in § 50.55a which requires licensees to revise their ISI and IST programs every 120 months to the latest edition and addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in § 50.55a that is in effect 12 months prior to the start of a new 120-month ISI and IST interval. Other circumstances where the NRC does not apply the Backfit Rule to the endorsement of a later Code are as follows:

(1)When the NRC takes exception to a later ASME BPV Code or OM Code provision but merely retains the current existing requirement, prohibits the use of the later Code provision, limits the use of the later Code provision, or supplements the provisions in a later Code, the Backfit Rule does not apply because the NRC is not imposing new requirements. However, the NRC explains any such exceptions to the Code in the Statement of Considerations and regulatory analysis for the rule;

(2)When an NRC exception relaxes an existing ASME BPV Code or OM code provision but does not prohibit a licensee from using the existing Code provision, the Backfit Rule does not apply because the NRC is not imposing new requirements and;

(3)Modifications and limitations imposed during previous routine updates of paragraph 50.55a have established a precedent for determining which modifications or limitations are backfits or require a backfit analysis ( *e.g.* , final rule dated October 1, 2004 (69 FR 58804). The application of the backfit requirements to modifications and limitations in the current proposed rule are consistent with the application of backfit requirements to modifications and limitations in previous rules. There are some circumstances in which the endorsement of a later ASME BPV Code or OM Code introduces a backfit. In these cases, the NRC would perform a backfit analysis or documented evaluation in accordance with paragraph 50.109. These include the following:

(1)When the NRC endorses a later provision of the ASME BPV Code or OM Code that takes a substantially different direction from the existing requirements, the action is treated as a backfit, see, *e.g.* , 61 FR 41303 (August 8, 1996).

(2)When the NRC requires implementation of later ASME BPV Code or OM Code provision on an expedited basis, the action is treated as a backfit. This applies when implementation is required sooner than it would be required if the NRC simply endorsed the Code without any expedited language, see, *e.g.* , 64 FR 51370 (September 22, 1999).

(3)When the NRC takes an exception to a ASME BPV Code or OM Code provision and imposes a requirement that is substantially different from the existing requirement as well as substantially different than the later Code, see, *e.g.* , 67 FR 60529 (September 26, 2002). The backfitting discussion for the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 50.55a is set forth below: 1. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi) Concerning Components Exempt From Examination This change would remove an existing limitation on the use of 1989 Addenda and later editions and addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, regarding the use of subarticle IWB-1220 in the examinations of welds in the inaccessible locations. Licensees have either committed to perform augmented inspection or have followed the provisions of Generic Letter 88-01 and NUREG-0313 in examining the inaccessible welds. Therefore, this change is not considered as a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109. 2. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) Concerning the Provisions of Code Case N-523-1, “Mechanical Clamping Devices for Class 2 and 3 Piping.” Paragraph 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) states that “Licensees may use the provisions of Code Case N-523-1, “Mechanical Clamping Devices for Class 2 and 3 Piping.” Paragraph 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) does not require, but provides an option for, licensees to use Code Case N-523-1. In 2000, ASME updated Code Case N-523-1 to N-523-2 without changes to technical requirements. Code Case N-523-2, “Mechanical Clamping Devices for Class 2 and 3 Piping,” has been accepted in RG 1.147, Revision 14, which is incorporated by reference into paragraphs 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(i) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(ii). Code Case N-523-2 may be used by licensees without requesting authorization. According to RG 1.147, Revision 14, Code Case N-523-1 has been superseded by Code Case N-523-2. It is stated in RG 1.147, Revision 14, that “After the ASME annuls a Code Case and the NRC amends 10 CFR 50.55a and this guide [RG 1.147], licensees may not implement that Code Case for the first time. However, a licensee who implemented the Code Case prior to annulment may continue to use that Code Case through the end of the present ISI interval. An annulled Code Case cannot be used in the subsequent ISI interval unless implemented as an approved alternative under 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3) * * *” The NRC has not annulled or prohibited the use of Code Case N-523-1 in RG 1.147, Revision 14. Licensees who have used Code Case N-523-1 may continue to use it. The NRC is not imposing new requirements by removing 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii). Therefore, the removal of 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) is not a backfit. 3. Modify 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) To Implement Appendix VIII of Section XI, the 1995 Edition through the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV Code This change would update the edition of the ASME Code in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv), therefore, is not considered as a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109. 4. Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) To Require NDE Provision in IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of Section XI When Performing System Leakage Tests Subarticle IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, requires a NDE be performed in combination with a system leakage test during repair/replacement activities. Subarticle IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2003 Addenda through later editions and addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, does not specify a NDE after a system leakage test. The proposed addition would require, as part of repair and replacement activities, that a NDE be performed per IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, after a system leakage test is performed per subarticle IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2003 Addenda through later editions and addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI. As it is stated above, when the NRC takes exception to a later ASME BPV Code provision but merely retains the existing requirement, prohibits the use of the later Code provision, limits the use of the later Code provision, or supplements the provisions in a later Code, the Backfit Rule does not apply because the NRC is not imposing new requirements. The addition retains the system leakage test requirement in IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2003 Addenda through the later editions and addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, but supplements it with the NDE of IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of the Code. The proposed addition does not represent a new staff requirement because the NDE requirement is specified in previous addenda of the Code. Therefore, this change is not considered as a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109. 5. Revise 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) To Be Consistent With the NRC's Imposed Condition for Code Case N-648-1 in RG 1.147, Revision 14 This change would align the conditions imposed on visual examinations in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) with the conditions imposed on Code Case N-648-1 in RG 1.147, Revision 14 (70 FR 5680; Sept 29, 2005). The imposed conditions do not represent a new staff position. Therefore, this change is not considered as a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109. 6. Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) To Correct a Typographical Error Regarding an Exponent in the Evaluation of PWR Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles This change would correct a typographical error in an equation used in the flaw evaluation in the ASME Section XI. Therefore, this change is not considered as a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109. 7. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) and Associated Subparagraphs on the Augmented Examination of the Reactor Vessel This change would remove a one-time examination requirement which has been completed by all current licensees, and, therefore, is not considered as a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109. Future licensees will be subject to other Code provisions that preclude the need for this one-time examination. 8. Add Paragraph

(D)to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)—Augmented Inspection of PWR Reactor Vessel Heads The requirements in paragraph D, which impose ASME Code Case N-729-1 with conditions, were already imposed on existing licensees under NRC First Revised Order EA-03-009. Therefore, this requirement is not considered a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). 9. Add Paragraph

(E)to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)—Augmented Inspection of Class 1 Components Fabricated With Alloy 600/82/182 Materials The NRC proposes to add 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E) to require augmented inspections of Class 1 components fabricated with Alloy 600/82/182 materials. The augmented inspection will consist of the requirements in Code Case N-722 which specifies inservice inspection for PWR ASME Code Class 1 components containing materials susceptible to PWSCC and NRC imposed conditions to the Code Case to require additional NDE when leakage is detected and expansion of the inspection sample size if a circumferential PWSCC flaw is detected. The intent of conditioning the Code Case is to identify leakage of and prevent unacceptable cracks and corrosion in Class 1 components, which are part of RCPB. The proposed requirements may be considered backfitting under 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). However, the NRC believes that the requirements are necessary for compliance with Commission requirements and/or license provisions. Therefore a backfit analysis need not be prepared under the “compliance” exception in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i). The following discussion constitutes the documented evaluation to support the invocation of the compliance exception. As discussed earlier in Section 2, “10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E)—Augmented Inspection of Class 1 Components Fabricated with Alloy 600/82/182 Materials,” failure of the RCPB could result in unacceptable challenges to reactor safety systems that, combined with other failures, could lead to the release of radioactivity to the environment. Based on PWSCC experience in PWRs, the NRC concludes that there is a reasonable likelihood that PWR licensees would not be in compliance with appropriate regulatory requirements and current licensing basis with respect to structural integrity and leak-tightness throughout the term of the operating license, should PWSCC occur in their plants. The general design criteria

(GDC)for nuclear power plants (Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50) provide the regulatory requirements for the NRC's assessment of the potential for, and consequences of, degradation of the RCPB. The applicable GDCs include GDC 14 and GDC 31. GDC 14 specifies that the RCPB be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested so as to have an extremely low probability of abnormal leakage, of rapidly propagating failure, and of gross rupture. GDC 31 specifies that the probability of rapidly propagating fracture of the RCPB be minimized. The nuclear plants that were licensed before GDC were incorporated in 10 CFR Part 50 also would not be in compliance with their licensing basis which requires maintenance of the structural and leakage integrity of the RCPB. Leakage of primary system coolant as a result of PWSCC in Alloy 600/82/182 material is a non-compliance with GDC 14 and 31 and licensing bases because there have been many cases of leakage as a result of PWSCC of Alloy 600/82/182 material in PWRs. Therefore, leakage as a result of PWSCC has not been shown to be of extremely low probability (i.e. a non-compliance with GDC 14). In addition, the operating experience has shown that the crack growth rate of PWSCC in Alloy 600/82/182 material can be rapid. If PWSCC is not detected and removed, a crack, especially a circumferential crack in a pipe, would increase the probability of rapidly propagating fracture of RCPB (i.e, a non-compliance with GDC 31). Therefore, PWSCC in Alloy 600/82/182 material, if undetected, would be detrimental to the structural and leakage integrity of the RCPB. Code Case N-722 with conditions provides inspection requirements to detect PWSCC so that licensees can repair or replace the affected components, thereby maintaining the structural and leakage integrity of the RCPB, assuring an extremely low probability of abnormal leakage, and the minimizing the probability of a rapidly propagating fracture of the RCPB. The NRC concludes that licensees will not be in compliance with GDC and their licensing basis for structural and leakage integrity of Class 1 components that were made of Alloy 600/82/182 material throughout the term of their license (including any renewal periods) absent the imposition of Code Case N-722 with conditions. The NRC concludes, therefore, that the proposed 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E) is a compliance backfit under 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i). List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50. PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235), sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(d), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). 2. Section 50.55a is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(2)(xi) and (b)(2)(xiii), revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2)(xv) and paragraphs (b)(2)(xx) and (b)(2)(xxi)(A), adding paragraph (b)(2)(xxviii), revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(3) and paragraph (b)(3)(iv)(D), removing and reserving paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(A), adding paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(D) and (g)(6)(ii)(E), and removing Footnote 10. § 50.55a Codes and standards.

(b)* * *

(1)As used in this section, references to Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code refer to Section III, and include the 1963 Edition through 1973 Winter Addenda, and the 1974 Edition (Division 1) through the 2004 Edition (Division 1), subject to the following limitations and modifications:

(2)As used in this section, references to Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code refer to Section XI, and include the 1970 Edition through the 1976 Winter Addenda, and the 1977 Edition (Division 1) through the 2004 Edition (Division 1), subject to the following limitations and modifications:

(xi)[Reserved]

(xiii)[Reserved]

(xv)*Appendix VIII Specimen Set and Qualification Requirements.* The following provisions may be used to modify implementation of Appendix VIII of Section XI, 1995 Edition through the 2004 Edition. Licensees choosing to apply these provisions shall apply all of the following provisions under this paragraph except for those in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(F) which are optional.

(xx)*System Leakage Tests.*

(A)When performing system leakage tests in accordance with IWA-5213(a), 1997 through 2002 Addenda, the licensee shall maintain a 10-minute hold time after test pressure has been reached for Class 2 and Class 3 components that are not in use during normal operating conditions. No hold time is required for the remaining Class 2 and Class 3 components provided that the system has been in operation for at least 4 hours for insulated components or 10 minutes for uninsulated components.

(B)The NDE provision in IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of Section XI must be applied when performing system leakage tests after repair and replacement activities performed by welding or brazing on a pressure retaining boundary using the 2003 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(xxi)* * *

(A)The provisions of Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Full Penetration Welded Nozzles in Vessels, Item B3.40 and B3.60 (Inspection Program A) and Items B3.120 and B3.140 (Inspection Program B) in the 1998 Edition must be applied when using the 1999 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. A visual examination with enhanced magnification that has a resolution sensitivity to detect a 1-mil width wire or crack, utilizing the allowable flaw length criteria in Table IWB-3512-1, 1997 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, with a limiting assumption on the flaw aspect ratio (i.e., a/l=0.5), may be performed instead of an ultrasonic examination. (xxviii) *Evaluation Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for PWR Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles.* When performing flaw growth calculations in accordance with non-mandatory Appendix O of Section XI of the ASME Code, as permitted by IWB-3660, the licensee shall use exponent−2.2 as the exponent in the S <sup>R</sup> equation in Subarticle O-3220.

(3)As used in this section, references to the OM Code refer to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, and include the 1995 Edition through the 2004 Edition subject to the following limitations and modifications:

(iv)* * *

(D)The applicable provisions of subsection ISTC must be implemented if the Appendix II condition monitoring program is discontinued.

(g)* * *

(6)* * *

(ii)* * *

(A)[Reserved]

(D)*Reactor Vessel Head Inspections.* ( *1* ) All licensees of pressurized water reactors shall augment their inservice inspection program by implementing ASME Code Case N-729-1 subject to the conditions specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(D)( *2* ) through ( *6* ) of this section. ( *2* ) Item B4.40 of Table 1 must be inspected at least every fourth refueling outage or at least every seven calendar years, whichever occurs first, after the first ten-year inspection interval. ( *3* ) Instead of fulfilling the specified `examination method' requirements for volumetric and surface examinations of Note 6 in Table 1, the licensee shall perform a volumetric or surface examination or both of essentially 100 percent of the required volume or equivalent surfaces of the nozzle tube, as identified by Fig. 2 of ASME Code Case N-729-1. A surface examination must be performed on all J-groove welds. If a surface examination is substituted for a volumetric examination on a portion of a penetration nozzle that is below the toe of the J-groove weld (Point E on Fig. 2 of ASME Code Case N-729-1), the surface examination must be of the inside and outside wetted surfaces of the penetration nozzle not examined volumetrically. ( *4* ) Ultrasonic examinations must be performed using personnel, procedures and equipment that have been qualified by blind demonstration on representative mockups using a methodology that meets the conditions specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(D)(4)( *i* ) through ( *iv* ) of this section instead of using a methodology that satisfies the conditions specified by the qualification requirements of Paragraph-2500 of ASME Code Case N-729-1. ( *i* ) The diameters of pipes in the specimen set shall be within 1/2 in. (13 mm) of the nominal diameter of the qualification pipe size and a thickness tolerance of ± 25 percent of the nominal through-wall depth of the qualification pipe thickness. The specimen set must contain geometric and material indications that normally require discrimination from primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) flaws. ( *ii* ) The specimen set must have a minimum of ten

(10)flaws that provide an acoustic response similar to that of PWSCC indications. All flaw depths in the specimen set must be greater than 10 percent of the nominal pipe wall thickness. A minimum number of 30 percent of the total flaws must be connected to the outside diameter and 30 percent of the total flaws must be connected to the inside diameter. Further, at least 30 percent of the total flaws must measure from a depth of 10 to 30 percent of the wall thickness and at least 30 percent of the total flaws must measure from a depth of 31 to 50 percent of the wall thickness and be connected to the inside or outside diameter, as applicable. At least 30 percent, but no more than 60 percent, of the flaws must be oriented axially. ( *iii* ) The procedures must identify the equipment and essential variable settings used to qualify the procedures. An essential variable is defined as any variable that affects the results of the examination. The procedure must be requalified when an essential variable is changed to fall outside the demonstration range. A procedure must be qualified using the equivalent of at least three test sets that are used to demonstrate personnel performance. Procedure qualification must require at least one successful personnel performance demonstration. ( *iv* ) The test acceptance criteria for a personnel performance demonstration must meet the detection test acceptance criteria for personnel performance demonstration in Table VIII-S10-1 of Section XI, Appendix VIII, Supplement 10. Examination procedures, equipment, and personnel must be considered qualified for depth sizing only if the root mean square

(RMS)error of the flaw depth measurements, as compared to the true flaw depths, does not exceed 1/32-inch (0.8 mm). Examination procedures, equipment, and personnel must be considered qualified for length sizing if the RMS error of the flaw length measurements, as compared to the true flaw lengths, does not exceed 1/16-inch (1.6 mm). ( *5* ) If flaws attributed to PWSCC have been identified, whether acceptable or not for continued service under Paragraphs -3130 or -3140 of ASME Code Case N-729-1, the reinspection interval must be each refueling outage instead of the reinspection intervals required by Table 1, Note

(8)of ASME Code Case N-729-1. ( *6* ) Appendix I of ASME Code Case N-729-1 must not be implemented without prior NRC approval.

(E)*Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Visual Inspections.* ( *1* ) All licensees of pressurized water reactors shall augment their inservice inspection program by implementing ASME Code Case N-722 subject to the conditions specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(E)( *2* ) through ( *4* ) of this section. The inspection requirements of ASME Code Case N-722 only apply to components fabricated with Alloy 600/82/182 materials not mitigated by weld overlay or stress improvement. ( *2* ) If a visual examination determines that leakage is occurring from a specific item listed in Table 1 of ASME Code Case N-722 that is not exempted by the ASME Code, Section XI, IWB-1220(b)(1), additional actions must be performed to characterize the location, orientation, and length of crack(s) in Alloy 600 nozzle wrought material and location, orientation, and length of crack(s) in Alloy 82/182 butt welds. Alternatively, licensees may replace the Alloy 600/82/182 materials in all the components under the item number of the leaking component. ( *3* ) If the actions in paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(E)( *2* ) of this section determine that a flaw is circumferentially oriented and potentially a result of primary water stress corrosion cracking, licensees shall perform non-visual NDE inspections of components that fall under that ASME Code Case N-722 item number. The number of components inspected must equal or exceed the number of components found to be leaking under that item number. If circumferential cracking is identified in the sample, non-visual NDE must be performed in the remaining components under that item number. ( *4* ) If ultrasonic examinations of butt welds are used to meet the NDE requirements in paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(E)( *2* ) or (g)(6)(ii)(E)( *3* ) *of this section, they* must be performed using the appropriate supplement of Section XI, Appendix VIII of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of March, 2007. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E7-6379 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27768; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-174-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 and A340 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2797; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27768; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-174-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* 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 DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities

(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference

(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes. The EASA advises that Airbus has issued new fuel airworthiness limitations

(FALs)to address failure conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks or practices or both are not performed in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements. The new FALs are intended to satisfy the JAA's Interim Policy of Fuel Tank Safety and SFAR 88 requirements. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued A330 ALS—Airworthiness Limitations Section and A340 ALS—Airworthiness Limitations Section, both dated March 23, 2006. The Airbus A330 ALS and A340 ALS are repositories for stand-alone documents that are approved independently from each other, and both comprise the following documents: • ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items • ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items • ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements • ALS Part 4—(Reserved) • ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, refers to Airbus A330 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1932/05, Issue 2, dated October 26, 2006 (approved by the EASA on November 17, 2006). Airbus A340 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, refers to Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on April 28, 2006). Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Document 95A.1932/05 and Document 95A.1933/05 describes a certain repetitive FAL inspection. A FAL inspection is a periodic inspection of certain features for latent failures that could contribute to an ignition source. Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations,” of Document 95A.1932/05 and Document 95A.1933/05 identifies critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). A CDCCL is a limitation requirement to preserve a critical ignition source prevention feature of the fuel tank system design that is necessary to prevent the occurrence of an unsafe condition. The purpose of a CDCCL is to provide instruction to retain the critical ignition source prevention feature during configuration change that may be caused by alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions. A CDCCL is not a periodic inspection. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0205, dated July 11, 2006 (for Model A340 airplanes); and airworthiness directive 2007-0023, dated January 25, 2007 (for Model A330 airplanes); to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $4,320, or $160 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27768; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-174-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 7, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-243, A330-301, A330-302, A330-303, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-312, A340-313, A340-541, A340-642, and A340-643 airplanes; certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include a new inspection and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with the operator maintenance documents 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 and CDCCLs, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspection and CDCCLs 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 and CDCCLs that will preserve the critical ignition source prevention feature of the affected fuel system. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss 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. Revise Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)for Model A330 Airplanes

(f)For Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-243, A330-301, A330-302, A330-303, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.

(1)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined in Airbus A330 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1932/05, Issue 2, dated October 26, 2006 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)on November 17, 2006), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.” For the task identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1932/05, the initial compliance time starts from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, and the repetitive inspection must be accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1932/05.

(i)The effective date of this AD.

(ii)The date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness.

(2)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined in Airbus A330 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1932/05, Issue 2, dated October 26, 2006 (approved by the EASA on November 17, 2006), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.” Revise ALS for Model A340 Airplanes

(g)For Model A340-211, A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-312, A340-313, A340-541, A340-642, and A340-643 airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

(1)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A340 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined in Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on April 28, 2006), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.” For the task identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1933/05, the initial compliance time starts from the effective date of this AD, and the repetitive inspection must be accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1933/05.

(2)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A340 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined in Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on April 28, 2006), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.” No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs

(h)Except as provided by paragraph

(i)of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph

(f)or

(g)of this AD, as applicable, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

(j)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0205, dated July 11, 2006; and EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0023, dated January 25, 2007; also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-6231 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27777; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-265-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-53, DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-60F, DC-8-70, and DC-8-70F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas airplanes, identified above. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection to determine the configuration of the airplane (tee or angle doubler installed on the left and right side of the flat aft pressure bulkhead from Longeron 9 to Longeron 13). This proposed AD would also require repetitive inspections for cracking of the tee or angle doubler, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from a report indicating that numerous operators have found cracks on the tee. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct stress corrosion cracking of the tee or angle doubler installed on the flat aft pressure bulkhead. Cracking in this area could continue to progress and damage the adjacent structure, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 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 proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Mowery, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5322; fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27777; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-265-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* 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 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 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 DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that numerous operators have found cracks on the flat aft pressure bulkhead tee. The tee is installed on the left and right side of McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 airplanes that have a flat aft pressure bulkhead. The cracks, which originate in the corner radius of the tee from Longeron 9 to Longeron 13, are a result of stress corrosion. This condition, if not corrected, could result in cracks continuing to progress, and consequent damage the adjacent structure and loss of structural integrity of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A081, dated November 14, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing an initial inspection using one of the following methods as applicable: • For airplanes not previously repaired (Configuration 1), the service bulletin specifies doing the initial inspection for cracking of the tee installed on the left and right side of the flat aft pressure bulkhead from Longeron 9 to Longeron 13, according to one of three inspection methods specified in the DC-8 Supplemental Inspection Document

(SID)L26-011, Volume II, 53-10-18: Methods 01A (High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC)) and 01B (Ultrasonic) together; or Method 02 (HFEC); or Method 03 (Visual Aided). • For airplanes previously repaired with an angle doubler that was installed in accordance with DC-8 Structural Repair Manual 53-2-5, Figure 9 (Configuration 2), the service bulletin specifies an initial HFEC inspection for cracking of the angle doubler. • For airplanes previously repaired with any repair other than one installed in accordance with DC-8 Structural Repair Manual 53-2-5, Figure 9 (Configuration 3), the service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing for instructions. The service bulletin specifies the following actions, depending on crack findings: • If no crack is found, the service bulletin specifies repeating the applicable inspection. For Configuration 1 airplanes, the repetitive intervals depend on the inspection type chosen, and range from within 2 years after the previous SID inspection or 600 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier; to within 8 years after the previous SID inspection or 17,400 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier. For Configuration 2 airplanes, the repetitive interval is 4,500 flight cycles. • If any crack is found, the service bulletin specifies the corrective action of repairing the crack before further flight. The repair involves installing an angle doubler (if not previously installed) or removing the cracked angle doubler and installing a new one (if previously installed). The service bulletin states that the repetitive interval after repair is 4,500 flight cycles, and only the HFEC inspection type is specified for the repetitive inspections. The service bulletin also specifies that, for Configuration 1 airplanes, if maintenance records show that the flat aft pressure bulkhead tee was previously inspected using one of the three inspection methods specified in the DC-8 SID L26-011, Volume II, 53-10-18, and no crack was found, the inspections may be continued at the applicable repetitive interval specified for Configuration 1 airplanes on which no crack is found during the initial inspection. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” This proposed AD also would require determining the configuration of the airplane. Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance There are about 321 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 139 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Cost per airplane Fleet cost Inspection to determine the configuration of the airplane, and to determine previous inspection method 1 $80 $11,120. Configuration 1, per inspection cycle 11 $880, per inspection cycle Up to $122,320, per inspection cycle. Configuration 2, per inspection cycle 5 $400, per inspection cycle Up to $55,600, 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27777; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-265-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 21, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-53, DC-8-55, DC-8-61, DC-8-61F, DC-8-62, DC-8-62F, DC-8-63, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72, DC-8-72F, DC-8-73, DC-8-73F, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A081, dated November 14, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report indicating that numerous operators have found cracks on the tee installed on the left and right side of the flat aft pressure bulkhead from Longeron 9 to Longeron 13. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct stress corrosion cracking of the tee or angle doubler installed on the flat aft pressure bulkhead. Cracking in this area could continue to progress and damage the adjacent structure, which could result in loss of 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. Inspections and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions

(f)For all airplanes: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the left and right side of the flat aft pressure bulkhead from Longeron 9 to Longeron 13 to determine whether a tee is installed (also called Configuration 1 airplanes) or an angle is installed; and if any angle was installed in accordance with the DC-8 Structural Repair Manual 52-2-5, Figure 9 (also called Configuration 2 airplanes), or in accordance with any other repair method (also called Configuration 3 airplanes). A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the applicable installation can be conclusively determined from that review.

(1)For airplanes determined to be either Configuration 1 or Configuration 2: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable inspection for cracking of the tee or angle doubler, and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A081, dated November 14, 2006. Repeat the applicable inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A081, dated November 14, 2006.

(2)For airplanes determined to be Configuration 1 airplanes: A review of the airplane maintenance records to determine if the tee was previously inspected using one of the three inspection methods specified in the DC-8 Supplemental Inspection Document

(SID)L26-011, Volume II, 53-10-18; and to determine that no crack was found; is acceptable to determine the type of inspection and corresponding repetitive interval if the inspection type and crack finding can be conclusively determined from that review.

(3)For airplanes determined to be Configuration 3 airplanes: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, repair the previous installation. Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A081, dated November 14, 2006, specifies to contact Boeing for instructions, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, 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 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 29, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-6338 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27753; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-022-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found that the fuel quantity probes harnesses installed in the left and right wing stub tanks on some Embraer ERJ-170( ) aircraft models may not be protected in accordance with RBHA/FAR (Regulamento Brasileiro de Homologação Aeronáutica/Federal Aviation Regulation) 25.981(a) and

(b)requirements. The unsafe condition is potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27753; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-022-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-01-02, effective January 15, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found that the fuel quantity probes harnesses installed in the left and right wing stub tanks on some Embraer ERJ-170( ) aircraft models may not be protected in accordance with RBHA/FAR (Regulamento Brasileiro de Homologação Aeronáutica/Federal Aviation Regulation) 25.981(a) and

(b)requirements. The unsafe condition is potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The MCAI requires inspection of the fuel quantity probes harnesses and correct reassembly if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 170-28-0011, dated April 26, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 76 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 27 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $164,160, or $2,160 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2007-27753; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-022-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by May 7, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 17000005 through 17000013, 17000015, 17000016, 17000018 through 17000116, 17000118, and 17000119. Subject

(d)Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: It has been found that the fuel quantity probes harnesses installed in the left and right wing stub tanks on some Embraer ERJ-170( ) aircraft models may not be protected in accordance with RBHA/FAR (Regulamento Brasileiro de Homologação Aeronáutica/Federal Aviation Regulation) 25.981(a) and

(f)Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, make an inspection in the fuel quantity probes harnesses installed on both wings and reassemble them, as applicable, as described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-28-0011, dated April 26, 2006. FAA AD Differences **Note:** This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer; International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.

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

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-01-02, effective January 15, 2007; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-28-0011, dated April 26, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 26, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-6236 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27776; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-170-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to all Airbus Model A318-100, A319-100, A320-200, A321-100, and A321-200 series airplanes, and Model A320-111 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires an inspection to determine whether certain braking and steering control units (BSCUs) are installed or have ever been installed. For airplanes on which certain BSCUs are installed or have ever been installed, the existing AD requires an inspection of the nose landing gear

(NLG)upper support and corrective action if necessary, and a check of the NLG strut inflation pressure and an adjustment if necessary. For some of these airplanes, the existing AD also requires a revision to the aircraft flight manual to incorporate an operating procedure to recover normal steering in the event of a steering failure. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the NLG upper support, and related investigative/corrective actions in accordance with new service information; and would remove the one-time inspection that was required by the existing AD. This proposed AD also would provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD results from a report of an incident where an airplane landed with the NLG turned 90 degrees from centerline, and from additional reports of NLG upper support anti-rotation lugs rupturing in service. We are proposing this AD to prevent landings with the NLG turned 90 degrees from centerline, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2141; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27776; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-170-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . 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 DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On November 16, 2005, we issued AD 2005-24-06, amendment 39-14386 (70 FR 70715, November 23, 2005), for all Airbus Model A318-100, A319-100, A320-200, A321-100, and A321-200 series airplanes, and Model A320-111 airplanes. That AD requires an inspection to determine whether certain braking and steering control units (BSCUs) are installed or have ever been installed. For airplanes on which certain BSCUs are installed or have ever been installed, that AD requires an inspection of the nose landing gear

(NLG)upper support and corrective action if necessary, and a check of the NLG strut inflation pressure and an adjustment if necessary. For some of these airplanes, that AD also requires a revision to the aircraft flight manual

(AFM)to incorporate an operating procedure to recover normal steering in the event of a steering failure. That AD resulted from a report of an incident where an airplane landed with the NLG turned 90 degrees from centerline. We issued that AD to prevent landings with the NLG turned 90 degrees from centerline, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2005-24-06, several additional NLG upper support anti-rotation lugs have ruptured in service, which could lead to the inability to retract the NLG and possible landings with the nose wheel turned 90 degrees from centerline. Investigations showed that the affected airplanes were all equipped with enhanced manufacturing and maintainability

(EMM)BSCU (Standard L4.1 and L4.5). The NLG shock absorber was also found to be over-pressurized on some of these airplanes, which resulted in increased loads on the upper support. As a result, the manufacturer developed a repetitive boroscope inspection of the NLG upper support lugs and cylinder lugs to replace the one-time inspection, and an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a records review to determine if the airplane is equipped with or has ever been equipped with an EMM BSCU. For those airplanes that are equipped with an EMM BSCU, the service bulletin describes procedures for doing a repetitive special detailed inspection (boroscopic) for broken or cracked NLG upper support lugs and missing cylinder lugs, and related investigative/corrective actions. The related investigative/corrective actions follow: • If the upper support anti-rotation lugs are broken or cracked, or if a cylinder lug is missing: Do a pressure check of the NLG shock absorber (weight on and weight off wheels); report the measured pressure, ‘H’ dimension, temperature, and boroscopic inspection findings to Airbus for further assessment; and restore the NLG in accordance with Airbus recommendations. • If there are no findings: At the initial threshold inspection, do a servicing check (weight on wheels) of the NLG shock absorber. If the pressure is not within permissible tolerance, adjust the pressure and do the servicing check again with the weight off the wheels. If the pressure is not within permissible tolerance with the weight off the wheels, do a full service of the NLG shock absorber. The service bulletin states that it is not necessary to do these actions again at the repetitive intervals unless there is a finding during the boroscopic inspection. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, mandated the service information and issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0174, dated June 21, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2005-24-06 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD, except for the boroscope inspection required within 90 days specified in paragraph (i)(2), and the repair requirements of paragraph

(j)of AD 2005-24-06. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences among the Proposed AD, the EASA Airworthiness Directive, and the Service Bulletin.” Differences Among the Proposed AD, the EASA Airworthiness Directive, and the Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for further assessment of the reported measured pressure, ‘H’ dimension, temperature, and boroscope inspection findings of the NLG shock absorber, but this proposed AD does not require such reporting and assessment. The service bulletin also specifies restoring the NLG in accordance with Airbus recommendations, but this proposed AD would require restoring the NLG in accordance with a method approved by the FAA or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Changes to Existing AD We have changed the airplane model designations in the applicability and in paragraph (f), “Records Review,” of this proposed AD to be consistent with the parallel EASA airworthiness directive. We have clarified paragraph

(f)of this proposed AD to refer to BSCU standard L4.1 and L4.5, and added that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006, is one approved method for doing the records review. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 720 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Records review (required by AD 2005-24-06) 1 None $80 $57,600. AFM revision (required by AD 2005-24-06) 1 None $80 $57,600. Special detailed inspection in accordance with new service information (new proposed action) 1 None $80, per inspection cycle $57,600, 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14386 (70 FR 70715, November 23, 2005) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27776; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-170-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 7, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-24-06. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of an incident where an airplane landed with the nose landing gear

(NLG)turned 90 degrees from centerline, and from additional reports of NLG upper support anti-rotation lugs rupturing in service. We are issuing this AD to prevent landings with the NLG turned 90 degrees from centerline, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2005-24-06 Records Review

(f)Within 5 days after November 30, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-24-06), perform a records review to determine whether the airplane is equipped with or has ever been equipped with an enhanced manufacturing and maintainability

(EMM)braking and steering control unit

(BSCU)part number (P/N) E21327001 (standard L4.1, installed by Airbus Modification 26965, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1912) or P/N E21327003 (standard L4.5, installed by Airbus Modification 33376, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1261). Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006, is one approved method for doing the records review.

(g)For airplanes on which a records review required by paragraph

(f)of this AD conclusively determines that the airplane is not and never has been equipped with a BSCU P/N E21327001 or P/N E21327003, no further action is required by this AD. Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)Revision

(h)For airplanes that are not specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD and on which Airbus Modification 31152 has not been incorporated in production (i.e., applicable only to aircraft with steering powered by the green hydraulic system): Within 10 days after November 30, 2005, revise the Limitation Section of the Airbus A318/319/320/321 Aircraft Flight Manual

(AFM)to include the following information. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM: “The ECAM message, in case of a nose wheel steering failure, will be worded as follows: —“WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT” for aircraft with the FWC E3 and subsequent standards —“WHEEL N.W STEER FAULT” for aircraft with the FWC E2 Standard. • If the L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT ECAM caution is triggered at any time in flight, and the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM caution is triggered after the landing gear extension: • When all landing gear doors are indicated closed on ECAM WHEEL page, reset the BSCU: —A/SKID&N/W STRG—OFF THEN ON • If the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM caution is no longer displayed, this indicates a successful nose wheel re-centering and steering recovery. • Rearm the AUTO BRAKE, if necessary. • If the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM caution remains displayed, this indicates that the nose wheel steering remains lost, and that the nose wheels are not centered. —During landing, delay nose wheel touchdown for as long as possible. —Refer to the ECAM STATUS. • If the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM caution appears, without the L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT ECAM caution: —No specific crew action is requested by the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM caution procedure. —Refer to the ECAM STATUS.” Note 1: When a statement identical to that in paragraph

(h)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. New Requirements of This AD Inspection Thresholds

(i)For airplanes that are not specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD, at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do a special detailed inspection (boroscopic) for broken or cracked NLG upper support lugs and missing cylinder lugs, and do all applicable related investigative/corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with Airbus Technical Note 957.1901/05, dated October 18, 2005, or the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006. After the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1301, dated February 8, 2006, may be used. Where the service bulletin specifies that restoring the NLG is necessary in accordance with Airbus recommendations, this AD requires restoring the NLG in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)(or its delegated agent). Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph

(j)or

(k)of this AD.

(1)Within 100 flight cycles following an electronic centralized aircraft monitoring

(ECAM)caution “L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT” associated with at least one of the following centralized fault display system

(CFDS)messages specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), or (i)(1)(iii) of this AD.

(i)“N L/G EXT PROX SNSR 24GA TGT POS.”

(ii)“N L/G EXT PROX SNSR 25GA TGT POS.”

(iii)“N L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT 2526GM.”

(2)At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i)Within 20 months, 6,000 flight hours, or 4,500 flight cycles since the date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate, or French export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first.

(ii)Within 6 months, 1,800 flight hours, or 1,350 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Repetitive Inspection Intervals

(j)For airplanes not specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD that are equipped with EMM BSCU standard L4.1 or L4.5: Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the earliest of 6 months; 1,800 flight hours; 1,350 flight cycles; or 100 flight cycles following certain ECAM cautions and CFDS messages, as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(k)For airplanes not specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD that are equipped with EMM BSCU standard L4.8 or a non-EMM BSCU: Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the earliest of 20 months; 6,000 flight hours; 4,500 flight cycles; or 100 flight cycles following certain ECAM cautions and CFDS messages, as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.” Optional Terminating Action

(l)For airplanes that are not specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD: Installation of an NLG with new upper support anti-rotation lugs and new cylinder lugs, or installation of an NLG that was never driven by EMM BSCU standard L4.1 and L4.5; combined with installation of an EMM BSCU standard L4.8 or a non-EMM BSCU; constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. Do the installations in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Chapter 32 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual

(AMM)is one approved method for doing the installations. No Report Required

(m)Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006, specifies sending certain inspection results to Airbus, this AD does not include that requirement. Credit Paragraph

(n)Inspections done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Chapter 12, Subject 12-14-32 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM, as revised by Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM Temporary Revision 12-001, dated November 13, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

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

(p)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0174, dated June 21, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 26, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-6343 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD05-07-025] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Wicomico River (North Prong), Salisbury MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation regulations of two Maryland Department of Transportation

(MDOT)bridges: The Main Street and U.S. 50 Bridges, at mile 22.4, across Wicomico River (North Prong) in Salisbury, MD. This proposal would allow the bridges to open on signal if four hours advance notice is given and eliminate the continual attendance of draw tender services while still providing the reasonable needs of navigation. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at

(757)398-6222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD05-07-025, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like a return receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all submittals received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The State Highway Administration (SHA), a division under MDOT, is responsible for the operation of both the Main Street and US 50 Bridges, at mile 22.4, across Wicomico River in Salisbury. SHA requested advance notification for vessel openings and a reduction in draw tender services due to the infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridges. The Main Street and US 50 Bridges have vertical clearances of four feet, above mean high water, in the closed-to-navigation position. The existing operating regulations for these drawbridges are set out in 33 CFR § 117.579, which requires the draws to open on signal, except from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., from 12 noon to 1 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels, except for tugs with tows, if at least three hours of advance notice is given, and the reason for passage through the bridges during a closure period is due to delay caused by inclement weather or other emergency or unforeseen circumstances. Bridge opening data supplied by SHA revealed a significant decrease in yearly openings. In the past three years from 2004 to 2006, the bridges opened for vessels 522, 282 and 157 times, respectively. Due to the infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridges, SHA requested to change the current operating regulations by requiring the draw spans to open on signal if at least four hours notice is given year-round by calling the contact telephone number at

(410)430-7561. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.579, which governs the Main Street and US 50 Bridges, by revising the paragraph to read that the draws shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given by calling the telephone contact number at

(410)430-7461. Under this revision, there will no longer be closure periods. All vessels will be required to provide at least four hours notice. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning, and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners will no longer have to wait for closure periods to end, which will allow them to plan their trips without requiring a stop, so long as the four hour notice is provided. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule relieves restrictions to the movement of navigation, as mariners will no longer have to wait for closure periods to end, which will allow them to plan their trips without requiring a stop, so long as the four hour notice is provided. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, and

(757)398-6222. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Revise § 117.579 to read as follows: § 117.579 Wicomico River (North Prong). The draws of the Main Street and U.S. 50 bridges, mile 22.4, Salisbury, Maryland shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given by calling the telephone contact number at

(410)430-7461. Dated: March 29, 2007. L. L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-6303 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD08-07-007] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Mississippi River, Eighty-One Mile Point AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the existing regulated navigation area

(RNA)for the Lower Mississippi River

(LMR)mile marker

(MM)233.9 through South and South West Passes by establishing mandatory check-in procedures for vessels transiting on the waters of the Mississippi River between

(MM)167.5 LMR and 187.9 LMR. This proposed rule is needed to minimize the risk of collisions, allisions, and groundings occurring as a result of vessels meeting unanticipated traffic in the vicinity of 81 Mile Point, MM 178 LMR. This proposed rule would require vessels, subject to the Bridge to Bridge Radiotelephone Act (33 United States Code 26) to notify Vessel Traffic Center Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans (VTC New Orleans) prior to entering or getting underway in this section of the RNA. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge, 6041 Crestmount Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70809. Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Todd Peterson, Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge, at

(225)298-5400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-07-007], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a separate notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose From 1999 to 2006 there have been 64 reported collisions, allisions, or groundings on the Lower Mississippi River between MM 167.5 and 187.9. There have been 21 allisions, 2 barge breakaways, 13 collisions and 28 groundings. Of these 64 casualties, 3 were categorized by 46 CFR 4 as serious marine incidents and 5 as major marine casualties. These casualties have involved all sectors of the maritime industry including deep draft shipping, towing vessels, and barge fleets and have occurred at high, normal and low water conditions. A waterways user group subcommittee of the Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee (LMRWSAC) examined marine casualties on the LMR in the vicinity of 81 Mile Point. This subcommittee consisted of members of the pilots association, towing vessel industry, barge fleets and the Coast Guard. This subcommittee reviewed the location and marine investigation associated with each casualty and subjectively examined river conditions within this RNA. This committee determined that existing waterways management tools may not be sufficient to safely navigate in the vicinity of 81 Mile Point. Providing position reports to VTC New Orleans would allow the Coast Guard to track vessels in this proposed RNA and provide advice to mariners about upcoming traffic in an effort to eliminate meeting and overtaking scenarios at Eighty-One Mile Point. Discussion of Rule Vessels operating within this proposed RNA (MM 167.5 to MM 187.9) would be required to provide position reports to VTC New Orleans at the following locations: Vessels transiting upriver would provide position reports at MM 167.5 (Sunshine Bridge) and MM 173.7 (Bringier Point Light). Vessels transiting downriver would provide position reports at MM 187.9 (Cos-mar Light) and 183.9 (Wyandotte Chemical Dock Lights). Vessels getting underway within this RNA would provide position reports immediately before getting underway and at the above locations when heading upriver or downriver. Fleet tows operating within their fleet would not be required to report while within the fleet but would provide a position report if they left the fleet or moved into the channel. Position reports would be made on VHF Channel 63A and would provide the name of the vessel, size of tow if applicable including number of loads and empties, destination, and confirm proper operation of their AIS if AIS is required under 33 CFR 164.46. At the time of the position report, the VTC would advise the mariner operating the vessel on upcoming traffic. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The rule does not prohibit transit, but merely requires checking in with VTS New Orleans utilizing existing equipment. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This RNA will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule will not obstruct the regular flow of commercial vessel traffic conducting business within the RNA. It does not require the purchase of additional equipment and instead utilizes existing VHF capabilities already required by other laws or regulations. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please contact LT Todd Peterson, Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge at

(225)298-5400. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this proposed rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule fits in paragraph (34)(g) because it is a regulated navigation area. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 165.810 by adding paragraph

(g)to read as follows: § 165.810 Mississippi River, LA-regulated navigation area.

(g)*Movement of vessels in the vicinity of Eighty-One Mile Point, Geary LA mm 167.5-187.9 LMR.*

(1)Prior to proceeding upriver past MM 167.5, LMR, Sunshine Bridge, vessels shall contact Vessel Traffic Center

(VTC)New Orleans on VHF Channel 63A to check-in. Vessels must provide name, destination, confirm proper operation of their automated identification system

(AIS)if required under 33 CFR 164.46 and, if applicable, size of tow and number of loaded and empty barges. At MM 173.7, LMR, Bringier Point Light, ascending vessels shall contact VTC New Orleans and provide a follow-on position check. At both check-in and follow-on position check VTC New Orleans will advise the vessel on traffic approaching Eighty-One Mile Point.

(2)Prior to proceeding downriver past MM 187.9, LMR, COS-MAR Lights, vessels shall contact Vessel Traffic Center

(VTC)New Orleans on VHF Channel 63A to check-in. Vessels must provide name, destination, confirm proper operation of their automated identification system

(AIS)if required under 33 CFR 164.46 and, if applicable, size of tow and number of loaded and empty barges. At MM 183.9 LMR, Wyandotte Chemical Dock Lights, descending vessels shall contact VTC New Orleans and provide a follow-on position check. At both check-in and follow-on position check VTC New Orleans will advise the vessel on traffic approaching Eighty-One Mile Point.

(3)All vessels getting underway between miles 167.5 and 187.9 must check-in with VTC New Orleans on VHF Channel 63A immediately prior to getting underway and must comply with the respective ascending and descending check-in and follow-on points listed in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) above.

(4)Fleet vessels must check-in with VTC New Orleans if they leave their respective fleet or if they move into the main channel. Fleet vessels are not required to check-in if they are operating exclusively within their fleet. Dated: 23 March 2007. J. R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-6305 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AU77 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ceanothus ophiochilus (Vail Lake ceanothus) and Fremontodendron mexicanum (Mexican flannelbush) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, notice of availability of draft economic analysis, and amended Required Determinations. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for two southern California plants: *Ceanothus ophiochilus* (Vail Lake ceanothus) and *Fremontodendron mexicanum* (Mexican flannelbush). We also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed critical habitat designations and an amended Required Determinations section of the proposal. The draft economic analysis identifies potential costs will be $385,000 to $659,000 in undiscounted dollars over a 20-year period as a result of the proposed designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing and recovery. Discounted future costs are estimated to be $325,000 to $559,000 ($22,000 to $38,000 annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate, or $272,000 to $471,000 ($26,000 to $44,000 annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate. The amended Required Determinations section provides our determination concerning compliance with applicable statutes and Executive Orders that we have deferred until the information from the draft economic analysis of this proposal was available. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended Required Determinations section. DATES: We will accept public comments until May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any one of the following methods:

(1)*E-mail:* Please submit electronic comments to *fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov* . Include “RIN 1018-AU77” in the subject line. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .

(2)*Facsimile:* You may fax your comments to 760/431-5901.

(3)*U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011.

(4)*Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section (telephone: 760/431-9440). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed critical habitat designation for *Ceanothus ophiochilus* and *Fremontodendron mexicanum* published in the **Federal Register** on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58340), and on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

(1)The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), including whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat;

(2)Specific information on the amount and distribution of *Ceanothus ophiochilus or Fremontodendron mexicanum* habitat, what areas should be included in the designations that were occupied at the time of listing that contain the features that are essential for the conservation of the species, and what areas that were not occupied at the time of listing that are essential to the conservation of the species and why;

(3)Information concerning pollinator species for *Ceanothus ophiochilus* or *Fremontodendron mexicanum* and whether sufficient information exists to determine if such a biological feature should be considered a primary constituent element for either of these species (please see “Primary Constituent Elements” section of this proposed rule for a detailed discussion);

(4)Whether any areas not currently known to be occupied by either species, but essential to the conservation of either species, should be included in the proposed designation;

(5)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the mapped critical habitat subunits and their possible effects on proposed critical habitat;

(6)The appropriateness of excluding non-Federal lands that contain *Ceanothus ophiochilus* occurrences within areas targeted for conservation within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) from the final designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see *Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act* for details on the Western Riverside County MSHCP). Please provide information concerning whether the benefits of exclusion of any of these specific areas outweigh the benefits of their inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If the Secretary determines the benefits of including these lands outweigh the benefits of excluding them, they will not be excluded from critical habitat;

(7)The appropriateness of excluding lands that contain *Fremontodendron mexicanum* occurrences within areas of the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program

(MSCP)and areas of the Otay Mountain Wilderness managed by the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)covered by the 1994 multiple agency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU 1994) from the final designation of critical habitat. *F. mexicanum* is not covered by the MSCP; however, other species that co-occur with *F. mexicanum* are covered by the MSCP. Please provide comments on whether the protection and management of the habitat for these co-occurring species are adequate to justify the exclusion of these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Also, we are seeking any information on the benefits of including or excluding these lands from the critical habitat designation;

(8)The appropriateness of including lands in the Agua Tibia Mountains owned by the USFS and managed under its Land Management Plans for the Four Southern California National Forests from the final designation of critical habitat for *Ceanothus ophiochilus* . Please provide comments on how implementation of the management plan(s) in the Agua Tibia Mountains will or will not provide for conservation for *C. ophiochilus* . Also provide information on any minimization measures or monitoring plans for *C. ophiochilus* that will help insure that the occurrences of *C. ophiochilus* remain healthy and viable in the Cleveland National Forest. Finally, provide comments on the benefits of including or excluding these lands from the critical habitat designation;

(9)Whether the benefits of exclusion of any particular area outweigh the benefits of inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act;

(10)Information on the extent to which any State and local environmental protection measures referred to in the draft economic analysis may have been adopted largely as a result of the listing of *Ceanothus ophiochilus* or *Fremontodendron mexicanum* ;

(11)Information on whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation, and information on any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked;

(12)Information on whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;

(13)Information on whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat;

(14)Information on areas that could potentially be disproportionately impacted by designation of critical habitat for *Ceanothus ophiochilus* or *Fremontodendron mexicanum* ;

(15)Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, and in particular, any impacts on small entities or families; the reasons why our conclusion that the proposed designation of critical habitat will not result in a disproportionate effect to small businesses should or should not warrant further consideration; and other information that would indicate that the designation of critical habitat would or would not have any impacts on small entities or families;

(16)Information on whether the draft economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation; and

(17)Information on whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and comments. Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, an area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, national security, or any other relevant impact. All previous comments and information submitted during the initial comment period from October 3, 2006, to December 4, 2006, for the proposed rule (71 FR 58340) need not be resubmitted, as they are currently part of our record and will be considered in the development of the final rule. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES ). Our final designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we have received during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on this analysis, the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic analysis, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion. If submitting comments electronically, please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AU77” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analysis by mail from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) or by visiting our Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/* . Background On August 10, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society challenged our failure to designate critical habitat for these two species as well as three other plant species ( *Center for Biological Diversity et al.* v. *Gale Norton, Secretary of the Department of the Interior et al.* , C-04-3240 JL, N. D. Cal.). The Service agreed to withdraw our previous not prudent findings and submit for publication in the **Federal Register** a proposed designation of critical habitat, if prudent, on or before September 20, 2006, and a final critical habitat designation for these plants on or before September 20, 2007. In compliance with the court-approved settlement agreement, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for *Ceanothus ophiochilus* and *Fremontodendron mexicanum* on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58340). This rule identified a total of 644 acres

(ac)(262 hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for these two species. Approximately 283 ac (115 ha) of land in Riverside County, California, were proposed as critical habitat for *C. ophiochilus* , and approximately 361 ac (147 ha) of land in San Diego County, California, were proposed as critical habitat for *F. mexicanum* . Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Draft Economic Analysis Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based on the October 3, 2006, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for *Ceanothus ophiochilus* and *Fremontodendron mexicanum* (71 FR 58340), we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. The current draft economic analysis estimates the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and other conservation-related actions for these species on government agencies and private businesses and individuals. The draft economic analysis identifies potential costs will be $385,000 to $659,000 in undiscounted dollars over a 20-year period as a result of the proposed designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing and recovery. Discounted future costs are estimated to be $325,000 to $559,000 ($22,000 to $38,000 annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate, or $272,000 to $471,000 ($26,000 to $44,000 annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate. The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of *Ceanothus ophiochilus* and *Fremontodendron mexicanum* , including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to the designation of critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for *C. ophiochilus* and *F. mexicanum* in areas containing features essential to the conservation of the species. The draft analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, this draft analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date *Ceanothus ophiochilus* and *Fremontodendron mexicanum* were listed as endangered and threatened, respectively (October 13, 1998; 63 FR 54956), and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following a designation of critical habitat. As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on this draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposal. We may revise the proposal or its supporting documents to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. Required Determinations—Amended In our October 3, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 58340), we indicated that we would be deferring our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these determinations. In this notice we are affirming the information contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132; E.O. 12988, the Paperwork Reduction Act; and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). Based on the information made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 13211, E.O. 12630, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Regulatory Planning and Review In accordance with E.O. 12866, this document is a significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. Based on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for *Ceanothus ophiochilus* and *Fremontodendron mexicanum* , costs related to conservation activities for *C. ophiochilus* and *F. mexicanum* pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act are estimated to be approximately $385,000 to $659,000 in undiscounted dollars over a 20-year period as a result of the proposed designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing and recovery. Discounted future costs are estimated to be $325,000 to $559,000 ($22,000 to $38,000 annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate, or $272,000 to $471,000, ($26,000 to $44,000 annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate. Therefore, based on our draft economic analysis, we have determined that the proposed designation of critical habitat for *C. ophiochilus* and *F. mexicanum* will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the **Federal Register** , the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has not formally reviewed the proposed rule or accompanying economic analysis. Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once it has determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will then need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Act, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat. In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)) (SBREFA), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based upon our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments received, this determination is subject to revision as part of the final rulemaking. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations. To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for *Ceanothus ophiochilus* or *Fremontodendron mexicanum* would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (such as residential and commercial development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and thus will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation. If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process. In our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of *Ceanothus ophiochilus* and *Fremontodendron mexicanum* and proposed designation of its critical habitat. Impacts of conservation activities are not anticipated to affect small entities in the following categories: Development, fire management on Federal lands, alien plant species management on Federal lands, and other activities on Federal lands. Chapter 2 of the economic analysis concludes that no development is likely in proposed critical habitat. Rural, large lot development may occur in areas adjacent to proposed critical habitat; however, the likelihood of this type of development and whether it will pose a threat to the habitat is unknown. As described in Chapters 3 through 5 of the economic analysis, the modifications to activities on Federal lands, including fire management activities, alien plant species management, and surveying and monitoring activities, will be borne by the USFS and BLM. The Federal government is not considered to be a small entity by the SBA. Accordingly, the small business analysis contained in Appendix A of the economic analysis focuses on the economic impacts of fire management and alien plant species management activities on private lands. Two private landowners in Riverside County are included in areas proposed as critical habitat. The total economic impact for these two landowners over the next 20 years is estimated to be $3,000 to $4,000 per year for fire management activities, and $1,000 to $2,000 per year for alien plant species management. Whether these two landowners qualify as a small business is unknown. However, since no more than two potential small businesses are estimated to occur within the area proposed as critical habitat, we certify that this proposed regulation will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Please refer to our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts. Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed designation of critical habitat for *Ceanothus ophiochilus* and *Fremontodendron mexicanum* is considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due to its potentially raising novel legal and policy issues. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared without the regulatory action under consideration. The draft economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on the information in the draft economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with *C. ophiochilus* and *F. mexicanum* conservation activities within proposed critical habitat are not expected. As such, the proposed designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), the Service makes the following findings:

(a)This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. (At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.) “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except

(i)a condition of Federal assistance; or

(ii)a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.” The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.

(b)We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As discussed in the draft economic analysis, the majority (75 percent) of the lands proposed as critical habitat are either on Federal lands or on private lands covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The remaining 25 percent is privately-owned land. Consequently, since small governments do not appear to be effected by the proposed critical habitat designation, we do not believe that critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Executive Order 12630—Takings In accordance with E.O. 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for *Ceanothus ophiochilus* and *Fremontodendron mexicanum* in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat for *C. ophiochilus* and *F. mexicanum* does not pose significant takings implications. Author The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: March 26, 2007. David M. Verhey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-6186 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 72 65 Thursday, April 5, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CO-800][1920-PP-4070] Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision

(ROD)for the Northern San Juan Basin Coal Bed Methane Development Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, Colorado AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. U.S. Forest Service, Agriculture. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and other regulatory requirements, the Joint Lead Agencies announce the availability of the Record of Decision

(ROD)for the Northern San Juan Basin Coal Bed Methane Development Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)for natural gas development in La Plata and Archuleta Counties, Colorado. The Joint Lead Agencies have issued the ROD to document agency decisions, including selection of FEIS Preferred Alternative 7, with specific modifications and requirements for monitoring and mitigation. DATES: The ROD documents the Bureau of Land Management's

(BLM)and the U.S. Forest Service's

(USFS)decisions and describes the agencies' appeal processes and timeframes. Official notice of USFS appeal processes and timeframes will be published separately in the newspaper of record, the Durango Herald. Those wishing to appeal USFS decisions should rely on the information presented in that official notice when published. ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the ROD may be sent by mail to the San Juan Public Lands Center, 15 Burnett Court, Durango, CO 81301, *Attn:* Walt Brown, or by e-mail to: *nsjb-feis@arcadis-us.com.* The ROD is available electronically at *http://www.nsjb-eis.net* , or *http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/sanjuan/projects/projects.shtml.* Hard copies of the ROD are available for review at the San Juan Public Lands Center, 15 Burnett Court, Durango Colorado 81301, the Columbine Ranger District and Field Office, 367 Pearl Street, Bayfield Colorado 81122, and the Pagosa Ranger District and Field Office, 180 Second Street, Pagosa Springs, Colorado 81147. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walt Brown or Jim Powers at the above address, or *phone:* 970-385-1372. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FEIS analyzes industry's gas field development proposal (approximately 185 new gas wells involving federal authority) and four other alternatives in a 125,000-acre Study Area in the Northern San Juan Basin of Colorado. The Study Area occupies portions of La Plata and Archuleta Counties, and is bounded on the south by the Southern Ute Reservation and on the west, north and east by the arcing line of the base of the Pictured Cliffs sandstone. The Study Area consists of approximately 7,000 acres of BLM administered land, 49,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service administered land, 9,000 acres of private lands with federal minerals and 60,000 acres of state or privately held

(fee)lands with non-federal minerals. The ROD is based on the FEIS and its supporting project record. The ROD documents BLM and USFS project decisions, including selection of FEIS Preferred Alternative 7 (approximately 138 new gas wells involving federal authority), with specific modifications. The ROD also documents requirements for gas field development in the Northern San Juan Basin within the framework of modified Alternative 7, including monitoring, mitigation, and environmental protection measures. Dated: September 25, 2006. Mark W. Stiles, Center Manager/Forest Supervisor, San Juan Public Lands Center, Durango, Colorado. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on March 30, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-6291 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on April 12, 2007 at the U.S. Forest Service Office, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA, 96150. This Committee, established by the Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to provide advice to the Secretary on implementing the terms of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and other matters raised by the Secretary. DATES: The meeting will be held April 12, 2007, beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Forest Service Office, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA, 96150. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arla Hains, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150,

(530)543-2773. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Items to be covered on the agenda include:

(1)A public hearing on the Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committees' Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act Round 8 project recommendations; and,

(2)the Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committee Communications Plan. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above. Dated: March 29, 2007. Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 07-1670 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 46

Traces to 46 documents

U.S. Code