Unknown. Final rule

9,403 words·~43 min read·/register/2007/07/10/07-3339·

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-07-10.xml --- 72 131 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Grapes Grown in southeastern California, 37423-37425 E7-13342 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Food and Nutrition Service See Forest Service See Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37504-37505 E7-13317 E7-13319 E7-13320 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps Broadcasting Broadcasting Board of Governors NOTICES Meetings;

Sunshine Act, 37512 07-3379 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panels, 37534 E7-13327 E7-13329 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37534-37535 07-3337 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Regattas and marine parades: Detroit Captain of Port Zone marine events, 37454 E7-13367 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Transportation Worker Identification Credential Program in Maritime Sector; implementation guidance, 37537 E7-13368 Commerce Commerce Department See Industry and Security Bureau See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration CITA Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements NOTICES Textile and apparel categories: Quota and visa requirements— Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act beneficiary countries; articles assembled from regional fabric; duty- and quota-free import limitations, 37514 E7-13380 Community Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37567-37568 E7-13331 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37568-37569 E7-13283 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Subprime mortgage lending; policy statement, 37569-37575 07-3316 Defense Defense Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Arms sales notification; transmittal letter, etc., 37514-37518 07-3335 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005: Importation and production quotas for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, 37439-37453 E7-13377 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37519-37521 E7-13287 E7-13346 E7-13347 E7-13348 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Meetings;

Sunshine Act, 37522 07-3381 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission See Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Meetings: NRC/DOE joint technical issues, 37547-37548 07-3358 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Worchester County, MD; Atlantic Coast of Maryland Shoreline Protection Project, 37518-37519 07-3287 EPA Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air programs: Volatile organic compound emissions control— Paper, film, foil, metal furniture, and large appliance coatings; control techniques guidelines, 37582-37605 E7-13104 NOTICES Meetings:

Coastal Elevations and Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee, 37527-37528 E7-13340 Scientific Counselors Board, 37528 E7-13337 Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 37529 E7-13335 Superfund; response and remedial actions, proposed settlements, etc.: Imel Battery and Lead Site, IN, 37529-37530 E7-13341 Toxic and hazardous substances control: Citizens’ petitions— Sierra Club et al., 37530-37531 E7-13336 Water pollution control: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System— Idaho; aquaculture facilities; general permits, 37531-37532 E7-13343 Water programs:

Public water system supervision program— Alaska, 37532 E7-13338 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents See Science and Technology Policy Office Farm Farm Credit Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 37533 07-3380 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Offshore airspace areas Correction, 37430-37431 E7-13222 Special conditions— Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, 37425-37430 07-3339 VOR Federal airways; correction, 37431 E7-13209 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives:

Airbus, 37472-37475, 37477-37479 E7-13352 E7-13354 Boeing, 37475-37477, 37479-37487 E7-13326 E7-13353 E7-13366 Class E airspace, 37487-37491 07-3341 07-3342 07-3343 07-3344 NOTICES Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.: Spokane, WA, et al., 37559-37563 07-3340 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Subprime mortgage lending; policy statement, 37569-37575 07-3316 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Disaster and emergency areas:

Texas, 37537-37538 E7-13321 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Natural gas companies (Natural Gas Act): Blanket certification and rates clarification; revisions, 37431-37436 E7-12560 NOTICES Meetings: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; technical conference, 37524-37525 E7-13307 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Central Kentucky Transmission Co., 37522-37523 E7-13303 E7-13304 Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 37523 E7-13301 Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., 37523-37524 E7-13306 El Paso Natural Gas Co., 37524 E7-13305 State University of New York, Old Westbury, 37524 E7-13302 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37563-37565 E7-13376 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies:

Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 37533-37534 E7-13314 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Subprime mortgage lending; policy statement, 37569-37575 07-3316 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Importation, exportation, and transportation of wildlife: Injurious wildlife— Silver carp and largescale silver carp, 37459-37469 E7-13371 NOTICES Endangered and threatened species: Incidental take permits— Brevard County, FL; Florida scrub jay, 37538-37539 E7-13351 Survival enhancement permits— Nevada;

Railroad Valley springfish; safe harbor agreement, 37539-37540 E7-13356 Nevada; White River springfish, etc., 37540-37542 E7-13375 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Animal drugs, feeds, and related products: Deracoxib, 37436-37437 E7-13372 Ivermectin, 37437-37439 E7-13369 Food Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Child nutrition programs: Child and Adult Care Food Program— Day Care Home Food; national average payment rates, 37505-37508 07-3366 National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, national average payments/maximum reimbursement, 37508-37511 07-3365 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings:

Resource Advisory Committees— Ravalli County, 37511 07-3327 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health RULES Energy Employees Occupational Illness compensation Program Act: Special Exposure Cohort; employee classes designation as members; procedures, 37455-37459 E7-13233 Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings:

Migrant Health National Advisory Council, 37535 E7-13345 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Emergency Management Agency Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Mortgage and loan insurance programs: Single family mortgage insurance— Mortgaged property; mortgagor's investment standards, 37500-37501 07-3357 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee, 37512 07-3324 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations:

Canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures, 37543 E7-13276 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration Labor Labor Department See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Alaska Native claims selection: Ekwok Natives Ltd., 37542 E7-13325 Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Utah; correction, 37542 E7-13370 Survey plat filings: Idaho, 37543 E7-13344 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37565-37566 E7-13349 Coastwise trade laws; administrative waivers:

ADELAIDE, 37566 E7-13350 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37543-37544 E7-13281 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Subprime mortgage lending; policy statement, 37569-37575 07-3316 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 37535-37536 07-3317 07-3320 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 37536-37537 07-3321 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 37535-37536 07-3318 National Institute of Mental Health, 37536 07-3319 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Fishery conservation and management:

Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions— Klamath River Coho Salmon Recovery Plan, 37512-37513 E7-13361 Marine mammal permit applications, determinations, etc., 37513 E7-13363 Meetings: BSAI Crab Economic Data Collection Program; review, 37513-37514 E7-13323 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Radioactive material; packaging and transportation: Safe transport of radioactive material; proposed issues or identified problems, 37471-37472 E7-13318 Rulemaking petitions: Epstein, Eric;

Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., 37470-37471 E7-13316 NOTICES Meetings: NRC/DOE joint technical issues, 37547-37548 07-3358 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 37544-37546 E7-13360 Florida Power & Light Co., 37546 E7-13357 STP Nuclear Operating Co., 37546-37547 E7-13358 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Occupational safety and health standards: Methylene chloride standard; Regulatory Flexibility Act review, 37501-37503 E7-13208 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Pipeline safety:

Waiver petitions— TPM, Inc., et al., 37566-37567 E7-13379 Postal Postal Service RULES International Mail Manual: International customized mail agreements; notifications, 37454-37455 07-3332 Presidential Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Nuclear energy facilities; assignment of certain functions (Memorandum of July 3, 2007), 37625-37627 07-3384 Pakistan; waiver of coup-related sanctions (Presidential Determination) No. 2007-23 of June 28, 2007, 37419 07-3373 Turkmenistan;

Trade Act of 1974 (Presidential Determination) No. 2007-24 of June 28, 2007, 37421 07-3374 Public Public Debt Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37575 E7-13373 RUS Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37511-37512 E7-13298 Science Science and Technology Policy Office NOTICES Meetings: National Aeronautics Research and Development Plan and Related Infrastructure Plan, 37532-37533 E7-13374 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Securities:

Compensatory employee stock options; registration requirements exemption, 37608-37624 E7-13324 NOTICES Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 37548-37549 E7-13312 Boston Stock Exchange, Inc, 37549-37551 E7-13309 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 37551-37555 E7-13275 E7-13310 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 37555-37557 E7-13308 NYSE Arca, Inc., 37557-37558 E7-13311 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster loan areas:

Iowa, 37558 E7-13284 Mississippi, 37558 E7-13286 Texas, 37558-37559 E7-13285 Social Social Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Social security benefits and supplemental security income: Federal old age, survivors, and disability insurance and aged, blind, and disabled— Quick disability determination process, 37496-37500 E7-13288 State State Department NOTICES Meetings: International Security Advisory Board; canceled, 37559 E7-13334 Textile Textile Agreements Implementation Committee See Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements Thrift Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Subprime mortgage lending; policy statement, 37569-37575 07-3316 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Maritime Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Economic regulations: Oversales and denied boarding compensation, 37491-37496 E7-13365 Treasury Treasury Department See Community Development Financial Institutions Fund See Comptroller of the Currency See Public Debt Bureau See Thrift Supervision Office Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 37575-37578 E7-13280 E7-13290 E7-13291 E7-13292 E7-13293 E7-13294 E7-13296 Meetings:

Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses Research Advisory Committee, 37578-37579 07-3323 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: White Wind Farm Project, SD; construction and operation, 37525-37527 E7-13328 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 37582-37605 E7-13104 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 37608-37624 E7-13324 Part IV Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents 37625-37627 07-3384 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 131 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 925 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0029; FV07-925-2 FR] Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California;

Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule increases the assessment rate established for the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee (committee) for the 2007 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0175 to $0.0200 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled. The committee locally administers the marketing order, which regulates the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. Assessments upon desert grape handlers are used by the committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program.

The fiscal period began January 1 and ends December 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Sasselli, Program Analyst, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone:

(559)487-5901, Fax:

(559)487-5906, or e-mail: *Toni.Sasselli@usda.gov* or *Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:

(202)720-2491, Fax:

(202)720-8938, or e-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 925, both as amended (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture

(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California grape handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable grapes beginning on January 1, 2007, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule increases the assessment rate established for the committee for the 2007 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0175 to $0.0200 per 18-pound lug of grapes. The California grape marketing order provides authority for the committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the committee are producers and handlers of California grapes. They are familiar with the committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input. For the 2005 and subsequent fiscal periods, the committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other information available to USDA. The committee met on February 6, 2007, and unanimously recommended expenditures of $160,768 and an assessment rate of $0.0200 per 18-pound lug of grapes for the 2007 fiscal period. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $131,318. The assessment rate of $0.0200 is $0.0025 higher than the rate currently in effect. The increased assessment rate is needed to permit the committee to fund a research project on Vineyard Mealy Bugs and to ensure that an adequate carryover of reserve funds is available for the 2008 fiscal year. The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2007 fiscal period include $18,000 for research, $5,000 for compliance activities, $109,068 for salaries and payroll expenses, and $28,700 for other expenses. In comparison, budgeted expenses for these items in 2006 were $5,000 for compliance activities, $103,668 for salaries and payroll expenses, and $22,650 for other expenses. The committee did not budget for research projects in 2006. The assessment rate recommended by the committee was derived by subtracting the committee's total available funds from their anticipated 2007 expenses and dividing the remainder by the estimated 2007 shipments. The total anticipated 2007 expenses are $160,768, and the desired ending reserve is $39,432. The available carry-in funds are $70,000, and the anticipated interest income is $200. The 2007 estimated shipments are 6.5 million 18-pound lugs. Based on this calculation, (($160,768 + $39,432)−($70,000 + $200)) ÷ 6.5 million = $0.0200, the $0.0200 assessment rate will provide sufficient funds to meet anticipated expenses of $160,768 and will allow for an adequate December 2007 ending reserve of $39,432. Thus, the December 2007 ending reserve will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order, approximately one fiscal period's expenses, as required under 925.41 of the order. It will also be adequate to cover early-season

(2008)expenses before assessment income is received. The assessment rate in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other available information. Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of committee meetings are available from the committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The committee's 2007 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. There are approximately 50 producers of grapes in the production area and approximately 20 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts less than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000. Last year, six of the 20 handlers subject to regulation had annual grape sales of at least $6,500,000. In addition, 10 of the 50 producers had annual sales of at least $750,000. Therefore, a majority of handlers and producers may be classified as small entities. This rule increases the assessment rate established for the committee and collected from handlers for the 2007 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0175 to $0.0200 per 18-pound lug of grapes. The committee unanimously recommended expenditures of $160,768 and an assessment rate of $0.0200 per 18-pound lug of grapes for the 2007 fiscal period. The proposed assessment rate of $0.0200 is $0.0025 higher than the 2006 rate. The number of assessable grapes is estimated at 6.5 million 18-pound lugs. Thus, the $0.0200 rate should provide $130,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the committee's authorized carry-in reserve should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2007 fiscal period include $18,000 for research, $5,000 for compliance activities, $109,068 for salaries and payroll expenses, and $28,700 for other expenses. In comparison, budgeted expenses for these items in 2006 were $5,000 for compliance activities, $103,668 for salaries and payroll expenses, and $22,650 for other expenses. The committee did not budget for research projects in 2006. The committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2007 expenditures of $160,768, which included an increase due to a new research project. Prior to arriving at this budget, the committee considered alternative expenditure and assessment rate levels, but ultimately decided that the recommended levels were reasonable to properly administer the order. The assessment rate recommended by the committee was derived by the following formula: Anticipated expenses ($160,768) plus desired 2007 ending reserve ($39,432), minus the 2007 beginning reserve ($70,000) and the anticipated interest income ($200), divided by total shipments (6.5 million 18-pound lugs), equals the recommended assessment rate ($0.0200 per 18-pound lug). This rate will provide sufficient funds in combination with interest and reserve funds to meet the anticipated expenses of $160,768 and result in a December 2007 ending reserve of $39,432, which is acceptable to the committee. Thus, the December 2007 ending reserve will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order, approximately one fiscal period's expense, as required under § 925.41 of the order. A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the 2007 fiscal period indicates that the on-vine grower price for the season could range between $5.00 and $9.00 per 18-pound lug of grapes. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2007 fiscal period as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between 0.2 and 0.4 percent. This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs will be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the grape production area and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the February 6, 2007, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California grape handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. The AMS 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. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the **Federal Register** on May 3, 2007 (72 FR 24551). Copies of the proposed rule were provided to all grape handlers, and handlers were invited to submit comments at a California Desert Grape Administrative Committee meeting on May 9, 2007. Finally, the proposal was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending June 4, 2007, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the committee and other available information it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** because:

(1)The 2007 fiscal period began on January 1, 2007, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable grapes handled during such period;

(2)the industry has been shipping grapes since April 2007;

(3)the committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; and

(4)handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years. Also, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925 Grapes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 0 For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is amended as follows: PART 925—GRAPES GROWN IN A DESIGNATED AREA OF SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 925 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Section 925.215 is revised to read as follows: § 925.215 Assessment rate. On and after January 1, 2007, an assessment rate of $0.0200 per 18-pound lug is established for grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. Dated: July 5, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-13342 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM359; Special Conditions No. 25-358-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Model 737 Series Airplanes; Seats With Non-Traditional, Large, Non-Metallic Panels AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with seats that include non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels that would affect survivability during a post-crash fire event. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of these special conditions is August 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe/Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2195; facsimile

(425)227-1232; electronic mail *alan.sinclair@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Future Requests for Installation of Seats With Non-Traditional, Large, Non-Metallic Panels We anticipate that seats with non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels will be installed in other makes and models of airplanes. We have made the determination to require special conditions for all applications requesting the installation of seats with non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels until the airworthiness requirements can be revised to address this issue. Having the same standards across the range of airplane makes and models will ensure a level playing field for the aviation industry. Background On August 8, 2005, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124, applied for a design change to Type Certificate No. A16WE for installation of seats that include non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels in Boeing Model 737-700 series airplanes. The Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, currently approved under Type Certificate No. A16WE, are swept-wing, conventional-tail, twin-engine, turbofan-powered, single aisle, medium sized transport category airplanes. The applicable regulations for airplanes currently approved under Type Certificate No. A16WE do not require seats to meet the more stringent flammability standards required of large, non-metallic panels in the cabin interior. At the time the applicable rules were written, seats were designed with a metal frame covered by fabric, not with large, non-metallic panels. Seats also met the then recently adopted standards for flammability of seat cushions. With the seat design being mostly fabric and metal, the contribution to a fire in the cabin had been minimized and was not considered a threat. For these reasons, seats did not need to be tested to heat release and smoke emission requirements. Seat designs have now evolved to occasionally include non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels. Taken in total, the surface area of these panels is on the same order as the sidewall and overhead stowage bin interior panels. To provide the level of passenger protection intended by the airworthiness standards, these non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels in the cabin must meet the standards of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 25, Appendix F, parts IV and V, heat release and smoke emission requirements. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 737 series airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A16WE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A16WE are as follows: Title 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-15, for the Models 737-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500. Title 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-77, for the Models 737-600, -700, and -800, with the exceptions listed: Section 25.853(d)(3), Compartment interiors, at Amendment 25-72; and equivalent safety findings, § 25.853(f), Compartment interiors. Title 141 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-91, for the Models 737-700C and -900, with the exceptions listed: Section 25.853(d)(3), Compartment interiors, at Amendment 25-72; and equivalent safety findings, § 25.853(f), Compartment interiors. Title 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-108, for the models 737-900ER, with the exceptions listed: Section 25.853(d)(3), Compartment interiors, at Amendment 25-72; and equivalent safety findings, Section 25.853(f), Compartment interiors. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 737 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 737 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA issues special conditions as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The Boeing Model 737 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: These models offer interior arrangements that include passenger seats that incorporate non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels in lieu of the traditional metal frame covered by fabric. The flammability properties of these panels have been shown to significantly affect the survivability of the cabin in the case of fire. These seats are considered a novel design for transport category airplanes that include Amendment 25-61 and Amendment 25-66 in the certification basis, and were not considered when those airworthiness standards were established. The existing regulations do not provide adequate or appropriate safety standards for seat designs that incorporate non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels in their designs. In order to provide a level of safety that is equivalent to that afforded to the balance of the cabin, additional airworthiness standards, in the form of special conditions, are necessary. These special conditions supplement § 25.853. The requirements contained in these special conditions consist of applying the identical test conditions required of all other large panels in the cabin, to seats with non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels. Definition of “Non-Traditional, Large, Non-Metallic Panel” A non-traditional, large, non-metallic panel, in this case, is defined as a panel with exposed-surface areas greater than 1.5 square feet installed per seat place. The panel may consist of either a single component or multiple components in a concentrated area. Examples of parts of the seat where these non-traditional panels are installed include, but are not limited to: Seat backs, bottoms and leg/foot rests, kick panels, back shells, credenzas and associated furniture. Examples of traditional exempted parts of the seat include: Arm caps, armrest close-outs such as end bays and armrest-styled center consoles, food trays, video monitors and shrouds. Clarification of “Exposed” “Exposed” is considered to include those panels directly exposed to the passenger cabin in the traditional sense, plus those panels enveloped such as by a dress cover. Traditional fabrics or leathers currently used on seats are excluded from these special conditions. These materials must still comply with § 25.853(a) and § 25.853(c) if used as a covering for a seat cushion, or § 25.853(a) if installed elsewhere on the seat. Non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels covered with traditional fabrics or leathers will be tested without their coverings or covering attachments. Discussion In the early 1980s the FAA conducted extensive research on the effects of post-crash flammability in the passenger cabin. As a result of this research and service experience, we adopted new standards for interior surfaces associated with large surface area parts. Specifically, the rules require measurement of heat release and smoke emission (part 25, Appendix F, parts IV and V) for the affected parts. Heat release has been shown to have a direct correlation with post-crash fire survival time. Materials that comply with the standards (i.e., § 25.853 entitled “Compartment interiors,” as amended by Amendment 25-61 and Amendment 25-66), extend survival time by approximately 2 minutes, over materials that do not comply. At the time these standards were written, the potential application of the requirements of heat release and smoke emission to seats was explored. The seat frame itself was not a concern because it was primarily made of aluminum and there were only small amounts of non-metallic materials. It was determined that the overall effect on survivability was negligible, whether or not the food trays met the heat release and smoke requirements. The requirements therefore did not address seats. The preambles to both the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), Notice No. 85-10 (50 FR 15038, April16, 1985) and the Final Rule at Amendment 25-61 (51 FR 26206, July 21, 1986), specifically note that seats were excluded “because the recently-adopted standards for flammability of seat cushions will greatly inhibit involvement of the seats.” Subsequently, the Final Rule at Amendment 25-83 (60 FR 6615, March 6, 1995) clarified the definition of minimum panel size: “It is not possible to cite a specific size that will apply in all installations; however, as a general rule, components with exposed-surface areas of one square foot or less may be considered small enough that they do not have to meet the new standards. Components with exposed-surface areas greater than two square feet may be considered large enough that they do have to meet the new standards. Those with exposed-surface areas greater than one square foot, but less than two square feet, must be considered in conjunction with the areas of the cabin in which they are installed before a determination could be made.” In the late 1990s, the FAA issued Policy Memorandum 97-112-39, *Guidance for Flammability Testing of Seat/Console Installations* , October 17, 1997 ( *http://rgl.faa.gov* ). That memo was issued when it became clear that seat designs were evolving to include large non-metallic panels with surface areas that would impact survivability during a cabin fire event, comparable to partitions or galleys. The memo noted that large surface area panels must comply with heat release and smoke emission requirements, even if they were attached to a seat. If the FAA had not issued such policy, seat designs could have been viewed as a loophole to the airworthiness standards that would result in an unacceptable decrease in survivability during a cabin fire event. In October of 2004, an issue was raised regarding the appropriate flammability standards for passenger seats that incorporated non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels in lieu of the traditional metal covered by fabric. The Seattle Aircraft Certification Office and Transport Standards Staff reviewed this design and determined that it represented the kind and quantity of material that should be required to pass the heat release and smoke emissions requirements. We have determined that special conditions would be promulgated to apply the standards defined in 14 CFR 25.853(d) to seats with large, non-metallic panels in their design. Discussion of Comments Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-06-13-SC, pertaining to Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, was published in the **Federal Register** on November 9, 2006. Comments were received from Air Tran, Airbus, B/E Aerospace, Boeing, Delta Engineering, the International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA), KLM, and Weber Aircraft LP. Special Conditions Are Not the Appropriate Means To Establish These Requirements Airbus, Boeing, Delta Engineering, ICCAIA, and Weber suggested that the proposed special conditions were not the appropriate way to establish these requirements. These commenters suggested that either the seat technical standard order

(TSO)be revised to include the requirements, or that formal rulemaking activity take place to amend Title 14 CFR part 25. The commenters stated that including the requirements in either the seat TSO or an amendment to part 25 would ensure that the requirements were applied equally and consistently throughout the FAA and industry. Airbus stated that if the requirements were located in the seat TSO it would reduce the overall administrative burden by requiring a single showing of compliance for a given seat design that may be installed in different types of airplanes. *FAA Response:* We believe that including these requirements in the context of special conditions is appropriate. The proliferation of the use of large, non-metallic panels in the construction of seats has created a need to issue special conditions to maintain the current level of safety. Special conditions are the best way of introducing these requirements until we determine it is necessary to amend part 25 through the rulemaking process. Also, seats are not required to follow guidance in a TSO to be eligible for installation on an airplane. Furthermore, the proposed TSO C127b includes these standards as optional criteria. Request To Add Airplane Models to the Applicability Air Trans, Boeing, Delta Engineering, ICCAIA, and Weber all suggested that the applicability of the proposed special conditions be expanded and not limited to only Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. The commenters noted that other airplane models certified under 14 CFR part 25 include the same design features identified as “novel or unusual” on Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. *FAA Response:* We agree that many other airplane models certified under 14 CFR part 25 include “novel or unusual” design features similar to those on Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. We are developing model-specific special conditions for all transport category airplanes operating under part 121 regulations. We will continue to issue special conditions regarding this subject until part 25 is formally amended through the rulemaking process. If part 25 is amended, these requirements will have general applicability instead of model-specific applicability. We are currently using a similar approach for high intensity radiated fields

(HIRF)special conditions. The HIRF special conditions will continue to be issued on a model-specific basis until part 25 is amended to include regulations applicable to HIRF. Request To Add Airplanes Operating Under Part 129 to the Applicability Delta Engineering questioned why the proposed special conditions would be applicable to airplanes operated under 14 CFR part 121 and would not be applicable to airplanes operated under 14 CFR part 129. Delta Engineering provided the example of an airplane with a foreign registration. Per the applicability of the proposed special conditions, the requirements of the proposed special conditions would not be applicable because the airplane would be operated in compliance with part 129 operating rules instead of part 121 operating rules. *FAA Response:* As discussed previously, our intent in adopting these special conditions is to apply them to airplanes that are already required to comply with the smoke and heat release requirements adopted in Amendment 25-61 and Amendment 25-66. Model 737 airplanes with this amendment in their certification basis * are subject to these special conditions, regardless of the operational regulatory parts under which they are operated. Certain other airplanes operated under part 121 are also subject to these requirements as a result of § 121.312, as amended by Amendment 121-189, even if their certification basis does not include Amendment 25-61. However, airplanes with a certification basis preceding Amendment 25-61 and not subject to § 121.312 are not required to comply either with § 25.853 or with these special conditions. * Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 as of the effective date of these special conditions. Request To Clarify the Effects of the Proposed Special Conditions on the Existing Fleet Air Trans and KLM expressed concern that the requirements in the proposed special conditions would be retroactive and affect the existing airplane fleet or follow-on deliveries of airplanes with previously certified interiors. *FAA Response:* We have added a new special condition 4 in these special conditions to clarify that only airplanes associated with new seat certification programs will be affected by the requirements in these special conditions. Previously certificated interiors on the existing airplane fleet and follow-on deliveries of airplanes with previously certificated interiors will not be affected. Request for Justification Regarding Selection of Materials and Quantitative Limits Air Tran, B/E Aerospace, and Weber questioned how 1.5 square feet became the maximum area of non-metallic material per seat. B/E stated that the proposed special conditions need further review because the exclusion does not adequately address items traditionally mounted on seat backs. B/E specifically asked if large video monitors would have to comply when installed in seat backs or large, non-metallic panels. Weber stated that the proposed special conditions include many exclusions based on the size and location of material. Weber also stated that the quantitative limits for these exclusions do not appear to be based on data. Weber suggested that the proposed special conditions be revised to include justification for the quantitative limits. Furthermore, Weber stated that due to the number of passenger places, First Class seats are limited to a much smaller amount of non-compliant material than Tourist Class seats, despite the fact that there are fewer First Class seats per area of the passenger cabin. Larger seats with fewer passenger places should not have lower quantitative limits on non-compliant material. Weber also stated that, based on observation of airplane cabins and the amount of materials in a seat design, the following statement in the proposed special conditions is incorrect: “Seat designs have now evolved to occasionally include non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels. Taken in total, the surface area of these panels is on the same order as the sidewall and overhead stowage bin interior panels.” *FAA Response:* In 1993, the FAA published a report (DODT/FAA/CT-TN93-13) documenting the results of full-scale testing using panels on seats that did, or did not, comply with heat release and smoke emissions requirements. Those test results showed that limited quantities of material on seats that did not meet heat release and smoke emissions requirements did not raise a safety issue. Amendment 25-83 states that, based on this testing, components with exposed-surface areas greater than one square foot, but less than two square feet, must be considered in conjunction with the areas of the cabin in which they are installed before a determination can be made regarding whether or not they have to meet the heat release and smoke density regulations. Based on that information we determined that 1.5 feet of non-metallic material per seat is appropriate. In response to B/E Aerospace's comment, video monitor installations are not affected by these special conditions. There are existing flammability regulations that cover those installations. In response to Weber's comment regarding the size limitations, as noted above, we believe that the quantitative limits are justified. These size limitations are consistent with full-scale test data and the design criteria developed at the time Amendment 25-61 was adopted. Also, these size limitations were considered during the rulemaking process for Amendment 25-61. In response to Weber's comment regarding our statement that the surface areas of some seat installations are equivalent to the amount of material in sidewall and overhead stowage bin interior panels, in our review of applicants' proposed furnishings for passenger cabin installations, we have noticed an increase in the use of large, non-metallic material in proposed seating configurations. Based on those reviews, we believe that our statement is correct. Request To Revise the Type Certification Basis Section Boeing noted that the amendment levels for some of the airplanes were incorrectly cited in the Type Certification Basis section of the proposed special conditions. *FAA Response:* We have revised the Type Certification Basis section to incorporate Boeing's recommended changes. Request for Clarification of the Testing Method in the “Clarification of Exposed” Paragraph B/E Aerospace asked if the non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels covered with traditional fabrics or leathers could be tested without the dress cover. Boeing suggested that the words “or method of covering attachment” be added in the last sentence of the “Clarification of Exposed” paragraph. *FAA Response:* We agree to revise the last sentence of the “Clarification of Exposed” paragraph to address B/E Aerospace's question and incorporate Boeing's suggestion. In these special conditions that sentence now states “Non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels covered with traditional fabrics or leathers will be tested without their coverings or covering attachments.” Request for Clarification Regarding Fabric and Thermoplastic Panels Airbus requested that the FAA provide information regarding whether or not fabric covered panels are less threatening than thermoplastic ones. No justification was provided for this request. *FAA Response:* The standards for using fabric, thermoplastic, and leather have been previously established and are applied separately. Request for a Better Description of Traditional and Non-Traditional Areas/Furnishings Airbus requested a better description of the console size in the “Definition of ‘Non-Traditional, Large, Non-Metallic Panel ’ ” paragraph of the proposed special conditions. Airbus noted that in the proposed special conditions “Center Consoles” are listed as “traditional exempted areas.” Airbus stated that this may be true for small consoles that “* * * do not protrude the standard seat cushion geometries. However, it is understood that large consoles (which do also divide the forward legroom) are expected to comply with HRR/SD [heat release and smoke density] criteria.” Airbus suggested that this issue should be clarified because FAA Memorandum 97-112-39, *Guidance for Flammability Testing of Seat/Console Installations,* addresses those larger, separate consoles. B/E Aerospace stated that the definition of non-traditional areas was not adequate and asked about seat backs, seat bottoms, and kick panels. This commenter also asked if fire blocking material is considered a traditional fabric. *FAA Response:* We agree and have revised this paragraph to include “credenzas” as an additional example of non-traditional areas and “armrest-styled center consoles” as an additional example of traditionally exempted areas. In this final special condition the revised sentences appear as follows: “Examples of nontraditional areas include, but are not limited to: seat backs, bottoms and leg/foot rests, kick panels, back shells, credenzas and associated furniture. Examples of traditional exempted areas include: arm caps, armrest close-outs such as end bays and armrest-styled center consoles, food trays, video monitors and shrouds.” Request for Additional Testing by the FAA Airbus, Delta Engineering, ICCAIA, and KLM commented that the FAA should conduct additional testing prior to implementing the proposed special conditions. Airbus and KLM provided similar statements that tests with different amounts of non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels on seats have never been performed to evaluate to what extent the increase in the flammability standard of those seat parts might influence fire safety. ICCAIA stated that the FAA should perform testing to confirm the benefit of issuing the proposed special conditions. ICCAIA noted that seat back shells may be made from parts created from a combination of different materials and sizes. As a result, application of the proposed special conditions would result in multiple tests to determine if the seat back shells were compliant, and the test results would be open to interpretation. Delta Engineering stated that the proposed special condition does not provide information regarding the smoke density and heat release aspects of traditional seat components and that, through testing, the FAA should establish the safety gains related to having the large composite panel compliant with the existing heat release and smoke density requirements. This commenter also stated that the smoke emissions from the seat cushion foam may negate any safety gain related to having the large composite panel compliant with smoke density requirements. In addition, this commenter also questioned whether the FAA conducted extensive testing to confirm that the regulatory standards now being applied to passenger seats are compatible with the requirements in the proposed special conditions. *FAA Response:* As stated in the proposed special conditions, the FAA has conducted extensive research on the effects of post-crash flammability in the passenger cabin. As a result of that research, combined with service experience, we adopted new airworthiness standards for interior surfaces associated with large surface area parts. The proliferation of the use of large, non-metallic panels in the construction of seats was not anticipated when those airworthiness standards were issued. This increased use of large, non-metallic panels in seating configurations has created a need to issue special conditions to provide the level of passenger protection intended by those airworthiness standards. Seat cushion standards are a separate consideration and were taken into account when these special conditions were created. Furthermore, testing is not required to issue special conditions. The basis for issuing special conditions is that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for a “novel or unusual” design feature. Request for a Cost-Benefit Analysis Airbus, B/E Aerospace, ICCAIA, and Weber noted that the proposed special conditions did not include a cost-benefit analysis to support the proposed requirements. Airbus suggested that a cost-benefit analysis should be done through the traditional rulemaking process. ICCAIA stated that the cost-benefit analysis should be conducted because the requirements in the proposed special conditions would be applied to other airplane makes and models. B/E Aerospace and Weber provided similar statements regarding the cost impact to seat manufacturers. Those commenters stated that compliant material is limited and expensive. Weber also stated that significant time and costs would be involved in modifying current designs and developing new materials to comply with the proposed special conditions. *FAA Response:* When Amendment 25-61 went through the formal rulemaking process a formal economic regulatory analysis was provided. These special conditions effectively serve to maintain the benefits achieved in that amendment by providing an equivalent level of safety for the novel or unusual design feature described earlier. Under Executive Order 12866, these analyses are required only for rules of general applicability. A cost-benefit analysis is not part of the process for proposing special conditions, which apply only to a specified type certificate and are not rules of general applicability. Request To Clarify the Effective Date of the Proposed Special Conditions Air Trans and Boeing both commented on the effective date of the proposed special conditions. Air Trans stated that the proposed special conditions did not include an effective date. Boeing commented that these proposed special conditions should not be applicable upon publication and should not be applicable to the first delivered Model 737-900ER airplane. Boeing noted that it typically takes at least one year for seat manufacturers to incorporate major design changes, such as those required in the proposed special conditions. *FAA Response:* In response to Air Trans' statement, under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions is 30 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . These special conditions follow this practice and will be applicable to all type design changes that include new seat approvals applied for after the effective date of these special conditions. In response to Boeing's comment, as stated previously, the issue regarding large, non-metallic seats is a long standing one and has generated many discussions between the FAA and the aviation industry. Through the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office the FAA has made Boeing aware of the requirements in these special conditions. Since the time the proposed special conditions were published for public comment, the first Boeing Model 737-900ER airplane was delivered; therefore, these special conditions are not applicable to the approved arrangement on that airplane. Request To Extend the Public Comment Period Boeing requested that the public comment period for the proposed special conditions be extended from 20 days to 60 days. Boeing stated that the proposed special conditions would require significant design changes to seat components. Airframe and seat manufacturers would need to assess the economic impact of the proposed special conditions and communicate that information to the FAA. *FAA Response:* The subject of large, non-metallic seat panels is a long standing issue between the FAA and the aviation industry. We have had ongoing discussions with industry representatives in an effort to work out a solution, and the results of these discussions are reflected in these special conditions. We do not agree that an extension to the public comment period is needed or would result in further changes to these special conditions. Except as noted above, these special conditions are adopted as proposed. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well. Seats do not have to meet these special conditions when installed in compartments that are not otherwise required to meet the test requirements of Title 14 CFR part 25, Appendix F, parts IV and V. For example, airplanes that do not have § 25.853, Amendment 25-61 or later, in their certification basis and those airplanes that do not need to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 121.312. Only airplanes associated with new certification programs applied for after the effective date of these special conditions will be affected by the requirements in these special conditions. The existing airplane fleet and follow-on deliveries of airplanes with previously certified interiors are not affected. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. 1. Except as provided in paragraph 3 of these special conditions, compliance with Title 14 CFR part 25, Appendix F, parts IV and V, heat release and smoke emission, is required for seats that corporate non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels that may either be a single component or multiple components in a concentrated area in their design. 2. The applicant may designate up to and including 1.5 square feet of non-traditional, non-metallic panel material per seat place that does not have to comply with special condition Number 1, above. A triple seat assembly may have a total of 4.5 square feet excluded on any portion of the assembly ( *e.g.* , outboard seat place 1 square foot, middle 1 square foot, and inboard 2.5 square feet). 3. Seats do not have to meet the test requirements of Title 14 CFR part 25, Appendix F, parts IV and V, when installed in compartments that are not otherwise required to meet these requirements. Examples include: a. Airplanes with passenger capacities of 19 or less, b. Airplanes that do not have § 25.853, Amendment 25-61 or later, in their certification basis and are not subject to the requirements of 14 CFR 121.312, and c. Airplanes exempted from § 25.853, Amendment 25-61 or later. 4. Only airplanes associated with new seat certification programs applied for after the effective date of these special conditions will be affected by the requirements in these special conditions. Previously certificated interiors on the existing airplane fleet and follow-on deliveries of airplanes with previously certificated interiors are not affected. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 29, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 07-3339 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

CFR

U.S. Code

8 references not yet in our index