Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule with request for comments
18,739 words·~85 min read·
/register/2007/06/06/07-2734A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M 72 108 Wednesday, June 6, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 457 RIN 0563-AC00 Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Cultivated Wild Rice Crop Insurance Provisions AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
(FCIC)proposes to add to 7 CFR part 457 a new 457.170 that provides insurance for cultivated wild rice. The provisions will be used in conjunction with the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions, which contain standard terms and conditions common to most crops. The intended effect of this action is to convert the cultivated wild rice pilot crop insurance program to a permanent insurance program for the 2009 and succeeding crop years. DATES: Written comments and opinions on this proposed rule will be accepted until close of business August 6, 2007, and will be considered when the rule is to be made final. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments titled “Cultivated Wild Rice Crop Insurance Provisions”, by any of the following methods: • By Mail to Director, Product Administration & Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0812, Room 421, Kansas City, MO 64133-4676. • E-Mail: *DirectorPDD@rma.usda.gov* . • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. A copy of each response will be available for public inspection and copying from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., CDT, Monday through Friday, except holidays, at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Williams, Risk Management Specialist, Product Management, Product Administration & Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, at the Kansas City, MO, address listed above, telephone
(816)926-7730. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that this rule is non-significant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this proposed rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053 through November 30, 2007. E-Government Act Compliance FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. 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. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order No. 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Regulatory Flexibility Act FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economical impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). Federal Assistance Program This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order No. 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought. Environmental Evaluation This action is not expected to have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, health, and safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed. Background FCIC offered a pilot crop insurance program for cultivated wild rice beginning with the 1999 crop year in the states of Minnesota and California. In the 2006 crop year, approximately 20,500 acres were insured under the pilot program. FCIC contracted with an independent firm to conduct an evaluation of the cultivated wild rice pilot program. The evaluation found the pilot crop insurance program to be a valuable tool for wild rice producers. The evaluation could not identify any instances where the pilot program adversely affected the wild rice market. The contractor's report did recommend updating the premium rates by utilizing the pilot program's experience, remove two definitions, and correct the termination date contained in the Crop Provisions. FCIC's Board of Directors concurred with the evaluation results and approved the conversion of the pilot status to that of a permanent crop insurance program. FCIC intends to convert the cultivated wild rice pilot crop insurance program to a permanent crop insurance program beginning with the 2009 crop year. To effectuate this, FCIC proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance regulations (7 CFR part 457) by adding a new section § 457.170, Cultivated Wild Rice Crop Insurance Provisions. These provisions will replace and supersede the current unpublished provisions that insure cultivated wild rice under pilot program status. Cultivated wild rice crop insurance is an actual production history
(APH)plan of insurance that protects against a loss in yield. If the number of pounds produced by the crop is less than the production guarantee, the producer will receive an indemnity if the producer is in compliance with all other policy provisions. The production guarantee is determined the same as other APH crops. The producer certifies the number of pounds of wild rice produced per acre for at least the previous four crop years building to a base period of ten crop years and these amounts are averaged to determine the approved yield. The approved yield times the coverage level determines the production guarantee. The covered causes of loss are the same as for other APH crops and include such causes as adverse weather, fire, wildlife, plant disease, etc. The production to count is also determined the same as other crops with all appraised and harvested pounds counting against the guarantee when determining whether there was an indemnifiable loss. In this proposed rule, FCIC has revised certain provisions of the pilot program to be consistent with other Crop Provisions and to improve the policy. In section 1, FCIC has removed the definitions of “latest final planting date” and “processing.” A definition of “latest final planting date” is not needed because separate fall and spring final planting dates are not provided for wild rice. Since the term “processing” is not used in the Crop Provisions it has been removed and replaced with the definition of “processor,” a term which is referenced in other definitions. FCIC also revised the definition of “finished weight” to add a provision that would provide the finish weight for appraised production. Currently, the policy only has provisions for delivered production and stored for seed, both which presume the crop has been harvested. However, the finish weight must also be determined in situations where the crop has not been harvested. The termination date contained in section 5 has been revised to November 30th for Minnesota and some California counties. The current termination date does not allow producers sufficient time to pay their premiums. In addition, the cancellation and termination dates for some California counties have been revised to accommodate the different growing seasons and will allow expansion of the cultivated wild rice crop insurance program. FCIC has revised section 10 to specify representative samples are required in accordance with section 14 of the Basic Provisions. This is consistent with other Crop Provisions and allows FCIC to only have to revise the Basic Provisions if changes are required, instead of many Crop Provisions. Additionally, section 11(a) has been reformatted to be consistent with the changes made in other Crop Provisions and the Basic Provisions. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 Crop insurance, Cultivated wild rice, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Rule Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 7 CFR part 457, Common Crop Insurance Regulations, for the 2008 and succeeding crop years as follows: PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p). 2. Section 457.170 is added to read as follows: § 457.170 Cultivated Wild Rice crop insurance provisions. The Cultivated Wild Rice Crop Insurance Provisions for the 2009 and succeeding crop years are as follows: FCIC policies: United States Department of Agriculture Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Reinsured policies: (Appropriate Title for Insurance Provider) Both FCIC and reinsured policies: Cultivated Wild Rice Crop Insurance Provisions 1. Definitions *Approved laboratory.* A testing facility approved by us to determine the recovery percentage from samples of cultivated wild rice. *Cultivated wild rice.* A member of the grass family *Zizania Palustris* L., adapted for growing in man-made irrigated fields known as paddies. *Determined recovery percentage.* The recovery percentage for a sample, as determined by an approved laboratory. *Finished weight.*
(a)The green weight delivered to a processor multiplied by the determined recovery percentage;
(b)The green weight stored for seed multiplied by either the determined recovery percentage or the standard recovery percentage in accordance with section 11(d); and
(c)Appraised green weight multiplied by either the determined recovery percentage or the standard recovery percentage in accordance with section 11(d). *Flood irrigation.* Intentionally covering the planted acreage with water and maintaining it at a proper depth throughout the growing season. *Green weight.* The total weight in pounds of the green cultivated wild rice production that was appraised, delivered to a processor, or stored for seed. *Harvest.* Combining or threshing the cultivated wild rice for grain or seed. *Initially planted.* The first occurrence of planting the insured crop on insurable acreage for the crop year. *Planted acreage.* In addition to the definition contained in the Basic Provisions, land on which an adequate amount of seed is initially spread onto the soil surface by any appropriate method, including shattering for the second and succeeding years, and subsequently is mechanically incorporated into the soil at the proper depth, will be considered planted, unless otherwise provided by the Special Provisions or actuarial documents. *Processor.* A business that converts green weight to finished weight using appropriate equipment and methods such as separating immature kernels, fermenting or curing, parching, de-hulling, and scarifying. *Recovery percentage.* The ratio of finished weight to green weight of the cultivated wild rice. This is also known as percent recovery. *Shatter.* Mature seeds that naturally fall to the ground from a cultivated wild rice plant. *Standard recovery percentage.* The recovery percentage contained in the Special Provisions. 2. Unit Division Provisions in the Basic Provisions that allow optional units by irrigated and non-irrigated practices are not applicable. 3. Insurance Guarantee, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities In addition to the requirements of section 3 of the Basic Provisions:
(a)You may select only one percentage of the maximum price election for all the cultivated wild rice insured under this policy in the county.
(b)The insurance guarantee per acre is expressed as pounds of finished weight. 4. Contract Changes In accordance with section 4 of the Basic Provisions the contract change date is November 30 preceding the cancellation date for counties with a February 28 cancellation date and June 30 preceding the cancellation date for counties with a September 30 cancellation date. 5. Cancellation and Termination Dates In accordance with section 2 of the Basic Provisions, the cancellation and termination dates are: State Cancellation date Termination date Mendocino, Glenn, Butte, and Sierra Counties, California; and all California Counties south thereof February 28 February 28. Minnesota, All Other California Counties, and All Other States September 30 November 30. 6. Insured Crop
(a)In accordance with section 8 of the Basic Provisions, the crop insured will be all the cultivated wild rice in the county grown on insurable acreage for which premium rates are provided by the actuarial documents:
(1)In which you have a share;
(2)That is planted for harvest as grain; and
(3)That is grown in man-made flood irrigated fields.
(b)Section 8(b)(3) of the Basic Provisions is not applicable to the cultivated wild rice seed that naturally shatters and is subsequently mechanically incorporated into the soil. 7. Insurance Period In accordance with section 11 of the Basic Provisions, the calendar date for the end of the insurance period is September 30 of the calendar year the crop is normally harvested for Minnesota, October 15 of the calendar year the crop is normally harvested for California, and for all other states, the date as provided in the Special Provisions. 8. Causes of Loss
(a)In accordance with section 12 of the Basic Provisions, insurance is provided only against the following causes of loss that occur during the insurance period:
(1)Adverse weather conditions;
(2)Fire;
(3)Insects, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of pest control measures;
(4)Plant disease, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of disease control measures;
(5)Wildlife;
(6)Earthquake;
(7)Volcanic eruption; or
(8)Failure of the irrigation water supply, if caused by a cause of loss specified in sections 8(a)(1) through
(7)that occurs during the insurance period.
(b)In addition to the causes not insured against in section 12 of the Basic Provisions, we will not insure against any loss of production due to the crop not being timely harvested unless such delay in harvesting is solely and directly due to adverse weather conditions which preclude harvesting equipment from entering and moving about the field. 9. Replanting Payments The provisions of section 13 of the Basic Provisions are not applicable. 10. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss Representative samples are required in accordance with section 14 of the Basic Provisions. 11. Settlement of Claim
(a)We will determine your loss on a unit basis. In the event you are unable to provide records of production that are acceptable to us for any:
(1)Optional unit, we will combine all optional units for which such production records were not provided; or
(2)Basic unit, we will allocate any commingled production to such units in proportion to our liability on the harvested acreage for each unit.
(b)In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy, we will settle your claim by:
(1)Multiplying the insured acreage by its respective production guarantee;
(2)Multiplying the result in 11(b)(1) by the respective price election;
(3)Totaling the results of section 11(b)(2);
(4)Multiplying the total production to be counted, (see section 11(c) through (d)) by the respective price election;
(5)Totaling the results of section 11(b)(4);
(6)Subtracting the result of section 11(b)(5) from the result of section 11(b)(3); and
(7)Multiplying the result of section 11(b)(6) by your share. For example: You have a 100 percent share in 100 acres of cultivated wild rice in the unit, with a guarantee of 400 pounds per acre and a price election of $1.00 per pound. You are only able to harvest 20,000 pounds. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:
(1)100 acres × 400 pounds = 40,000 pound guarantee;
(2)40,000 pounds × $1.00/pound price election = $40,000 value of guarantee;
(3)20,000 pounds × $1.00/pound price election = $20,000 value of production to count;
(4)$40,000−$20,000 = $20,000 loss; and
(5)$20,000 × 100 percent share = $20,000 indemnity payment.
(c)The total production (finished weight) to count from all insurable acreage on the unit will include:
(1)All appraised production as follows:
(i)Not less than the production guarantee for acreage:
(A)That is abandoned;
(B)Put to another use without our consent;
(C)Damaged solely by uninsured causes; or
(D)For which you fail to provide records of production that are acceptable to us;
(ii)Production lost due to uninsured causes;
(iii)Unharvested production (mature unharvested green weight production must be adjusted in accordance with section 11(d)); and
(iv)Potential production on insured acreage that you intend to put to another use or abandon, if you and we agree on the appraised amount of production. Upon such agreement, the insurance period for that acreage will end when you put the acreage to another use or abandon the crop. If agreement on the appraised amount of production is not reached:
(A)If you do not elect to continue to care for the crop, we may give you consent to put the acreage to another use if you agree to leave intact, and provide sufficient care for, representative samples of the crop in locations acceptable to us (The amount of production to count for such acreage will be based on the harvested production or appraisals from the samples at the time harvest should have occurred. If you do not leave the required samples intact, or fail to provide sufficient care for the samples, our appraisal made prior to giving you consent to put the acreage to another use will be used to determine the amount of production to count); or
(B)If you elect to continue to care for the crop, the amount of production to count for the acreage will be the harvested production, or our reappraisal if additional damage occurs and the crop is not harvested; and
(2)All harvested production from the insurable acreage.
(d)Mature green weight for appraised or harvested production will be multiplied by the recovery percentage subject to the following:
(1)We may obtain samples of the production to determine the recovery percentage.
(2)The determined recovery percentage will be used to calculate your loss only if:
(i)All determined recovery percentages are established using samples of green weight production obtained by us or by the processor for sold or processed production; and
(ii)The samples are analyzed by an approved laboratory.
(3)If the conditions of section 11(d)(2) are not met, the standard recovery percentage will be used. 12. Late Planting The provisions of section 16 of the Basic Provisions are not applicable. 13. Prevented Planting The provisions of section 17 of the Basic Provisions are not applicable. Signed in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2007. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-10824 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 457 RIN 0563-AC01 Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Coverage Enhancement Option AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
(FCIC)proposes to add to 7 CFR part 457 a new § 457.172 Coverage Enhancement Option
(CEO)that provides additional coverage to applicable crop provisions. The CEO will be used in conjunction with the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions, which contain standard terms and conditions common to most crops and with the crop provisions for which it is approved. At this time, RMA has no plans to expand CEO to crops other than Texas Citrus Trees. The intended effect of this action is to convert the pilot CEO to a permanent option for the 2008 and subsequent crop years. DATES: Written comments and opinions on this proposed rule will be accepted until close of business August 6, 2007 and will be considered when the rule is to be made final. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments, titled “Coverage Enhancement Option Insurance Provisions”, by any of the following methods: • By Mail to: Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0812, Room 421, Kansas City, MO 64133-4676. • E-mail: *DirectorPDD@rma.usda.gov.* • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. A copy of each response will be available for public inspection from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., CDT, Monday through Friday except holidays at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Klein, Risk Management Specialist, Product Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, at the Kansas City, MO, address listed above, telephone
(816)926-7730. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that this rule is non-significant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been previously approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053 through November 30, 2007. E-Government Act Compliance FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. 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 UMRA. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Regulatory Flexibility Act FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees, and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure small entities are given the same opportunities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities and therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). Federal Assistance Program This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 or 7 CFR part 400, subpart J for the informal administrative review process of good farming practices as applicable, must be exhausted before any action against FCIC may be brought. Environmental Evaluation This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, and safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed. Background The Pilot Coverage Enhancement Option
(CEO)was implemented beginning with the 2000 crop year for all counties for apples and grapes in Pennsylvania and Washington; canola in North Dakota; citrus Trees in Texas; cranberries in Massachusetts; potatoes in Idaho, Maine and Pennsylvania; rice in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; stonefruit in California; and walnuts in California. For the 2001 crop year, CEO was expanded to citrus fruit in Florida and Texas. Citrus and stonefruit policies define additional “crops” by fruit type, for example, stonefruit includes fresh apricots, fresh peaches etc., so for insurance purposes, CEO was approved for 25 crops. CEO was developed because producers expressed concern that the crop insurance program does not, in some cases, provide an adequate amount of coverage. The 75 percent coverage level, for many crops, is the highest coverage level offered, and some producers believed the cost for that coverage level was too expensive. They expressed a desire for higher amounts of coverage, without proportional premium rate increases affiliated with higher coverage levels. The CEO premium rate is set at the same rate as that of the underlying multiple peril crop insurance
(MPCI)policy. CEO coverage levels available are from 55 percent through 85 percent, in 5 percent increments. To be eligible for the program, producers must have an additional coverage level MPCI policy in force, with a price election of 100 percent for the insured crop and select the CEO by the sales closing date. They must choose a CEO coverage level of at least 5 percent higher than the MPCI base coverage level up to the maximum available CEO coverage level of 85 percent. An indemnity does not trigger under CEO until the deductible of the underlying MPCI policy is met. For example, if the MPCI coverage level is 50 percent and the CEO option coverage level is 85 percent, the insured would have to sustain damage on the crop in excess of 50 percent before an indemnity would be paid under CEO. RMA contracted for a review of CEO three years after it was implemented, and the contractor's final evaluation report was submitted on December 10, 2003. There were 25 crops approved for CEO, more than two-thirds of which were citrus tree and fruit crops insured in California, Florida, and Texas. Seven crops, most with minimal participation, had no losses since CEO was a pilot program, sixteen crops had minimal CEO participation and losses, and two crops had no CEO participation. Nationwide, the percentage of acreage insured under CEO between 2000 and 2003 was low, except for Texas citrus trees, which had a high participation rate but no losses. The contractor determined apples, canola, grapes, potatoes, and rice had sufficient CEO participation and loss experience for a meaningful analysis. A comparison of the CEO losses relative to the non-CEO losses for these crops analyzed indicated a possible increase of poor or high-risk producers using CEO to obtain a higher amount of coverage, especially for apples and rice. The final report indicated further review was needed in order to draw a conclusion as to whether or not CEO is a greater insurance risk. The contractor's recommendation was to terminate CEO for all crops except Texas citrus trees, due in part to the high level of CEO participation in the Texas citrus tree crop insurance program. The contractor found that CEO for Texas Citrus Trees provides additional coverage at a reasonable cost for a crop where the opportunity for adverse selection is limited by the design of the underlying policy. The contractor's recommendation was supported by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Board of Directors on July 29, 2004. At that time, continuance of the CEO was approved for Texas citrus trees through the 2008 crop year. In order for CEO to be available for to Texas citrus tree producers for the 2009 crop year, it needs to be made permanent before the August 31, 2008, contract change date for Texas citrus trees. While the latest date RMA must convert CEO to a permanent program is August 31, 2008, RMA has targeted August 31, 2007, for conversion to a permanent program. For the 2006 crop year, there were a total of 809 policies under the Texas Citrus Tree Crop Insurance Provisions, 714 buy-up and 95 Catastrophic Risk Protection
(CAT)policies. There were 333 producers with CEO options, accounting for $45.2 million in liability and $2.4 million in premium. Forty-one percent of all Texas citrus tree insureds opted for CEO, accounting for 68 percent of the insured acreage for Texas citrus trees, 74 percent of the liability, and 75 percent of the premium. FCIC is proposing to make changes to the pilot CEO policy. In section 1, FCIC is proposing to revise the definitions of “MPCI dollar amount of insurance,” “MPCI indemnity factor,” “option dollar amount of insurance,” and “option coverage level.” Previously, the definition of “MPCI dollar amount of insurance” did not explain how the value was determined for policies that are based on the actual production history so this will be clarified in the proposed definition. Further, the definition of “MPCI indemnity factor” did not explain that such factor is necessary to prorate losses in those cases where the producer does not suffer a total loss to the crop. The definition of “option dollar amount of insurance” did not accurately reflect how such amounts are calculated. FCIC is proposing to revise the provision to specify that such amount is determined by multiplying the option coverage level by the total value of the crop and subtracting the MPCI dollar amount of insurance (for example, if the coverage option selected is 80 percent and the MPCI dollar amount of insurance is $10,000 at the 50 percent coverage level, the option dollar coverage level would be $6,000 ($10,000 × 2 = $20,000 total value of the crop × .80 option coverage level = $16,000 combined MPCI and option dollar amounts of insurance—$10,000 MPCI dollar amount of insurance). In addition, the definition of “option coverage level” failed to discuss the relationship between the MPCI coverage level and the option coverage level. FCIC is proposing to revise the definition to specify that the effect of the option coverage level is to increase the coverage level under the MPCI policy from the MPCI coverage level to the option coverage level once a loss has been triggered under the MPCI policy. FCIC is also proposing to add a definition of “total value of the insured crop,” which states that the total value is the MPCI dollar amount of insurance divided by the MPCI coverage level. This will determine what is the actual potential value of an undamaged crop and measure the total amount the producer will lose if there is a total loss. FCIC is proposing to add a new section 2 to clarify that the option is only available for those insured crops that contain option coverage levels on the actuarial documents. This change is needed because the option will not be available in all areas where it was available as a pilot program. Therefore, producers must check the actuarial documents to see if the option is available in their area. The subsequent sections are redesignated as sections 3 through 7. FCIC is proposing to revise redesignated section 4 to clarify that the option is now continuous and will remain in effect for as long as the producer continues to have a MPCI policy in effect for the insured crop, an option coverage level percent is contained in the actuarial documents, or it is cancelled by the producer or terminated by the approved insurance provider on or before the cancellation or termination date, as applicable. FCIC is proposing to revise redesignated section 6 to clarify the coverage provided under the option. It effectively offers coverage that causes a portion of the deductible to disappear under the MPCI portion of the policy once the deductible has been met. However, the deductible disappears proportional to the amount of the loss, less the deductible required for the option coverage level (cannot exceed 85 percent, which creates a secondary deductible to 15 percent). This means that if the loss were 100 percent, the producer would receive an indemnity under the MPCI policy and option equal to the option coverage level times the total value of the crop (In the above stated example, this would equate to $16,000, a complete loss) but if the losses were less than 100 percent, less of the deductible is covered. FCIC is proposing to add a new section 6(c) that clarifies that an indemnity is not payable under this option until after the underlying MPCI deductible (1—MPCI coverage level) is met, triggering an MPCI indemnity. The previous redesignated sections 6(c) and
(d)are now designated as sections 6(d) and (e). FCIC is proposing to revise the indemnity formula in section 7 to remove the references to determining the option dollar amount of insurance and the option coverage factor because FCIC is proposing to revise the definition of option dollar amount of insurance to include a means to calculate the amount. FCIC also made technical changes for clarity but such changes do not change the coverage provided under the option. FCIC proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by adding 7 CFR 457.172 (Coverage Enhancement Option) to make the CEO a permanent option, thus remaining available for Texas Citrus Tree policyholders and to allow for use in other appropriate crop programs as determined by FCIC. The proposed changes are as follows: List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 Crop insurance, Coverage enhancement option. Proposed Rule Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 7 CFR part 457, Common Crop Insurance Regulations effective for the 2008 and succeeding crop years, to read as follows: PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p). 2. Section 457.172 is added to read as follows: § 457.172 Coverage enhancement option insurance provisions. This option is available for the 2008 and succeeding years. The Coverage Enhancement Option insurance provisions for the 2008 and succeeding crop years are as follows: FCIC policies: United States Department of Agriculture Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Reinsured policies: (Appropriate Title for Insurance Provider) Both FCIC and reinsured policies: Coverage Enhancement Option Insurance Provisions 1. Definitions *MPCI* —Multiple Peril Crop Insurance, the plan of insurance offered by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation as published at 7 CFR part 457. *MPCI coverage level* —The coverage level percentage you selected in the underlying MPCI policy to which this option is attached. *MPCI dollar amount of insurance* —The value of the insurance coverage for the unit provided under the MPCI policy (the amount of insurance selected by you for dollar or similar plans of insurance or the amount determined by multiplying the production guarantee (per acre) times the price election, times the number of acres in the unit, times the MPCI coverage level you selected). *MPCI indemnity* —The indemnity determined for each unit under the MPCI policy to which this option is attached, not including replant and prevented planting indemnities or any indemnity payable under this option. *MPCI indemnity factor* —A factor determined by dividing the MPCI indemnity by the MPCI dollar amount of insurance for a unit. This factor is used to ensure that the indemnity paid under this option is proportional to the amount of loss and indemnity paid under the MPCI policy. *Option Dollar Amount of Insurance* —The value of the additional insurance coverage for the unit provided by this option, which is determined by multiplying the option coverage level by the total value of the crop and subtracting the MPCI dollar amount of insurance. *Option Coverage Level* —The coverage level percentage selected under this option. This percentage effectively becomes the coverage level under the MPCI policy when the losses under such policy exceed the deductible and an indemnity is owed. *Total value of the insured crop* —The value of the crop that is determined by dividing the MPCI dollar amount of insurance by the MPCI coverage level. 2. This option is only available for insured crops that contain an option coverage level percent in the actuarial documents. 3. To be eligible for this coverage, you must have an MPCI policy in force for the insured crop (or for citrus fruit, citrus trees, and stone fruit, as applicable, the insured type) in accordance with the applicable Crop Provisions for the insured crop. You must choose an option coverage level percentage that is shown in the actuarial documents, by the sales closing date. 4. You must elect this option in writing on or before the crop sales closing date for the crop insured. This option is continuous and will remain in effect for as long as you continue to have a MPCI policy in effect for the insured crop, an option coverage level percent is contained in the actuarial documents, or it is cancelled by you or terminated by us on or before the cancellation or termination date, as applicable. 5. This option is not available if you have chosen the Catastrophic Risk Protection
(CAT)level of coverage or a price election less than 100 percent. 6. If you elect this option and a MPCI indemnity is paid on any unit, your deductible will disappear in proportion to the amount of such loss and indemnity paid. For example, if you selected a 50 percent MPCI coverage level, select an 85 percent option coverage level, and had a total loss, the amount of indemnity paid under both the MPCI policy and this option would be equal to 85 percent of the total value of the insured crop. The amount of the additional indemnity and related terms and conditions are described below:
(a)All acreage of the insured crop insured under your MPCI policy will be covered under this option;
(b)The amount of any replant or prevented planting payment that is payable under the MPCI policy will not be affected by this option.
(c)An indemnity will be payable under this option only after the underlying MPCI deductible is met and an MPCI indemnity is paid.
(d)The total indemnity for each unit (MPCI coverage plus this option) cannot exceed the combination of both the MPCI and option dollar amounts of insurance.
(e)Your premium will be determined by:
(i)Totaling the MPCI dollar amount of insurance and the option dollar amount of insurance; and
(ii)Multiplying the result of section 6(e)(i) by the premium rate for the insured crop applicable to your MPCI coverage level. 7. In addition to the settlement of claim section for the applicable Crop Provisions, your indemnity will be computed on a unit basis as follows:
(a)Determine the MPCI indemnity factor;
(b)Multiply the MPCI indemnity factor times the Option Dollar Amount of Insurance to determine the indemnity under this option. *Example:* Assume a policy with one unit; an MPCI coverage level of 50 percent and an option coverage level of 85 percent; 100% share; a $120,000 MPCI dollar amount of insurance; and a $40,000 payable indemnity under the MPCI portion of the policy. Your indemnity would be calculated for each unit as follows:
(a)$40,000 loss ÷ by $120,000 MPCI dollar amount of insurance = .33333 MPCI indemnity factor.
(b).33333 MPCI indemnity factor × $84,000 option dollar amount of insurance = $28,000 indemnity under this option. Note: The total unit indemnity is $68,000 ($40,000 MPCI indemnity plus $28,000 option indemnity) . Signed in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2007. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-10825 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28355; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-062-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 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 Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting ground blocks GD261 and GD264 for corrosion, measuring the electrical bond resistance between the ground blocks and the airplane structure, separating the ground wires for the fuel boost pump circuit between ground blocks GD261 and GD264, and doing corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from a report of random flashes of the six fuel pump low pressure lights and intermittent operation of the fuel boost pumps. We are proposing this AD to prevent the simultaneous malfunction of all six fuel boost pumps, which could cause the engines to operate on suction feed and potentially flame out. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 23, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Binh Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6485; fax
(425)917-6590. 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-2007-28355; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-062-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 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 We have received a report of random flashes of the six fuel pump low pressure lights and intermittent operation of the fuel boost pumps. This was caused by an electrical ground block with poor continuity to ground. This condition, if not corrected, could cause the engines to operate on suction feed and potentially flame out. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1257, dated February 26, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for the following actions: • Inspecting ground blocks GD261 and GD264 for corrosion; • Measuring the electrical bond resistance between the ground blocks and the airplane structure; • Separating the fuel boost pump grounds by removing three fuel boost pump ground wires from ground block GD261 and installing them in ground block GD264. • Repairing corrosion damage; and • Replacing the ground block with a new one if any corrosion is found or if the electrical bond resistance exceeds 0.001 ohm. 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. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,871 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost 1 $80 None $80 702 $56,160 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): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28355; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-062-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 23, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1257, dated February 26, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of random flashes of the six fuel pump low pressure lights and intermittent operation of the fuel boost pumps. We are issuing this AD to prevent the simultaneous malfunction of all six fuel boost pumps, which could cause the engines to operate on suction feed and potentially flame out. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection
(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of ground blocks GD261 and GD264 for corrosion, measure the electrical bond resistance, and separate the ground wires for the fuel boost pump circuit between ground blocks GD261 and GD264. Do these actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1257, dated February 26, 2007. Do applicable corrective actions before further flight in accordance with the service bulletin. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)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. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 25, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10878 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28353; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-065-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Galaxy Airplanes and Model Gulfstream 200 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: During the manufacturing process of the Poppet Covers of the Pressurization Safety Valves, burrs that could damage the Valve Diaphragms were not removed. The damage may eventually cause faulty operation of the relief valves resulting in an unsafe condition when combined with additional failures. The serial numbers of the defective valves and the affected aircraft were identified. The unsafe condition is damage and subsequent failure of the safety relief valves, which could result in rapid decompression 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 July 6, 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: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2677; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This 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-2007-28353; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-065-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 Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli Airworthiness Directive 21-07-01-01, dated February 20, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: During the manufacturing process of the Poppet Covers of the Pressurization Safety Valves, burrs that could damage the Valve Diaphragms were not removed. The damage may eventually cause faulty operation of the relief valves resulting in an unsafe condition when combined with additional failures. The serial numbers of the defective valves and the affected aircraft were identified. The unsafe condition is damage and subsequent failure of the safety relief valves, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. The corrective action includes replacing the pressurization safety valve, part number 103842-3. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Gulfstream has issued Service Bulletin 200-21-308, dated February 23, 2007. 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 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,600, or $800 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: **Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Formerly Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.):** Docket No. FAA-2007-28353; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-065-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by July 6, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Gulfstream Model Galaxy airplanes and Model Gulfstream 200 airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 104, 109, 110, and 118, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Conditioning. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: During the manufacturing process of the Poppet Covers of the Pressurization Safety Valves, burrs that could damage the Valve Diaphragms were not removed. The damage may eventually cause faulty operation of the relief valves resulting in an unsafe condition when combined with additional failures. The serial numbers of the defective valves and the affected aircraft were identified. The unsafe condition is damage and subsequent failure of the safety relief valves, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. The corrective action includes replacing the pressurization safety valve, part number 103842-3. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions. Within 500 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace the pressurization safety valve, part number 103842-3, according to Gulfstream Service Bulletin 200-21-308, dated February 23, 2007. 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: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2677; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 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 Israeli Airworthiness Directive 21-07-01-01, dated February 20, 2007; and Gulfstream Service Bulletin 200-21-308, dated February 23, 2007; and Honeywell Service Bulletin 103842-21-4126, dated December 5, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 25, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10869 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26043; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-010-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD)for all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required inspecting the power conversion distribution unit
(PCDU)to determine its part number, and modifying certain PCDUs. The original NPRM was prompted by reports of failed PCDUs, the loss of an electrical bus, and the presence of a strong electrical burning odor in the flight deck and forward cabin. This action revises the original NPRM by reidentifying the part number reference for the proposed corrective action. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent the loss of an electrical bus due to PCDU failure, resulting in the loss of all flight displays for an unacceptable time period, and consequent emergency landing. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • *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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Long Beach Division, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Phan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5342; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-26043; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-010-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, 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 supplemental NPRM. 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 in the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for an AD (the “original NPRM”) for all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 12, 2006 (71 FR 60080). The original NPRM proposed to require inspecting the power conversion distribution unit
(PCDU)to determine its part number, and modifying certain PCDUs. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Request To Revise Part Number Reference Boeing and AirTran Airways note that the original NPRM incorrectly identifies P/N 762904E as the part number needing the corrective actions, but P/N 762904E (and any part number above 762904E) is the final configuration after all corrective actions are taken. Since we issued the original NPRM, we became aware of this error. We revised paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) in this supplemental NPRM to correctly identify the affected part numbers. Request To State Intent To Incorporate Service Information by Reference During NPRM Stage The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests that, during the NPRM stage of AD rulemaking, the FAA state its intent to incorporate by reference
(IBR)any relevant service information. MARPA states that, without such a statement in the NPRM, it is unclear whether the relevant service information will be incorporated by reference in the final rule. We do not concur with the commenter's request. When we refer to certain service information in a proposed AD, the public can assume we intend to IBR that service information, as required by the Office of the Federal Register. No change to this supplemental NPRM is necessary in regard to the commenter's request. Request To IBR Service Information During NPRM This same commenter requests that we IBR the service information during the NPRM phase of rulemaking to permit the public to review and comment on the entire proposed action. The commenter notes that IBR is intended to avoid the unnecessary publication of documents already available to affected individuals. But the commenter expresses concern that distribution may not reach certain individuals directly responsible for the AD's accomplishment, including specialty shops, which now perform the majority of aircraft maintenance, and owners that are financing or leasing institutions. We disagree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register
(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. The final rule will incorporate by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the actions required in the AD. Further, we point out that, while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. No change to the supplemental NPRM is necessary in response to this comment. Request To Post Service Information on DMS Before Final Rule This same commenter further requests that we post the service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's Docket Management System
(DMS)to make the service bulletins available to the public before we issue the final rule. We are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to this supplemental NPRM is necessary in response to this comment. Request To Clarify Affected Parts MARPA notes that the original NPRM would encompass both the original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)and parts manufacturer approval
(PMA)editions of the parts. And, “[p]ursuant to FAR 45.15 parts approved under 21.303 will have the term ‘FAA-PMA' included as part of the part numbering scheme.” But to resolve doubt and confusion when such parts are encountered in the field, MARPA requests that we explain that some parts may be marked “FAA-PMA,” and that the action would apply irrespective of the differences in part marking. The FAA recognizes the need for standardization of this issue and is currently in the process of reviewing issues that address the use of PMAs in ADs at the national level. However, the Transport Airplane Directorate considers that to delay this particular AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, no change has been made to this supplemental NPRM regarding this issue. Clarification of Unsafe Condition We have clarified certain language in the Summary and paragraph
(d)of this supplemental NPRM to more accurately describe the unsafe condition that prompted this action. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance
(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance There are about 137 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet and 108 U.S.-registered airplanes. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The total fleet cost could be as high as $417,312. Estimated Costs for Primary Actions Boeing Service Bulletin Work hours Labor rate per hour Parts cost Cost per airplane Part number identification 1 $80 $0 $80 Modification (717-24A0028) 12 80 0 960 Estimated Costs for Concurrent Actions Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin Work hours Labor rate per hour Parts cost Cost per airplane 40EGS22P-24-3 6 $80 $154 per airplane $634 40EGS22P-24-4 3 80 0 240 40EGS22P-24-6 3 80 0 240 40EGS22P-24-7 1 per PCDU 80 10 per PCDU, maximum 3 PCDUs per airplane 110 (maximum). 40EGS22P-24-8 10 80 0 800 40EGS22P-24-9 10 80 0 800 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 supplemental NPRM 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-2006-26043; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-010-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 2, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD was prompted by reports of failed power conversion distribution units (PCDUs), the loss of an electrical bus, and the presence of a strong electrical burning odor in the flight deck and forward cabin. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of an electrical bus due to PCDU failure, resulting in the loss of all flight displays for an unacceptable time period, and consequent emergency landing. 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. Identification of PCDU Part Number
(f)Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the PCDU to determine its part number. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1)If the part number is below 762904E, do the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD.
(2)If the part number is 762904E or higher, no further work is required by this AD. Modification
(g)Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the PCDU in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028, Revision 1, dated December 20, 2005. A modification done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028, dated November 24, 2004, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028 refers to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-10, Revision 1, dated May 11, 2005, as an additional source of service information for the modification. Concurrent Requirements
(h)Before or concurrently with the modification required by paragraph
(g)of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Concurrent Service Bulletins Do the following— In accordance with Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin— Rework the transformer rectifier unit assembly
(TRU)Rework the W3 wiring harness assembly to install direct lead wires to the TRU. Add a ground wire to the TRU transformer. Add an insulated spacer to the PCDU top cover. 40EGS22P-24-3, dated June 30, 2000. Install new PCDU 186 firmware 40EGS22P-24-4, Revision 1, dated January 2, 2002. Install new PCDU 186 firmware 40EGS22P-24-6, dated July 25, 2002. Modify the top cover of the PCDU 40EGS22P-24-7, dated September 3, 2003. Modify printed wiring board
(PWB)assemblies A4 and A5 Check and apply torque seal to fasteners on the TRU assembly and to PCDU internal fasteners, as applicable. 40EGS22P-24-8, dated September 4, 2003. Modify the PWB assembly A4 40EGS22P-24-9, dated November 19, 2003. Credit for Accomplishment of Earlier Service Bulletin
(i)Installation of new PCDU 186 firmware before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-4, dated April 26, 2001, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph
(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(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)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. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 25, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10864 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28358; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-019-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A321 Series 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: Some operators have reported wheel corrosion, mainly under the heat-shield overlap area. In some cases a circular crack initiated from a corrosion pit. When the crack is initiated under the bead seat, it does not lead to tire pressure loss, and can cause a flange separation as experienced by few operators. This condition could result in separation of the wheel and consequent reduced controllability 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 July 6, 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: 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: 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-2007-28358; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-019-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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0328, dated October 23, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Some operators have reported wheel corrosion, mainly under the heat-shield overlap area. In some cases a circular crack initiated from a corrosion pit. When the crack is initiated under the bead seat, it does not lead to tire pressure loss, and can cause a flange separation as experienced by few operators. The unsafe condition could result in separation of the wheel and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. The MCAI mandates inspecting the main landing gear
(MLG)wheel assembly for discrepancies (corrosion, damage, cracks, and loose or missing heat shield spacers) and, if necessary, repair of the MLG wheel assembly. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Messier-Bugatti has issued Special Inspection Service Bulletin C20452-32-3254, Revision 2, dated September 5, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 34 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 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 $16,320, or $480 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: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28358; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-019-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by July 6, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A321 series airplanes; all certified models; certificated in any category; equipped with Messier-Goodrich S.A. or Goodrich-Messier Inc., main landing gear
(MLG)wheel assemblies having part number (P/N) C20500000 or P/N C20452000. Subject
(d)Landing gear. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Some operators have reported wheel corrosion, mainly under the heat-shield overlap area. In some cases a circular crack initiated from a corrosion pit. When the crack is initiated under the bead seat, it does not lead to tire pressure loss, and can cause a flange separation as experienced by few operators. This condition could result in separation of the wheel and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. The MCAI mandates inspecting the MLG wheel assembly for discrepancies (corrosion, damage, cracks, and loose or missing heat shield spacers) and, if necessary, repair of the MLG wheel assembly. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)At the next scheduled tire change, but no later than 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the MLG wheel assembly for discrepancies (corrosion, damage, cracks, and loose or missing heat shield spacers) in accordance with the instructions of Messier-Bugatti Special Inspection Service Bulletin C20452-32-3254, Revision 2, dated September 5, 2006. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed every tire change or 6 months, whichever is earlier.
(2)If any discrepancy is found: Before further flight, repair the MLG wheel assembly in accordance with the instructions of Messier-Bugatti Special Inspection Service Bulletin C20452-32-3254, Revision 2, dated September 5, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI specifies an imprecise compliance time for inspecting the MLG wheel assembly—i.e., “at each tire change.” This AD would require inspecting the MLG wheel assembly at the next scheduled tire change, but no later than 6 months after the effective date of the AD; and thereafter at intervals not to exceed every tire change or 6 months, whichever is earlier. 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: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 98057-3356, telephone
(425)227-2141; 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 EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0328, dated October 23, 2006; and Messier-Bugatti Special Inspection Service Bulletin C20452-32-3254, Revision 2, dated September 5, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 25, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10865 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26192; Airspace Docket No. 06-ASO-11] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Modification and Establishment of Restricted Areas and Other Special Use Airspace, Adirondack Airspace Complex; Fort Drum, NY AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to restructure the restricted areas located in the vicinity of Fort Drum, NY. The Air National Guard
(ANG)proposed to redesign the airspace, referred to as the Adirondack Airspace Complex, by making a minor modification to the ceiling of existing restricted area R-5201, and by establishing two new restricted areas: R-5202A and R-5202B. In addition, the ANG proposes to redesign the Military Operations Areas
(MOA)associated with the Fort Drum restricted areas. MOAs are not regulatory airspace, but are established administratively. Because the MOAs form an integral part of the Adirondack Airspace Complex, the FAA is also seeking comment on the proposed MOA changes through this NPRM. The ANG proposes these airspace changes to provide additional special use airspace
(SUA)needed to conduct high altitude, long-range weapons releases and to allow more realistic training in modern tactics to be conducted in the Adirondack Airspace Complex. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-26192 and Airspace Docket No. 06-ASO-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Comments on environmental and land use aspects should be directed to: NGB/A7CVN, Conaway Hall, 3500 Fetchet Ave, Andrews AFB, MD 20762; telephone:
(301)835-8143. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Comments are also invited on the nonregulatory MOA part of this proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-26192 and Airspace Docket No. 06-ASO-11) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-26192 and Airspace Docket No. 06-ASO-11.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register** 's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. Background The Adirondack Airspace Complex consists of one restricted area and nine MOAs in the vicinity of Fort Drum, NY. Restricted areas are regulatory airspace designations, under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part 73, which are established to confine or segregate activities considered hazardous to non-participating aircraft. A MOA is a non-rulemaking type of SUA established to separate or segregate certain non-hazardous military flight activities from aircraft operating in accordance with instrument flight rules (IFR), and to identify for visual flight rules
(VFR)pilots where those activities are conducted. IFR aircraft may be routed through an active MOA only when air traffic control can provide approved separation from the MOA activity. VFR pilots are not restricted from flying in an active MOA, but are advised to exercise caution while doing so. Unlike restricted areas, which are designated through rulemaking procedures, MOAs are non-rulemaking airspace areas that are established administratively and published in the National Flight Data Digest. Normally, MOA proposals are not published in a NPRM, but instead, are advertised for public comment through a nonrule circular that is distributed by an FAA Service Center office to aviation interests in the affected area. However, when a non-rulemaking action is connected to a rulemaking action, FAA procedures allow for the non-rulemaking proposal to be included in the NPRM. In such cases, the NPRM replaces the nonrule circularization requirement. Because the proposed MOAs are an integral part of the Adirondack Airspace Complex, they are being included in this NPRM. The existing SUA is inadequate to accommodate the advanced air-to-air, air-to-ground, and threat avoidance training profiles that are essential for aircrews to achieve and maintain combat readiness. The proposed MOA realignments and restricted area modifications would provide greater tactical training options to match current real-world taskings and threats. In addition, the proposed changes would reduce longstanding environmental/noise burdens associated with the current SUA configuration by more evenly distributing activities within the Complex. The proposed SUA changes are described in the following sections. Proposed MOA Changes The New York ANG has proposed to redesign and expand the MOA airspace in the vicinity of Fort Drum, NY (see attached graphic). The purpose of this MOA redesign is to improve flight safety, enable more efficient real-time, joint-use management of the airspace, decrease or balance environmental impacts of the current MOA configuration, and permit more realistic training in the Adirondack Airspace Complex. Most of the redesigned MOAs would be contained within airspace that is already designated as MOAs. However, the new MOA configuration would include additional airspace, both laterally and vertically, beyond the current MOA boundaries. The ANG proposed to cancel the nine existing MOAs at Fort Drum (Drum 1 MOA, Drum 2 MOA, Falcon 1 MOA, Falcon 3 MOA, Syracuse 1 MOA, Syracuse 2A MOA, Syracuse 2B MOA, Syracuse 3 MOA, and Syracuse 4 MOA), and replace them with 12 new MOAs as follows: 1. Adirondack A MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries.* Beginning at lat. 44°30′00″ N., long. 75°20′00″ W.; to lat. 44°36′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 44°30′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Altitudes.* 6,000 feet MSL to but not including FL 180. 2. Adirondack B MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries.* Beginning at lat. 44°19′00″ N., long. 75°37′05″ W.; to lat. 44°26′30″ N., long. 75°30′00″ W.; to lat. 44°30′00″ N., long. 75°20′00″ W.; to lat. 44°30′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 44°27′30″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 44°20′20″ N., long. 75°10′30″ W.; to lat. 44°15′09″ N., long. 75°30′42″ W.; to lat. 44°16′07″ N., long. 75°32′41″ W.; to the point of beginning; excluding R-5202B when active. *Altitudes.* 2,500 feet MSL to but not including FL 180. 3. Adirondack C MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries.* Beginning at lat. 44°15′09″ N., long. 75°30′42″ W.; to lat. 44°20′20″ N., long. 75°10′30″ W.; to lat. 44°27′30″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 44°06′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 44°06′00″ N., long. 75°28′49″ W.; to lat. 44°07′10″ N., long. 75°26′49″ W.; to lat. 44°11′24″ N., long. 75°22′59″ W.; to the point of beginning; excluding R-5202B when active. *Altitudes.* 100 feet AGL to but not including FL 180. 4. Adirondack D MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries.* Beginning at lat. 44°11′50″ N., long. 75°43′53″ W.; to lat. 44°19′00″ N., long. 75°37′05″ W.; to lat. 44°16′07″ N., long. 75°32′41″ W.; to lat. 44°10′50″ N., long. 75°38′59″ W.; to lat. 44°09′34″ N., long. 75°40′00″ W.; to the point of beginning; excluding R-5202B when active. *Altitudes.* 5,000 feet MSL to but not including FL 180. 5. Carthage East MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries.* Beginning at lat. 44°01′05″ N., long. 75°37′14″ W.; to lat. 44°06′00″ N., long. 75°28′49″ W.; to lat. 44°06′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 43°53′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 43°53′00″ N., long. 75°35′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Altitudes.* 100 feet MSL to but not including FL 180. 6. Carthage West MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries* . Beginning at lat. 43°44′00″ N., long. 75°52′00″ W.; to lat. 44°11′50″ N., long. 75°43′53″ W.; to lat. 44°09′34″ N., long. 75°40′00″ W.; to lat. 44°06′55″ N., long. 75°42′09″ W.; to lat. 44°03′20″ N., long. 75°40′49″ W.; to lat. 44°01′05″ N., long. 75°37′14″ W.; to lat. 43°53′00″ N., long. 75°35′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Altitudes* . 6,000 feet MSL to but not including FL 180. 7. Cranberry MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries* . Beginning at lat. 44°36′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 44°36′00″ N., long. 74°35′00″ W.; to lat. 44°15′00″ N., long. 74°35′00″ W.; to lat. 43°53′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Altitudes* . 500 feet AGL to but not including 6,000 feet MSL. 8. Drum MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries* . Beginning at lat. 44°14′49″ N., long. 75°49′00″ W.; to lat. 44°19′00″ N., long. 75°44′30″ W.; to lat. 44°19′00″ N., long. 75°37′00″ W.; to lat. 44°16′07″ N., long. 75°32′41″ W.; to lat. 44°10′50″ N., long. 75°38′59″ W.; to lat. 44°09′34″ N., long. 75°40′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Altitudes* . 500 feet AGL to but not including 5,000 feet MSL. 9. Lowville MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries* . Beginning at lat. 43°44′00″ N., long. 75°52′00″ W.; to lat. 43°53′00″ N., long. 75°35′00″ W.; to lat. 43°53′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 43°30′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 43°30′00″ N., long. 75°52′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Altitudes* . 100 feet AGL to but not including FL 180. 10. Tupper North MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries* . Beginning at lat. 44°36′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 44°36′00″ N., long. 74°21′00″ W.; to lat. 44°14′00″ N., long. 74°21′00″ W.; to lat. 44°06′00″ N., long. 74°12′00″ W.; to lat. 43°53′00″ N., long. 74°12′00″ W.; to lat. 43°53′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Altitudes* . May 1-October 31: 8,000 feet MSL to but not including FL 180; November 1-April 30: 6,000 feet MSL to but not including FL 180. 11. Tupper South MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries* . Beginning at lat. 43°53′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to lat. 43°53′00″ N., long. 74°12′00″ W.; to lat. 43°40′00″ N., long. 74°12′00″ W.; to lat. 43°30′00″ N., long. 74°21′00″ W.; to lat. 43°30′00″ N., long. 75°03′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Altitudes* . May 1-October 31: 8,000 feet MSL to but not including FL 180; November 1-April 30: 6,000 feet MSL to but not including FL 180. 12. Tupper East MOA, NY [New] *Boundaries* . Beginning at lat. 44°36′00″ N., long. 74°21′00″ W.; to lat. 44°36′00″ N., long. 74°12′00″ W.; to lat. 44°06′00″ N., long. 74°12′00″ W.; to lat. 44°14′00″ N., long. 74°21′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Altitudes* . 10,000 feet MSL to but not including FL 180. The times of use for all of the proposed MOAs would vary on a seasonal basis. Except for the Cranberry MOA, the proposed MOA times of use are: From May 1-August 31: 0800-1700 Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM. From September 1-April 30: 0800-2200 Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM. For the Cranberry MOA, the times of use would be November 1-April 30: 0800-2200 Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM. The Cranberry MOA would be closed and unavailable for use during the period May 1-October 31. The controlling agency for all proposed MOAs would be the FAA, Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The using agency for the Adirondack A, B, C, and D; Carthage East and West; Cranberry; and Drum MOAs would be the New York ANG, 174th Fighter Wing, Detachment 1 (NY ANG, 174FW/Det 1), Fort Drum, NY. The using agency for the Lowville and Tupper North, South, and East MOAs would be the U.S. Air Force, Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), Rome, NY. The proposed MOAs were designed to allow for more access to the SUA by civil aviation. During periods when the airspace is not needed for its designated purpose, the airspace would be returned to the controlling agency (Boston ARTCC). The reconfigured MOAs were designed using a building block system which segments the SUA into smaller areas that can be combined and activated for use as needed on a real-time basis. This system provides better airspace management and increased training efficiency by only using the portions of SUA that are needed for specific training events, while the remainder of the complex would be available for civil use. When not activated, the Carthage MOAs can be used as a transit corridor for nonparticipating aircraft through the center of a normally active MOA complex. For this reason, special emphasis will be placed on activating only the required altitude blocks in order to maintain the area as a viable MOA transit corridor. The Cranberry MOA will be used as a seasonal alternate during November through April, when low altitudes in the Lowville MOA are unusable much of the time due to weather. The Cranberry MOA would be closed during the period May 1 through October 31. A number of mitigations were incorporated in developing the Tupper MOAs. To alleviate concerns about the potential impact on commercial traffic flows along the southeastern edge of the MOA airspace, the Tupper South MOA was designed as a separate subarea from Tupper North. This will aid ATC in accommodating traffic overflow to the north of V-496/J-547 and west of V-203/J-570 in the Syracuse, Glens Falls, and Plattsburgh areas. Additionally, creating the Tupper South MOA as a separate area gives ATC the flexibility to cap, raise the floor, or withhold the airspace without shutting down the entire Tupper airspace. This arrangement would allow ATC to implement real-time floor adjustments to accommodate commuter and general aviation traffic underneath the Tupper MOAs ( *i.e.* , on V-196) during times when weather or traffic congestion dictate. Also, because the Tupper North and Tupper South MOAs are located entirely over the Adirondack Park, the altitude floors of the Tupper North and Tupper South MOAs would be adjusted on a seasonal basis. From November through April, the Tupper North and South MOA floors would be at 6,000 feet MSL. However, from May through October, when outdoor recreation and general aviation activities in that area are at a peak, the Tupper North and South MOA floors would be raised to 8,000 feet MSL. In order to minimize the aeronautical and environmental impacts to the Adirondack Regional Airport and the Saranac Lake region, the northeastern part of the Tupper North MOA was subdivided to create the Tupper East MOA with a floor of 10,000 feet MSL. If approved, the above MOA changes would be published in the National Flight Data Digest for addition to the National Airspace System Database and aeronautical charts. Restricted Area Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to modify the designated altitudes of existing restricted area R-5201, Fort Drum, NY, and to establish two new restricted areas, R-5202A and R-5202B, at Fort Drum, NY (see attached graphic). These changes are part of the New York ANG's Adirondack Airspace Complex proposal. Specifically, the FAA is proposing a minor change to the designated altitudes for R-5201 by changing the current wording from “Surface to 23,000 feet MSL,” to read “Surface to but not including 23,000 feet MSL.” This change to R-5201's upper altitude limit would accommodate the establishment of a new restricted area, R-5202A, to be designated immediately above R-5201. R-5201 currently hosts a variety of air-to-ground, air-to-air, and surface-based weapons activities. Those activities will continue with the modified configuration. The new R-5202A would be established directly above using the same lateral boundaries as R-5201. R-5202A would extend from Flight Level
(FL)230 to FL 290. A second new restricted area, R-5202B, would be established adjacent to, and extending approximately 4 nautical miles to the northeast of, the existing R-5201. The designated altitudes for R-5202B would be 6,000 feet MSL to FL 290. The ANG requested these restricted area changes to permit more realistic air-to-ground and weapons delivery tactical training at the Adirondack Range. With these changes, training can be conducted that replicates the conditions and tactics that units are tasked to perform on real-world wartime deployments. Today's technology allows pilots to operate at higher altitudes, and engage targets from far greater ranges, further reducing their exposure to ground threats. The existing restricted area is not large enough to allow this essential high altitude, long-range weapons delivery training to be accomplished at the Adirondack Range. In combination with this rulemaking restricted area proposal, the FAA is also considering the ANG's nonrulemaking proposal to redesign and expand the Military Operations Areas in the vicinity of Fort Drum, NY, as described above in the “Proposed MOA Changes” section. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation
(DOT)Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Environmental Review This proposal will be subjected to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas. The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 73.52 [Amended] 2. § 73.52 is amended as follows: 1. R-5201 Fort Drum, NY [Amended] By removing the current designated altitudes and substituting the following: *Designated altitudes.* Surface to but not including 23,000 feet MSL. 2. R-5202A Fort Drum, NY [New] Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 44°01′05″ N., long. 75°37′14″ W.; to lat. 44°03′20″ N., long. 75°40′49″ W.; to lat. 44°06′55″ N., long. 75°42′09″ W.; to lat. 44°10′50″ N., long. 75°38′59″ W.; to lat. 44°16′07″ N., long. 75°32′41″ W.; to lat. 44°11′24″ N., long. 75°22′59″ W.; to lat. 44°07′10″ N., long. 75°26′49″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Designated altitudes.* FL 230 to FL 290. *Time of designation.* May 1-August 21: 0800-1700, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM. September 1-April 30: 0800-2200 local time, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM. *Controlling agency.* FAA, Boston ARTCC. *Using agency.* NY ANG, 174FW/Det 1, Fort Drum, NY 3. R-5202B Fort Drum, NY [New] *Boundaries.* Beginning at lat. 44°10′18″ N., long. 75°41′18″ W.; to lat. 44°20′32″ N., long. 75°32′04″ W.; to lat. 44°14′00″ N., long. 75°17′00″ W.; to lat. 44°06′00″ N., long. 75°25′10″ W.; to lat. 44°06′00″ N., long. 75°28′49″ W.; to lat. 44°07′10″ N., long. 75°26′49″ W.; to lat. 44°11′24″ N., long. 75°22′59″ W.; to lat. 44°16′07″ N., long. 75°32′41″ W.; to lat. 44°10′50″ N., long. 75°38′59″ W.; to lat. 44°09′34″ N., long. 75°40′00″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Designated altitudes* . 6,000 feet MSL to FL 290. *Time of designation* . May 1-August 21: 0800-1700, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM. September 1-April 30: 0800-2200 local time, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM. *Controlling agency* . FAA, Boston ARTCC. *Using agency* . NY ANG, 174FW/Det 1, Fort Drum, NY Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2007. Edith V. Parish, Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. BILLING CODE 4910-13-P EP06JN07.000 EP06JN07.001 [FR Doc. 07-2734 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 8
Traces to 8 documents
register
U.S. Code
7 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 457
- 7 CFR 3015
- 7 CFR 11
- 7 CFR 400
- 7 CFR 457.172
- 14 CFR 39
- 14 CFR 73
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Proposed rule with request for comments
Cite7 CFR 457
Cite7 CFR 3015
Cite7 CFR 11
Cite7 CFR 400
Cites 15 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources