Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-07-10 · Department of Health and Human Services · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final Rule

33,732 words·~153 min read·/register/2007/07/10/07-3341

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

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 83 RIN 0920-AA13 Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Amendments AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services is amending its procedures for designating classes of employees to be added to the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA).
The final rule adds and revises deadlines for evaluating petitions for cohort status, clarifies when time periods commence and how they toll, and provides information relevant to these deadlines on the content of petition evaluation reports. DATES: This Final Rule is effective July 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6825 (this is not a toll free number).
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to *OCAS@CDC.GOV.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Purpose of Rulemaking On October 28, 2004, the President signed the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. 108-375 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.). Division C, Subtitle E, of this Act includes amendments to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (“EEOICPA”), 42 U.S.C. 7384-7385.
Several of these amendments, under § 3166(b), established new statutory requirements under 42 U.S.C. 7384q and 7384l(14)(C)(ii) that pertain to the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) procedures established under 42 CFR part 83: “Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.” These new requirements included the following:
(1)Following the receipt of a petition for designation as members of the Special Exposure Cohort (“the Cohort”), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) must submit “a recommendation” on that petition, including all documentation, to the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (“the Board”) within 180 days;
(2)following the receipt by the Secretary of HHS (“the Secretary”) of a recommendation by the Board that the Secretary determine in the affirmative that a class meets the statutory criteria for addition to the Cohort, the Secretary must submit to Congress a determination as to whether or not the class meets these statutory criteria within 30 days;
(3)if the Secretary does not submit this determination to Congress within 30 days, then on the 31st day it shall be deemed that the Secretary has submitted a report to Congress that designates, as an addition to the Cohort, the class recommended by the Board for addition to the Cohort and that provides the criteria used to support the designation; and
(4)the period Congress shall have to review a report submitted by the Secretary to designate a class as an addition to the Cohort is reduced from 180 days to 30 days. The purpose of the new requirements was to expedite the evaluation and decision process for adding classes of employees to the Cohort. On December 22, 2005, HHS issued an *Interim Final Rule*
(IFR)incorporating changes to ensure the new statutory requirements are met and requesting public comment (70 FR 75950). The public comment period for this rulemaking was initially to close on February 21, 2006. Upon a request from the Board for additional time to comment, the comment period was extended for 30 days and closed on March 23, 2006, after a total of 90 days. As discussed below, HHS has incorporated additional changes in this Final Rule in response to comments from the Board and from the public. These changes also bring the Final Rule into alignment with the Congressional recommendations specified in the Conference Report associated with the new statutory deadlines (H. Rep. 108-767). II. Summary of Public Comments The public comment period for the IFR extended from December 22, 2005 through March 23, 2006. HHS received comments from seven parties in addition to the consensus comments of the Board. These include four individuals, one U.S. Senator, one labor organization, and one advocacy group. The comments are summarized and responded to below, together with explanations of changes HHS has incorporated into this Final Rule. A. 180-Day Deadline for NIOSH Recommendations Several commenters, including the Board, recommended that HHS reiterate in the final rule NIOSH's 180-day statutory deadline to evaluate a petition and submit recommendations to the Board. One commenter also wanted the rule to specify what actions HHS would take if NIOSH failed to meet that deadline. In contrast, another commenter recommended against including any of the statutory deadlines in the rule because of concern that hastening the evaluation and recommendation process could prevent the full and fair consideration of petitions. Commenters also raised concerns about various aspects of the IFR's petition qualification and review process. Several commenters were concerned that the rule did not include within the 180-day statutory deadline NIOSH's process for identifying deficiencies in petitions. They said the FY05 Defense Act Conference Report (H.Rep. 108-767) indicated that Congress intended for the qualification process to be included within the 180-day period, citing the following from the Report: During the 180 day period when NIOSH is preparing the petition for review by the Advisory Board, NIOSH should identify all deficiencies in the petition * * * Most commenters, including the Board, also recommended that HHS reinstate the 30-day period for petitioners to request a review of NIOSH's proposed finding that a petition is deficient and does not qualify for consideration. Finally, one commenter recommended that HHS clarify in the rule that NIOSH will provide a recommendation for *each* class of employees the petition covers. In response to those comments, HHS has made several changes in the final rule. First, HHS has added a reference to the 180-day deadline for NIOSH to evaluate petitions and submit recommendations to the Board (§ 83.13 (e)). The provisions in the IFR were designed to ensure that NIOSH would meet the deadline. Referencing the 180-day deadline in the final rule identifies the goal that the earlier changes are intended to achieve. Second, HHS has revised the rule so the process of determining whether petitions are qualified is included in the 180-day period (§§ 83.5(k) and 83.11). HHS agrees with the commenters that Congress intended to include that process in the 180-day period, and the change brings the final rule into alignment with the Conference Report. As the commenters pointed out, the IFR did not include this process in the 180-day period. In the preamble to the IFR, HHS said it was necessary to exclude the process from the deadline to ensure that NIOSH had adequate time to evaluate petitions and make recommendations within the deadline. According to NIOSH, sometimes it can take months to assist and consult with petitioners to help them remedy petition deficiencies, which could significantly impact NIOSH's ability to do a comprehensive evaluation before the deadline ended. Thus, in the IFR HHS distinguished between “submissions” ( *i.e.* , petitions that were not yet determined to meet the requirements of §§ 83.7-83.9) and “petitions” ( *i.e.* , petitions that have been determined to meet the requirements) (§ 83.5(k)). The 180-day period started tolling only when NIOSH received a “petition” (§ 83.5(k)). In the final rule, HHS has deleted § 83.5(k) and removed the distinction between submissions and petitions in § 83.11. Third, HHS has reinstated the 30-day period for petitioners to request a review of NIOSH's proposed finding that a petition is deficient (§ 83.11). In the IFR, HHS had reduced the request period to 7 days to increase the feasibility of NIOSH meeting the 180-day deadline. To ensure that the additional time for requesting review does not prevent NIOSH from meeting the deadline, HHS is adopting the recommendation of one commenter that the clock on the 180 days start when petitioners seek and are granted a review on whether their petition satisfies all requirements. Accordingly, HHS has added new paragraph
(e)to § 83.13 specifying that the 180-day period shall not include any days during which
(1)the petitioner is revising the petition to remedy deficiencies NIOSH identified,
(2)the petitioner requests a review of NIOSH's proposed finding that the petition does not meet all relevant requirements, or
(3)the three-person HHS panel (as authorized by § 83.11(d)) is reviewing the petitioner's request. Finally, HHS has revised § 83.13(d)(4) to clarify that NIOSH evaluation report findings to the Board must specify whether it is “feasible” to estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy “for each class defined in the report.” HHS is adding this specification because NIOSH sometimes finds a Cohort petition covers more than one class of employees even though it is submitted on behalf of a single class. For example, in some cases, NIOSH will find differences in radiation exposures and record availability for different employee groups at the same facility. Consequently, NIOSH evaluation reports may need to define more than one class of employees in the petition and provide separate findings concerning each class. In light of NIOSH's 180-day deadline, HHS has also added language to paragraph (d)(4) indicating that NIOSH's evaluation report must include a feasibility finding about whether radiation doses for each class of employees can be estimated with sufficient accuracy. HHS did not adopt every recommendation commenters made. HHS has not incorporated recommendations that NIOSH inform petitioners of all deficiencies within the first 30 days (H. Rep. 108-767). HHS believes the recommendation is not necessary. The changes in the final rule specifying that the 180-day period begins when NIOSH receives a petition gives the Agency more than adequate incentive to identify very quickly whether the petition qualifies for consideration or has deficiencies. Also, HHS has not adopted the recommendation to add requirements to the final rule specifying the actions HHS would take if NIOSH failed to meet the 180-day deadline. HHS fully understands the EEOICPA statutory amendments stressing the importance of evaluating petitions in a timely manner. Although there may be complex circumstances of radiation exposure or records availability or exceptional instances when it may be challenging to complete a comprehensive evaluation covering all of the classes of employees included in petition within 180 days, HHS will make every effort to meet the deadline. The NIOSH Web page at *http:www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/ocas* will continuously track the progress of each active petition for the interested public. B. Resubmission of Petitions Based on New Information Two commenters indicated confusion concerning whether a petitioner could submit a petition on behalf of a class of employees subsequent to NIOSH finding that a prior petition covering the class did not meet the petition requirements. The commenters believed that § 83.11(f) only permitted NIOSH, upon its own discretion, to consider a petition for a class of employees for which a prior petition had already been found to not meet petition requirements. Nothing in the rule would prevent a petitioner from submitting a subsequent petition based on new information. Such a petition would be evaluated by NIOSH as a new petition. HHS has amended § 83.11, adding paragraph (g), to clarify that petitioners may submit an additional petition for a class of employees, based on new information, subsequent to NIOSH finding that a petition does not meet the petition requirements specified in §§ 83.7—83.9. The existing paragraph
(f)of § 83.11 has a different purpose. It is intended to allow NIOSH to reconsider a petition that it found to not meet petition requirements, based on new information NIOSH might obtain from any source, irrespective of any further action of the petitioner. C. Deadline for the Chair of the Board To Submit the Cohort Petition Recommendations of the Board One commenter recommended that HHS regulate the current policy of the Board that requires the Chair to submit recommendations of the Board on the outcome of Cohort petitions to the Secretary within 21 days of the Board's consensus formulation and approval of the recommendations. HHS has not incorporated this Board policy into the rule. Doing so would violate the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 for the development of regulations. The APA requires that the regulating agency both provide the public with the opportunity for notice and comment and consider submitted comments prior to promulgation of a final rule. The change proposed by the commenter is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the changes discussed in the IFR and making such a change would not offer the public adequate notice of the change. Furthermore, HHS does not consider it necessary or appropriate to regulate this currently self-imposed policy of the Board. It is within the Board's prerogative, with the guidance of the Designated Federal Official, to set and manage its own deadlines. D. Review of Proposed and Final Decisions of HHS on the Outcome of Cohort Petitions One commenter recommended HHS reinstate the opportunity for petitioners to seek reviews of the proposed decisions on the outcome of petitions, issued by the Director of NIOSH under § 83.16(a), prior to the issuance of final decisions by the Secretary of HHS. As discussed in the preamble of the IFR (70 FR 75950, December 22, 2005), it is not possible for petitioners to seek and HHS to provide an administrative review of the proposed decision, and for the Secretary to issue a final decision, all within the 30-day Congressional report deadline. For this reason, the administrative review opportunity of petitioners was preserved but moved in the sequence of HHS actions to follow, rather than precede, the Secretary's final decision. Another commenter questioned whether the Secretary has discretion in responding to an HHS administrative review of a final decision and whether petitioners must seek such an administrative review as a prerequisite to obtaining a judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary issued under § 83.17. Under § 83.18(c), the Secretary retains the discretion to decide the outcome of a petition, after obtaining and considering the information provided by the HHS administrative review. The authority to decide the outcome of petitions was statutorily assigned to the President (42 U.S.C. 7384q) and delegated to the Secretary by Executive Order 13179. The Secretary's decision to add or deny adding a class to the Cohort is final unless he revises the decision pursuant to an administrative review under § 83.18 or Congress takes other action. This administrative review is optional; neither EEOICPA nor this regulation requires it as a prerequisite to judicial review. E. Protection of the Personal Information of the Petitioner One commenter recommended requiring that NIOSH disclose the identities and contact information of petitioners. The commenter reasoned that since the petitioner is acting on behalf of a class of employees, the petitioner should not have the right to privacy. The IFR did not propose imposing such a requirement on NIOSH or petitioners in this Final Rule. Instead, HHS would first have to provide public notice, the opportunity for public comment, and consideration of comments submitted, as required for rulemaking under the APA. Moreover, the recommendation to require petitioners or NIOSH to disclose the identity and contact information of the petitioners is contrary to the customary protection afforded by the Federal government to members of the public under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). In particular, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) bars agencies (subject to certain exceptions not applicable here) from disclosing records such as those at issue in the recommendation, where petitioner information is “contained in a system of records” that allows retrieval of such records by unique person-specific identifiers, “to any person, or to another agency” without the individual's written request or prior written consent. In addition, there does not appear to be a substantial justification or benefit to requiring the disclosure of the identity and contact information of the petitioner. A petitioner should not have to choose between acting on his or her own behalf, as a member or a survivor of a member of the class of employees represented in the petition, and his or her right to privacy. It is true that the class of employees includes other individuals who would also benefit from an affirmative decision on the petition by the Secretary, but any other member of the class of employees covered by the petition can obtain the same rights as the petitioner by submitting a valid petition, meeting the requirements specified under §§ 83.7-83.9, on behalf of the same class of employees. F. Authority and Deadline for the Secretary To Decide on Petitions Two commenters appeared to have misunderstood the statutory requirement that the President render a decision regarding the addition of a class of employees to the Cohort within 30 days of the Board having recommended its addition ( *see* 42 U.S.C. 7384q(c)(2)(A)-(B)) to newly authorize the President's involvement in these decisions. One commenter recommended that the President not be given the role of making such decisions, and the second commenter recommended that the President not be provided 30 days to make such decisions, as the commenter believed this would prolong the decision-making process. Since EEOICPA was originally enacted in 2000, the President has been solely authorized in the statute to decide whether or not to designate classes of employees for addition to the Cohort. The President delegated this authority to the Secretary, who has implemented this authority ever since. The only change made by the statutory requirement discussed above is to impose a 30-day deadline on the President to make such decisions in certain cases. As discussed in the IFR, this 30-day deadline applies to the Secretary's decisions, since the President delegated this decision-making authority to the Secretary. The deadline does not prolong the decision-making process since, prior to this statutory requirement, the Secretary was not under *any* deadline to make such decisions. G. Non-Regulatory Comments HHS received several comments that do not pertain to the IFR. These included a comment to add a class of employees from the Hanford facility to the Cohort, a personal perspective on the history of the management of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, concerns about the involvement of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) in the program, and a speculation that adding classes of employees to the Cohort would be cost-saving compared to the conduct of dose reconstructions. The Board recommended NIOSH provide petitioners with guidance in the form of a timeline for the petition process, to ensure petitioners understand the expected duration of the entire process and its elements, from the submission of a petition to the point at which final decisions on a petition become effective. NIOSH will provide each petitioner with such guidance, together with other introductory materials provided to petitioners upon the receipt by NIOSH of a petition. One commenter suggested all cancers be added to the list of 22 “specified cancers” covered for members of the Cohort. The list of specified cancers covered for members of the Cohort is established statutorily under EEOICPA and not governed by this rulemaking. EEOICPA states: The term “specified cancer” means any of the following:
(A)A specified disease, as that term is defined in section 4(b)(2) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note).
(B)Bone cancer.
(C)Renal cancers.
(D)Leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia), if initial occupational exposure occurred before 21 years of age and onset occurred more than two years after initial occupational exposure. 42 U.S.C. 7384l(17) III. Regulatory Assessment Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the agency must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by OMB and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f), the order defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule
(1)having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”);
(2)creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the executive order. This rule is being treated as a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of the executive order because it meets the criterion of Section 3(f)(4) in that it raises novel or legal policy issues arising out of the legal mandate established by EEOICPA. It amends current procedures by which the Secretary considers petitions to add classes of employees to the Cohort to comport with new statutory deadlines ( *see* 42 U.S.C. 7384q(c)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C)(ii)). The revisions, however, neither affect the financial cost to the federal government of responding to these petitions nor the scientific and policy bases for making decisions on such petitions. The rule carefully explains the manner in which the procedures are consistent with the mandates of 42 U.S.C. 7384q and 7384l(14)(C)(ii) and implements the detailed requirements of these sections. The rule does not interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. The rule is not considered economically significant, as defined in § 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. As discussed above, it does not affect the financial cost to the federal government of responding to these petitions nor does it affect the scientific and policy bases for making decisions on such petitions. Furthermore, it has a subordinate role in the adjudication of claims under EEOICPA, serving as one element of an adjudication process administered by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) under 20 CFR parts 1 and 30. DOL has determined that its rule fulfills the requirements of Executive Order 12866 and provides estimates of the aggregate cost of benefits and administrative expenses of implementing EEOICPA under its rule ( *see* 71 FR 78520, December 29, 2006). OMB has reviewed this rule for consistency with the President's priorities and the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et. seq.* , requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations. HHS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. The rule affects only HHS, DOL, the Department of Energy, and certain individuals covered by EEOICPA. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided for under RFA is not required. C. What Are the Paperwork and Other Information Collection Requirements (Subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act) Imposed Under This Rule? The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , requires an agency to invite public comment on and to obtain OMB approval of any regulation that requires ten or more people to report information to the agency or to keep certain records. The Special Exposure Cohort rule, 42 CFR part 83, which requires the collection of information from petitioners, is covered by the PRA and has received OMB clearance (OMB control #0920-0639). However, this rulemaking, which makes limited changes to 42 CFR part 83, does not contain any information collection requirements. Thus, HHS has determined that the PRA does not apply to this rulemaking. D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act As required by Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* ), HHS will report to Congress promulgation of this rule prior to its taking effect. The report will state that HHS has concluded that this rule is not a “major rule” because it is not likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, this rule has a subordinate role in the adjudication of claims under EEOICPA, serving as one element of an adjudication process administered by DOL under 20 CFR parts 1 and 30. DOL has determined that its rule is a “major rule” because it will likely result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) directs agencies to assess the effects of federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector “other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.” For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, this rule does not include any federal mandate that may result in increased annual expenditures in excess of $100 million by state, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice) This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on Civil Justice Reform and will not unduly burden the federal court system. HHS adverse decisions may be reviewed in United States District Courts pursuant to the APA. HHS has attempted to minimize that burden by providing petitioners an opportunity to seek administrative review of adverse decisions. HHS has provided a clear legal standard it will apply in considering petitions. This rule has been reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities. G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) HHS has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The rule does not “have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental, Health Risks and Safety Risks) In accordance with Executive Order 13045, HHS has evaluated the environmental health and safety effects of this rule on children. HHS has determined that the rule would have no effect on children. I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) In accordance with Executive Order 13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of this rule on energy supply, distribution or use, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant adverse effect on them. J. Effective Date The Secretary has determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that there is good cause for this rule to be effective immediately to eliminate legal inconsistencies between new statutory requirements under 42 U.S.C. 7384 *l* and 7384q and regulatory requirements under 42 CFR part 83 and to make the implementation of the new statutory requirements feasible. List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 83 Government employees, Occupational safety and health, Nuclear materials, Radiation protection, Radioactive materials, Workers' compensation. Text of the Rule For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the interim rule amending 42 CFR part 83, published on December 22, 2005 (70 FR 75950), is confirmed as final with the folling changes: PART 83—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 83 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7384q; E.O. 13179, 65 FR 77487, 3 CFR, 2000 Comp., p. 321. Subpart B—Definitions § 83.5 [Amended] 2. Amend § 83.5 by removing paragraph
(k)and redesignating paragraphs
(l)through
(p)as paragraphs
(k)through (o), respectively. Subpart C—Procedures for Adding Classes of Employees to the Cohort 3. Amend § 83.11 as follows: A. By revising the section heading. B. By replacing the term “submission” with the term “petition” in paragraphs
(a)through
(d)and (f). C. By replacing the phrases “7 calendar days” and “7 day period” with “30 calendar days” and “30-day period”, respectively, in paragraph (c). D. By replacing “8 calendar days” with “31 calendar days” in paragraph (e). E. By adding a new paragraph
(g)to read as follows: § 83.11 What happens to petitions that do not satisfy all relevant requirements under §§ 83.7 through 83.9?
(g)A petitioner whose petition has been found not to satisfy the requirements for a petition under either paragraph
(d)or
(e)of this section may submit to NIOSH a new petition for the identical class of employees at any time thereafter on the basis of new information not provided to NIOSH in the original petition. In such a case, the petitioner is required to fully re-address all the requirements of §§ 83.7-83.9 in the petition. 4. Amend § 83.13 by revising paragraph (d)(4) and adding paragraph
(e)to read as follows: § 83.13 How will NIOSH evaluate petitions, other than petitions by claimants covered under § 83.14? (d)(4) A summary of the findings concerning the adequacy of existing records and information for reconstructing doses for individual members of the class under the methods of 42 CFR part 82 specifying, for each class defined in the report, whether NIOSH finds that it is feasible to estimate the radiation doses of members of the class with sufficient accuracy, and a description of the evaluation methods and information upon which these findings are based; and
(e)The NIOSH report under paragraph
(d)of this section shall be completed within 180 calendar days of the receipt of the petition by NIOSH. The procedure for computing this time period is specified in § 83.5(c). In addition, the computing of 180 calendar days shall not include any days during which the petitioner may be revising the petition to remedy deficiencies identified by NIOSH under § 83.11(a) or (b), nor shall it include any days during which the petitioner may request a review of a proposed finding under § 83.11(c) or during the conduct of such a review under § 83.11(d). Dated: March 16, 2007. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the Federal Register on July 3, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-13233 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 16 RIN 1018-AT29 Injurious Wildlife Species; Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and Largescale Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys harmandi) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) adds all forms of live silver carp ( *Hypophthalmichthys molitrix* ), gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids; and all forms of live largescale silver carp ( *Hypophthalmichthys harmandi* ), gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids to the list of injurious fish, mollusks, and crustaceans under the Lacey Act. The best available information indicates that this action is necessary to protect the interests of human beings, and wildlife and wildlife resources, from the purposeful or accidental introduction, and subsequent establishment, of silver carp and largescale silver carp populations in ecosystems of the United States. Live silver carp and largescale silver carp, gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids can be imported only by permit for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes, or without a permit by Federal agencies solely for their own use; permits will also be required for the interstate transportation of live silver or largescale silver carp, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids currently within the United States. Interstate transportation permits may be issued for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes. DATES: This rule is effective August 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kari Duncan, Chief, Branch of Invasive Species at
(703)358-2464 or *kari_duncan@fws.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In October 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) received a petition signed by 25 members of Congress representing the Great Lakes region to add silver, bighead, and black carp to the list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). A follow-up letter to the original petition had seven additional Legislator signatures that supported the petition. Summary of Previous Actions The Service published a **Federal Register** notice of inquiry on silver carp (68 FR 43482-43483, July 23, 2003), and provided a 60-day public comment period. We received 31 comments in total, but 12 of these did not address the issues raised in the notice of inquiry. We considered the information provided in the 19 relevant comments. Most of the comments supported the addition of silver carp to the list of injurious wildlife, but provided no additional information. One commenter noted that silver carp have no commercial value, but was concerned that listing would hinder control and management. One commenter asked us to delay listing until a risk assessment could be completed. Biological synopses and risk assessments were completed for silver and largescale silver carp. A proposed rule to add all forms of live silver and largescale silver carp to the list of injurious fishes under the Lacey Act was published on September 5, 2006 (71 FR 52305); the comment period on the proposed rule closed on November 6, 2006. We received 97 comments on the proposed rule. In total, the Service received 116 pertinent letters during the public comment periods. Most of the 116 letters received urged the Service to list silver and largescale silver carp as injurious wildlife, but provided no additional information. Similar comments were grouped into issues; these issues and our responses to each are presented below. Comments Received on the Proposed Rule *Issue:* One commenter stated that there is currently no market for silver carp; very few silver carp are in culture (for maintenance of stocks) or use. However, there is great potential for silver carp use in aquaculture within Arkansas and Mississippi by utilizing an enclosed system that would prevent escape of silver carp. The potential for silver carp use in the United States has not been fully realized. *Response:* This rule will prohibit the importation and interstate transport of live silver carp, gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids, which will in no way affect the use of silver carp in States where they already exist. *Issue:* One aquaculture industry group stated that there is no meaningful role of silver carp in cleaning ponds and tanks for southern U.S. aquaculture producers and that there would be little or no economic impact associated with this rule. However, they also noted that the natural invasion of silver carp will continue into waters of other States, whether the proposed rule is enacted or not. The comment stated that, given the existing conditions and circumstances of silver carp, listing these species will do little or nothing to address the problems stated in the proposed rule. Listing would not address the real problem of preventing the spread of naturally occurring populations; States already have the authority to address these problems, so Federal intervention does not seem necessary. *Response:* The Service agrees that this rulemaking will not address the ecological impacts of silver carp already in the environment. This rulemaking is intended to prevent or delay the introduction of silver carp into waterbodies where they do not currently exist, which will help protect native species. Many States have requested Federal intervention because the States only have authority to regulate possession within State boundaries. *Issue:* A few commenters stated that they did not understand why nine questions were included in the proposed rule. These commenters believe that asking those questions has delayed the rulemaking. In addition, they expressed concern with the length of time it takes to add species to the list of injurious wildlife. *Response:* Nine questions were included in the proposed rule in order to ascertain if there were any additional data pertinent to the analyses required by various laws and executive orders relating to the Federal rulemaking process. Inclusion of these nine questions has in no way delayed the process of adding silver and largescale silver carp to the list of injurious wildlife. *Issue:* One commenter stated that the proposed rule contained repetition of unnecessary facts and that many assumptions were made without scientific research. *Response:* The Service has reviewed the proposed rule to reduce repetition in the final rule. Research has been conducted on silver carp impacts and due to the similarities between silver carp and largescale silver carp, we feel that reasonable extrapolations of potential impacts have been made. *Issue:* A few commenters stated that penalties for injurious wildlife should be increased. *Response:* Penalties for violations of the Lacey Act are set by Congress. Peer Review We asked scientists who have knowledge of fisheries biology or invasive species to provide peer review of the proposed rule during the public comment period. The peer reviewers had a few technical comments and suggestions; however, all concluded that the data and analyses used in the proposed rule were appropriate and the conclusions drawn were clear and concise. Additionally, peer reviewers provided additional documentation of potential impacts to native species. This information has been incorporated into the final rule. Description of the Final Rule The regulations contained in 50 CFR part 16 implement the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42) as amended. Under the terms of the injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prohibit the importation and interstate transportation of species designated by the Secretary as injurious. Injurious wildlife are those species, offspring, and eggs that are injurious to wildlife or wildlife resources, to human beings, or to the interests of forestry, horticulture, or agriculture of the United States. Wild mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, and reptiles are the only organisms that can be added to the injurious wildlife list. The lists of injurious wildlife are at 50 CFR 16.11-16.15. By adding all forms of live silver carp and largescale silver carp, including hybrids, to the list of injurious wildlife, their importation into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States by any means whatsoever is prohibited, except by permit for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes (in accordance with permit regulations at 50 CFR 16.22), or by Federal agencies without a permit solely for their own use. Federal agencies who wish to import silver carp or largescale silver carp for their own use must file a written declaration with the District Director of Customs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Inspector at the port of entry. No live silver carp or largescale silver carp, progeny thereof, viable eggs, or hybrids imported or transported under permit may be sold, donated, traded, loaned, or transferred to any other person or institution unless such person or institution has a permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The interstate transportation of any live silver carp or largescale silver carp, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids currently held in the United States for any purpose is prohibited without a permit. Any regulation pertaining to the possession or use of silver carp and largescale silver carp within States continues to be the responsibility of each State. Biology The commonly named silver carp belongs to the family Cyprinidae, with the species name of *Hypophthalmichthys molitrix.* Silver carp are native to Asia (China and Eastern Siberia), from about 54 °N southward to 21 °N. Silver carp are primarily phytoplanktivores, but are highly opportunistic, eating phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria, and detritus. Silver carp are well established throughout much of the Mississippi River Basin, and its range is expanding in that basin. The commonly named largescale silver carp (or southern silver carp or Vietnamese carp) also belongs to the family Cyprinidae, with the species name of *Hypophthalmichthys harmandi.* Largescale silver carp are native to fresh waters of northern Hainan Island, China, and the Red (Hong Ha) River of northern Vietnam from subtropical to tropical (21-22 °N). The species does not occur naturally on the Chinese mainland. Largescale silver carp feed on phytoplankton and prefer slow-moving, plankton-rich open waters. There is no indication that this species has been imported into or introduced into the open waters of United States. For additional information on the biology, use, history and pathways of introduction into the United States for silver and largescale silver carp, please refer to the proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** on September 5, 2006 (71 FR 52305). Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Silver Carp Introduction and Spread The major pathway for introduction of silver carp in the United States was importation for biological control of plankton in aquaculture ponds and sewage lagoons. The pathway that led to the presence of this species in open waters of the United States was likely escape from these facilities. Subsequent escapes and the mixture of silver carp with other species that were stocked likely contributed to the expansion of the species' range, along with natural reproduction. Other probable pathways that may aid the spread of existing populations of silver carp include connected waterways, contamination of pond-grown baitfishes with silver carp, ballast water release, release or escape from livehaulers that support commercial fisheries, or spread by commercial fishers themselves. Silver carp are difficult to handle and transport because of their propensity to jump when disturbed. As a result, there has been very little culture of silver carp in the United States since 1985, and they are not being cultured commercially at this time. However, should culture of silver carp resume, a potential pathway for introduction would be escape or release from a facility or during the transport and sale of live fish in retail markets. Silver carp are likely to be spread when juveniles are collected by cast net for use as live baitfish. Silver carp juveniles are very similar in appearance to shad, and anglers sometimes catch young silver carp and use them as live bait. Release of live bait has been identified as a source for more than 100 introductions of fishes beyond their natural range in the United States. Although adult and market-sized silver carp are fragile and do not survive collection and transport well, fingerling silver carp are less susceptible to mortality due to handling stress. Silver carp, caught as bycatch, may be sold as fillets or to live fish markets. Another potential pathway for further introductions is the intentional release of silver carp through animal rights activism or prayer release (the ceremonial release of a fish in honor of the one that will be eaten). Silver carp have survived, have become established in river systems, and have been reproducing in natural waters of the United States since at least 1995. Because silver carp can occupy lakes, there is serious concern that this species will further expand its range beyond riverine environments and into lake environments including the Great Lakes. If introduced, it is highly likely that silver carp will establish reproducing populations in other major river systems, such as the Potomac/Chesapeake, Columbia, and Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. In their native range, juveniles and adults are also found in lakes, reservoirs, and canals where they grow well, but probably cannot spawn and recruit without access to an appropriate riverine habitat. Hybrids Hybridization of silver carp with native fishes is not known to be possible, but silver carp are known to hybridize and produce viable offspring with both bighead carp ( *H. nobilis* ), a nonnative species also present in the Mississippi River basin, and largescale silver carp, a species not yet known to be in the United States. Bighead carp × silver carp and the reciprocal cross are fertile. Bighead carp × silver carp are common in parts of the United States. The presence of large numbers of wild-spawned hybrids implies that bighead and silver carp often spawn in the same place at the same time in United States waters. Silver carp × bighead hybrids adversely impact food availability for native species due to the size they attain and the amount of food they eat. Hybrids with largescale silver carp would likely adversely affect food availability for native species as well. Hybridization may also be possible with grass carp, but hybridization with common carp ( *Cyprinus carpio* ) is unlikely because the spawning locations and behaviors of the two genera are so different. Potential Effects on Native Species Silver carps' food consumption rate is high, but widely variable. Fry at the smallest size class consumed up to 140% of their body weight daily; 63 mg fingerlings consumed just more than 30% and 70-166 mg fingerlings consumed 63% of their body weight. Adult silver carp have been shown to consume 8.8 kilograms
(kg)of food per year, with 90% of the consumption occurring during the three warmest months of the year. Silver carp are quite tolerant of broad water temperatures from 4 °C to 40 °C. Silver carp can grow quickly (20 to 30 kg in 5 to 8 years), and large adults can reach over 1.2 meters in length and 50 kg in weight. Silver carp are difficult to age, but have been reported to live 15-20+ years. The reproductive potential of silver carp is high and increases with body size. It has been estimated that silver carp weighing 3.18 to 12.1 kg can produce 145,000-5,400,000 eggs. Silver carp mature anywhere from 3-8 years, and males usually mature one year earlier than females. The same female may spawn twice during one growing season. Silver carp exhibit a prolonged spawning period, into late summer or early fall, in the United States. Due to the large size, fast growth rate, high food consumption rate and high reproductive potential of silver carp, competition for food and habitat with native planktivorous fishes and with post-larvae and early juveniles of most native fishes is likely high. Since nearly all larvae and juvenile fishes are planktivorous and based on other demonstrated impacts, it is highly likely that silver carp are adversely affecting many native fishes in the Mississippi River Basin, particularly in waters where food may become limited, though long-term studies have not yet been conducted. Affected native species include paddlefish ( *Polyodon spathula* ), bigmouth buffalo ( *Ictiobus cyprinellus* ), gizzard shad ( *Dorosoma cepedianum* ), emerald shiner ( *Notropis atherinoides* ), and threadfin shad ( *Dorosoma petenens* ). It is highly likely silver carp would adversely affect fishes in the Great Lakes basin or other watersheds, if they establish. Paddlefish, native to the Mississippi River Basin and Gulf of Mexico river drainages from east Texas to Alabama, is a large river fish that has declined in abundance in recent years because of overharvest and habitat alteration. Like the silver carp, paddlefish uses plankton as its primary food source, so silver carp or hybrids would directly compete with paddlefish for food throughout most of the paddlefish's range. Other fishes, such as buffalos or shads, use both plankton and aquatic invertebrates as food. While these fishes are currently more common than paddlefish, they may be at risk if silver carp, silver × largescale silver carp hybrids, or silver × bighead hybrids establish and reduce plankton. Gizzard shad are a primary forage base for predacious fishes and important to the ecology of Midwestern rivers; thus, the likely competition with silver carp in these waters is cause for concern. Because silver carp are likely to negatively affect important planktivorous forage fishes such as the gizzard shad and emerald shiner, scientists have indicated that fishes and birds that prey on these species would likely also be negatively affected. Adult silver carp are too large to be preyed on by almost any native predator. Young silver carp have likely been incorporated into the diets of piscivorous birds and fishes to some degree, but the extent of this predation is not known. Ecosystem balance is likely to be modified if silver carp populations become large enough to dominate other planktivorous fish species. The most likely negative effect would be an alteration of fish community structure through competition for food. Silver carp have been shown to have major effects on nutrient cycling and have had adverse effects on primary productivity, which could alter food webs and ultimately alter nutrient and energy cycling in aquatic communities. There is evidence of nutrient overloading in waters where silver carp have been introduced. Excrement from silver carp has been found to increase levels of certain nutrients, some which cannot be consumed by other animals in the digested form or may be harmful, which has led to a net decrease in food resources available in several studies. Recent studies on the effects of silver carp on toxin-producing blue-green algae indicate that certain species of blue-green algae are often controlled by silver carp, but that other species are often enhanced, particularly those like *Microcystis aeruginosa* that have a mucosal covering that inhibits digestion by silver carp. These organisms can pass alive through the digestive tract and, in the process, acquire nutrients that can later be used for growth and cell division. Additionally, *M. aeruginosa* has been shown to produce more toxins in the presence of filter feeding fishes, especially silver carp. Once established, these fish are likely to cause shifts in the food web and compete with other zooplanktivorous fishes and fish larvae for food. Changes in the community structure towards smaller size plankton may have negative effects on fishes native to the United States that subsist on larger zooplankton. Adverse effects of silver carp on some threatened and endangered freshwater mussels and fishes are likely to be moderate to high. There are currently 116 fishes and 70 mussels on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Because silver carp have the same habitat requirements as approximately 40 fishes and 25 mussels currently on the endangered or threatened species list, these listed species will likely be impacted by competition for food and habitat by the introduction and establishment of silver carp. Habitat requirements, springs and small streams, of the remaining listed fishes and mussels would probably preclude any detectable effects as it is unlikely that silver carp could survive in such small bodies of water. Adverse effects of established populations of silver carp on endangered and threatened fishes would most likely be through direct competition for food resources, particularly phytoplankton and, to a lesser extent, zooplankton, in the water column during the larval stage. Potential for direct predation and injury of drifting fertilized eggs and larvae of native fishes also exists. The fact that silver carp can become extremely abundant and reach a very large size (> 1 m in length) in rivers, lakes, and reservoirs increases the probability of a negative impact on aquatic ecosystems they invade as high densities of silver carp decrease food availability for native species. Mussels are also filter feeders but live partly or totally buried in the substrate; their association with the benthic environment means that they would be less likely to be affected by filter-feeding silver carp. Nevertheless, changes in the fish community structure caused by silver carp are likely to have adverse effects on abundance and availability of host fishes required for mussel reproduction, which may result in a decline of native mussels. Habitat Degradation There is low risk of silver carp causing direct habitat degradation or destruction, although the presence of silver carp is sometimes associated with decreased water clarity, which may also impact benthic chemistry and community structure. The effect of these fishes on nutrients, sediment re-suspension (which can stimulate plankton growth), and decreasing dissolved oxygen varies. Excrement from silver carp, which can equal their body weight in 10 days, has organically enriched lake bottoms and altered the benthic macroinvertebrate community structure. However, due to the impacts listed above, it is highly likely that silver carp would have adverse effects on designated critical habitats of threatened and endangered species. There are currently 60 species of fishes and 18 mussels with designated critical habitat. Of those, at least 26 inhabit lakes or reaches of streams large enough to support silver carp. Therefore, dense populations of silver carp are likely to affect the critical habitats upon which the threatened and endangered species depend. Potential Pathogens Many species of parasites and bacterial diseases occur in silver carp. The only viral disease agent of silver carp found in the literature is *Rhabdovirus carpio* , the causative agent for spring viraemia of carp (SVC), a systemic, acute, and highly contagious infection that is known to cause mortality in native fishes. Silver carp are susceptible to many diseases caused by parasitic protozoans and trematodes, and several crustacean parasites, such as anchor worm ( *Lernaea bhadraensis* ), have also been reported from silver carp. Although there have been studies of disease-causing agents of silver carp, none have investigated the transfer of these pathogens from silver carp to native fishes of the United States. However, two parasites known to infect silver carp are a threat to native North American fishes, including cyprinids: The gill-damaging *Lernaea cyprinacea* , known as anchorworm (this parasite is also known to affect salmonids and eels), and *Bothriocephalus acheilognathi* , known as Asian carp tapeworm. The Asian carp tapeworm, initially introduced into U.S. waters from grass carp, has infected native threatened and endangered fishes (including the yaqui chub ( *Gila purpurea* ), beautiful shiner, ( *Cyprinella formosa* ), yaqui topminnow ( *Poeciliopsis occidentalis sonoriensis* ), colorado pikeminnow ( *Ptychocheilus lucius* ), and humpback chub ( *G. cypha* )) and fishes of concern such as the roundtail chub ( *G. robusta* ), a candidate for Federal listing as a threatened or endangered fish and listed as endangered by Colorado, in five States. When infected baitfish were released into Lake Mead, the tapeworm was spread to two endangered fishes, virgin spinedace ( *Lepidomeda mollispinis* ) and woundfin minnow ( *Plagopterus argentissimus* ) in Utah and Nevada. Approximately 90% of large juvenile and adult humpback chubs in the Little Colorado River are infected with this cestode. The Asian carp tapeworm has been reported from more than 40 other cyprinid fishes and fishes of other orders. Silver carp are hosts of this parasite, but suffer minimal adverse effects from it. As hosts of this tapeworm, silver carp have the potential to spread it to native fishes, beyond the five States where it has already been found (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah). This is a parasite that erodes mucus membranes and intestinal tissues, often leading to death of the host. The most probable pathway of introduction was by the release of infected baitfishes. As the introduced range of silver carp grows in U.S. waters, silver carp will likely spread the parasite and a number of native fishes, particularly, but not limited to, cyprinids, percids, and centrarchids, will likely become hosts of the Asian carp tapeworm. Some disease-causing agents harbored by silver carp pose health risks to humans. The psychotropic pathogen *Listeria monocytogenes* has been found in market and fish farm samples of silver carp. *Clostridium botulinum* was found in 1.1% of fresh and smoked samples of silver carp from the Mazandaran Province in Iran. The toxigenic fungi *Aspergillus flavus* , *Alternaria* , *Penicillium* , and *Fusarium* were found from silver carp and from pond water in which they were raised at a fish farm in northern Iran. In addition, live *Salmonella* spp. can be found in silver carp for at least 14 days after transfer to clean water, and silver carp, therefore, should be considered as a potential carrier for *Salmonella* ( *S. typhimumium* ). Impacts to Humans Silver carp in the United States cause substantial impacts to the health and welfare of human beings who use waterways infested with silver carp. There are numerous reports of injuries to humans and damage to boats and boating equipment because of the jumping habits of silver carp in the vicinity of moving motorized watercraft. Some reported injuries include cuts from fins, black eyes, broken bones, back injuries, and concussions. Silver carp also cause property damage including broken radios, depth finders, fishing equipment, and antennae. Some vessels have been retrofitted with a Plexiglas pilot's cab as protection against jumping silver carp. Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Silver Carp Detection and Response If silver carp were introduced or spread into new U.S. waters, it is unlikely that the introduction would be discovered until the numbers were high enough to impact wildlife and wildlife resources. Widespread surveys of waterways are not conducted to establish species' presence lists. Delay in discovery would limit the ability and effectiveness to rapidly respond to the introduction and prevent establishment of new populations. It is unlikely that silver carp could be eradicated from U.S. waterways unless they are found in unconnected waterbodies. Potential Control The ability to control spread of established populations depends on their access to open waterways and riverine habitat to spawn. Barriers may help control the spread of silver carp from the Mississippi River basin into the Great Lakes or other waterbodies, but barriers could also negatively affect migratory native fishes. There are still several pathways by which silver carp from established populations in the Mississippi River Basin might be moved to new waterbodies, such as the Potomac River or Columbia River, and become established. Due to the extensive established range of silver carp in the Mississippi River Basin, conventional control methods are not feasible to reduce established populations. Massive fishing efforts utilizing netting and electrofishing may be effective in reducing populations, but many non-target fish species would also be killed. Justifying the expense of such efforts would require a large commercial demand, which does not currently exist, nor is likely given the jumping behavior of silver carp that makes fishing difficult. Selective removal of silver carp is possible given their location in the water column, but water trawling could also remove other non-target fish such as paddlefish. The large and growing range of silver carp in U.S. waterways makes chemical control of established populations highly unlikely, both physically and fiscally. Use of chemical treatments, such as rotenone, would be expensive, only locally effective, and would negatively affect all fishes and invertebrates, not just the target carp. At present, there is no method known to substantially reduce established populations of silver carp. Eradication is not possible with presently available technology. Recovery of Disturbed Sites Because the ability to eradicate this species is low, there is little likelihood for rehabilitation or recovery of ecosystems disturbed by this species. Additionally infested waterways allow connections to unpopulated sites. Utilizing sterile silver carp would do little to reduce or remove injuriousness as the present range of establishment in the Mississippi River Basin is too extensive for this option to reduce current silver carp populations in this area. The use of daughterless fish technology (introducing sterile males to produce unviable eggs) may reduce populations, but this would take many years before it would reduce numbers of fish where they currently exist. Research is being conducted on the use of pheromones to control carp, but it is years from demonstrating effectiveness in natural waters and mass production. These technologies might be useful to prevent establishment of silver carp in new areas. Potential Pathogens Silver carp are host to many parasites and bacterial diseases that are or could be a threat to native North American fishes. If silver carp transfer pathogens to native fish, the ability and effectiveness to control these transfers would be very low because silver carp and native fishes share the same habitat. Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction The ability of silver carp to effectively filter particles and reliance on phytoplankton for much of its diet led to research into their effectiveness as a biological control agent for phytoplankton in wastewater systems and other ponds. There is conflicting data concerning the benefit of using silver carp to control excess nutrients. Regardless of their effect on increasing or decreasing phytoplankton and zooplankton abundance, studies have consistently shown that filter feeding by silver carp shifts the species composition of these communities to smaller species. Silver carp have been observed to cause nuisance algal blooms through a trophic cascade. Scientists believe that the removal of larger zooplankton and phytoplankton by foraging silver carp may result in stimulating growth of smaller species. Conclusion In summary, the Service finds all forms of live silver carp, including gametes, viable eggs and hybrids, to be injurious to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States and to the interests of human beings because: • Silver carp are highly likely to spread from their current established range to new waterbodies in the United States; • Silver carp are highly likely to compete with native species, including threatened and endangered species, for food and habitat; • Silver carp have the potential to carry pathogens and transfer them to native fish; • Silver carp are likely to develop dense populations that will likely affect critical habitat for threatened and endangered species and could further imperil other native fishes and mussels; • Silver carp are negatively impacting humans; • It would be difficult to eradicate or reduce large populations of silver carp, or recover ecosystems disturbed by the species; and • There are no potential ecological benefits for U.S. waters from the introduction of silver carp. Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Largescale Silver Carp Potential Introduction and Spread To our knowledge, the largescale silver carp has not been imported into the United States. Within its native range, largescale silver carp occur in subtropical to tropical climates, which exist in parts of the United States. Therefore, should pure largescale silver carp be introduced to U.S. waters, its potential range would likely include subtropical waters such as those present in southern Florida, southern Texas, and Hawaii. The growth rate of largescale silver carp is greater than that of silver carp. The reproductive capability is expected to be similar to that of silver carp, though largescale silver carp reach sexual maturity at a younger age than silver carp so they will spawn earlier. In culture situations, silver carp has hybridized with largescale silver carp. The hybrids did not grow as quickly as largescale silver carp but exceeded the growth rate of silver carp. Largescale silver carp × silver carp hybrids were introduced in Kazakhstan where they became established. The climate of Kazakhstan is temperate; thus, largescale silver carp × silver carp hybrids are more cold-tolerant than pure largescale silver carp. The faster growth rate of these hybrids than pure silver carp and the increased palatability of largescale silver carp compared to silver carp may conceivably stimulate interest in culturing either the hybrids or pure largescale silver carp in the United States. Because hybrids can tolerate temperate climates, they have the potential to be cultured in many southern States and would have a wider potential range where they could establish in the United States. Escape from containment, as has happened with silver carp, would provide a pathway for release of largescale silver carp into natural waters of the United States. Should this fish or its hybrids be released into natural waters, connected waterways would become a secondary pathway for spread. Because of the morphological similarity between this species and silver carp, stock contamination of silver carp by largescale silver carp is possible if imported from regions with populations of *H. harmandi* . Another possible introduction pathway, should largescale silver carp or their hybrids be imported for culture, would be sale of live individuals in food fish markets. Likelihood of spread of largescale silver carp, should they be introduced, would be high in subtropical and tropical river systems of the United States. Hybrid largescale silver carp × silver carp, however, would have high potential to live in much of the temperate United States. Because largescale silver carp can occupy and reproduce in reservoirs, they could also live in lakes. The same is likely true for hybrids. Young largescale silver carp or any hybrids captured by anglers for use as live bait would be a pathway that could lead to numerous future introductions of these species. Hybrids Hybridization with native fishes is not believed to be possible, but largescale silver carp are known to hybridize and to produce viable offspring with silver carp and possibly bighead carp, both of which are present in U.S. waters. Largescale silver × silver carp hybrids are tolerant of a temperate climate (ca. 42-46° N). (45° N is a latitude that parallels the border between New York State and Ontario, Canada). Therefore, these hybrids would likely be capable of surviving and probably establishing throughout much of the United States where suitable waters exist. Largescale silver carp grow faster than silver carp but hybrids do not grow as quickly as pure largescale silver carp. It is highly likely that any largescale silver carp hybrids would directly compete with native species for food and habitat. Potential Effects on Native Species Largescale silver carp consume primarily planktonic food sources. It is unknown if largescale silver carp feed more heavily on phytoplankton than zooplankton, but their hybrids with silver carp would likely show a preference for phytoplankton. Some adults may weigh 20-30 kg. The rapid growth and high fat content of this fish has made it the most cultured species for food in Vietnam. Largescale silver carp and hybrids are highly likely to compete for food with other planktivorous native fishes and with post-larvae and early juveniles of most native fishes should they become established in the United States. Fishes most likely to be affected are those species whose diet is predominantly plankton including paddlefish ( *Polyodon spathula* ), native to the Mississippi River Basin and Gulf of Mexico river drainages from east Texas to Alabama, buffalos ( *Ictiobus* spp.), or shads ( *Dorosoma* spp.). Given that these fish may already be competing with bighead and silver carps in some areas, the presence of largescale silver carp would increase food competition and increase the likelihood of negative impacts to native species. Potential for direct predation and injury of drifting fertilized eggs and larvae of fishes exists. Mussels are also filter feeders but live partly or totally buried in the substrate; they would be less likely to be affected by water column filter-feeding largescale silver carp. Nevertheless, changes in the fish community structure caused by largescale silver carp would likely have adverse effects on abundance and availability of host fishes required for mussel reproduction. There are other possible, but less likely, effects that may cascade through any aquatic ecosystem with an established population of largescale silver carp. Nutrient levels are a concern because there is evidence of overloading of nutrients in waters into which silver carp have been introduced, and the same may apply to largescale silver carp or their hybrids. Competition for habitat between largescale silver carp and native species is likely high, especially in large rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Because they are planktivorous, the potential of largescale silver and any hybrids to cause habitat degradation or destruction is low as is direct predation on native mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, mollusks or other live, non-aquatic animals. Additional adverse impacts on native wildlife, wildlife resources, and ecosystem balance are likely few, except for fishes. Ecosystem balance would likely be modified if populations of largescale silver carp or any hybrids become large enough to dominate planktivorous fish species. Because largescale silver carp may survive and become established and compete with native fishes, there is no acceptable escape or release threshold for largescale silver carp or their hybrids. Adverse effects of largescale silver carp on selected threatened and endangered freshwater mussels and fishes would be expected to be moderate to high. There are currently 116 fishes and 70 mussels on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Because largescale silver carp have the same habitat requirements as approximately 40 fishes and 25 mussels currently on the endangered or threatened species list, these listed species in tropical or subtropical areas will likely be impacted by the introductions of largescale silver carp through competition for food and habitat. However, the habitat requirements, springs and small streams, of the remaining listed fishes and mussels would probably preclude any detectable effects as it is unlikely that largescale silver carp or their hybrids would survive in such small bodies of water. It is likely that largescale silver carp and highly likely that their hybrids with silver carp would have adverse effects on designated critical habitats of threatened and endangered species. There are currently 60 species of fishes and 18 mussels with designated critical habitat. At least 26 fishes and mussels with critical habitat inhabit lakes or reaches of streams large enough to support hybrids of largescale silver carp and silver carp. Largescale silver carp and their hybrids have the potential to alter food webs and ultimately alter nutrient and energy cycling in aquatic communities. The most likely effect would be an alteration of fish community structure through competition for food. Fishes and mussels that are determined to be candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act would likewise be at risk. Native species may be placed in danger of extinction as a result of the introduction or establishment of largescale silver carp if pure stock became established in subtropical or tropical waters in the United States. However, there is a higher risk for negative impacts to native fishes from largescale silver carp hybrids. Large populations of largescale silver carp or hybrids would likely alter native fish community structures, ultimately resulting in decline of native mussels since many rely on native host fishes for reproduction. The fact that largescale silver carp have the potential to become abundant and reach a very large size (> 1 m in length) in rivers, lakes, and reservoirs increases the probability of a negative impact on aquatic ecosystems should largescale silver carp be introduced and become established. Potential Pathogens The potential for largescale silver carp to transfer pathogens is largely unknown. No detailed studies of disease-causing agents of largescale silver carp have been found, but at least three trematode parasites ( *Dactylogyrus harmandi* , *D. hypophthalmichthys* , *D. chenthushenae* ) are known to infect largescale silver carp. Bighead, silver, grass, and black carps are known to host the Asian carp tapeworm ( *Bothriocephalus acheilognathi* ), but it is unknown whether largescale silver × silver carp host this species. Since largescale silver carp are very similar to silver carp, they likely can host the Asian carp tapeworm and infected fish, if introduced to U.S. waters, could spread it to native fishes. Potential Impacts to Humans The potential impact on the health and welfare of humans from largescale silver carp or any hybrids is unknown. Because largescale silver carp remain deep in the water column during daylight hours and swim toward the surface at night to feed on plankton, they may be less prone to jumping than silver carp in response to sounds of boat engines during daytime. However, if largescale silver × carp hybrids display the jumping behavior of pure silver carp, their potential to injure humans could be considerable. Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Largescale Silver Carp Detection and Response If largescale silver carp were introduced into U.S. waters, it is unlikely that the introduction would be discovered until the numbers were high enough to impact wildlife and wildlife resources. Widespread surveys of waterways are not conducted to establish species' presence lists. Delay in discovery would limit the ability and effectiveness to rapidly respond to the introduction and prevent establishment. Potential Control If largescale silver carp were to escape and become established in natural waters, management of established populations would be highly unlikely both physically and fiscally. Some control might be possible with massive fishing efforts using nets, but this is unlikely to stem range expansion. There would have to be substantial commercial demand to justify the expense of such efforts. Chemicals or selective removal may be used to manage populations in localized areas. However, selective removal of largescale silver carp would be difficult because they remain in deeper waters during daylight hours when such removal efforts would probably occur. Pheromones may be a viable option to limit spread; this possibility is under investigation for silver carp, and may have applicability to largescale silver carp. However, research into this control method is in early stages. Because no evidence exists that largescale silver carp have been imported or released into U.S. waters, triploidy or induced sterility could potentially reduce injuriousness. However, these processes are costly, time-consuming, and not 100% effective so there is potential for triploid largescale silver carp to cause harm if they were released. It would be difficult to control the spread of largescale silver carp to new locations except, perhaps, by use of electric, acoustic, physical and other types of barriers. At present, there is no method known to substantially reduce populations of introduced fishes in U.S. waterways. It is highly unlikely that largescale silver carp could be eradicated from U.S. waterways, should they be introduced, unless they are found in unconnected waterbodies. Recovery of Disturbed Sites Although there is no evidence that this species has been introduced or targeted for introduction into the United States, the lack of available methods to detect, eradicate or control introduced populations indicates that should largescale silver carp be introduced, rehabilitation or recovery of ecosystems disturbed by this species would be highly unlikely. Potential Pathogens The potential for largescale silver carp or any hybrids to infect native fishes with pathogens is largely unknown. Should such transfers prove viable, the ability and effectiveness to control the spread of pathogens to native fishes would be low. Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction There are no potential ecological benefits for introduction of largescale silver carp or any hybrids in natural waters of the United States. Conclusion In summary, the Service finds all forms of live largescale silver carp, including gametes, viable eggs and hybrids, to be injurious to the wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States and to the interests of human beings because: • Largescale silver carp are likely to escape or be released into the wild if imported into the United States; • Largescale silver carp are highly likely to survive, become established, and spread in tropical or subtropical areas of the United States if they escape or are released; • Largescale silver carp would likely carry pathogens that could be transferred to native fish; • Largescale silver carp and hybrids are likely to compete with native species, including threatened and endangered species, for food and habitat; • Largescale silver carp could develop dense populations that would likely affect critical habitat for threatened and endangered species and are highly likely to negatively impact native fishes and mussels; • Largescale silver carp have been shown to hybridize with silver carp, a nonnative species already established in the United States, and would likely have a larger range than pure largescale silver carp; • Largescale silver carp hybrids with silver carp may display jumping behavior that could injure humans; • If largescale silver carp were introduced into the United States, it would be extremely difficult to prevent their spread and to control populations in natural waters; • It would be difficult to eradicate or reduce large populations of largescale silver carp and to recover ecosystems disturbed by the species; and • There are no potential ecological benefits from the introduction of largescale silver carp for U.S. waters. Required Determinations Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) This rule contains potential information collection activity for FWS Form 3-200-42, Import/Acquisition/Transport of Injurious Wildlife. Completion of this form would be necessary to apply for a permit to import, or transport across State lines, any live silver or largescale silver carp, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes. The Service already has approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to collect information for this special use permit under OMB control number 1018-0093. This approval expires July 31, 2007. The Service may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Regulatory Planning and Review
(a)In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, OMB has designated this rule as a significant regulatory action. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government. A brief assessment to clarify the costs and benefits associated with this rule follows. Costs Incurred Silver Carp We expect this rule to have minimal costs. Silver carp are not cultured in the United States, nor do we believe that they are imported or exported. Currently, there are some commercial fisheries for silver carp in the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois rivers. Usually, commercial fishermen are catching silver carp as bycatch, which can account for up to 50 percent of the catch. Silver carp are not favorable because of their jumping habits and because they are less desirable by the consumer. In Missouri, many of the fishermen do not primarily target Asian carp (bighead and silver carp) because the price received is low ($0.10-$0.15 per pound). Instead, they fish for bighead and silver carp when other species or opportunities are unavailable. Many fishermen do not distinguish between bighead carp and silver carp. Data for the silver carp fishery are limited. According to public comments received, small commercial fisheries for silver carp exist in Illinois, Iowa, and Kentucky. Table 1 shows commercial fishery landings and value in Iowa and Illinois in 2003. Compared to the total commercial harvest and value, Asian carp represented 11 percent of landings and 6 percent of value in 2003. Because Illinois does not distinguish between bighead carp and silver carp in its annual report, we are unable to determine the magnitude of silver carp landings for the entire area. For Iowa, silver carp represented less than 1 percent of total landings. In 2005, silver carp represented less than 1 percent of commercial landings in Kentucky and less than one-tenth of commercial landings in Louisiana (public comments, J. Gassett 25 Oct 2006 and J. Roussel 6 Nov 2006). The majority of the silver carp catch is sold as round weight. In Illinois, fishermen can sell silver carp as long as they are not transported live once the fish are taken off the water. No impacts are expected to the silver carp market because they are not delivered live. Table 1.—2003 Commercial Fishery Landings and Value in Iowa and Illinois Illinois 1 Iowa 2,3 Total Total Commercial Harvest
(lbs)6,385,473 2,242,997 8,628,470 Asian Carp* 900,497 15,774 916,271 Silver Carp 3,828 3,828 Total Commercial Value ($) $1,334,467 $496,765 $1,831,232 Asian Carp* $99,055 $1,735 $100,790 Silver Carp $421 $421 * Asian carp includes bighead carp and silver carp. The value for Asian carp and silver carp in Iowa is based on the average $0.11/lb received, which is the same as Illinois. 1 Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2005. 2003 Commercial Catch Report. Brighton, Illinois. 2 Personal communication, Gene Jones, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 3 Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Fisheries Management Section 2003 Completion Reports. Des Moines, Iowa. The market for live silver carp in U.S. markets is unknown and no public comments received reported a U.S. market for live silver carp. It is possible that silver carp are inadvertently shipped along with live bighead carp. However, most live haulers will not haul live silver carp because the fish do not transport well. Furthermore, the consumer prefers bighead carp to silver carp. Because only sales of live silver carp would be regulated by this rulemaking, we do not expect any impacts to commercial fishermen unless they are transporting live silver carp across State lines for processing. While the exact impact is unknown, we expect it to be minimal. Largescale Silver Carp There is no known use for largescale silver carp in the United States or import or export of the species into or from the United States. We do not know of any future plans to use largescale silver carp in the United States. During the public comment period, no comments reported largescale silver carp being used. Therefore, we do not expect the rule to add largescale silver carp to the list of injurious wildlife to have any costs. Benefits Accrued Silver Carp Within several waters of the Midwest, silver carp comprise a percentage of the commercial catch as bycatch (non-target species). This may be negatively impacting revenue for commercial fishermen because silver carp are not as valuable as the native species that are targeted. Furthermore, it is possible that silver carp populations will be delayed or not become established in new watersheds (Columbia Basin, Chesapeake Basin, and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta) with similar attributes as the Mississippi River Basin as a result of this rulemaking. Silver carp are likely to compete with native fish for food, causing declines in native fishes in the United States, particularly those that rely heavily on plankton as a food resource. Thus, this rule will protect native fish, and the recreational and commercial fisheries associated with native fish. In terms of recreational fisheries, benefits would accrue due to
(1)consumer surplus generated from fishing native fish and
(2)fishing-related expenditures such as food, lodging, and equipment. In terms of commercial fisheries, benefits would accrue due to the revenue from fishing native fish, which are more valuable than silver carp. The timeline for when these benefits would accrue depends on the potential spread and impacts of silver carp. The extent of benefits to recreational and commercial fisheries is unknown. Largescale Silver Carp There have been no reports that largescale silver carp are in the United States. However, native fish populations are likely to decline if largescale silver carp were to establish populations in the United States. With this rule, we reduce the risk of the introduction and establishment of largescale silver carp (or any hybrids) in U.S. watersheds. Thus, this rule protects native fish and the recreational and commercial fisheries associated with native fish. In terms of recreational fisheries, benefits would accrue due to the continued
(1)consumer surplus generated from fishing native fish and
(2)fishing-related expenditures such as food, lodging, and equipment. In terms of commercial fisheries, benefits would accrue due to the continued revenue from fishing native fish. The extent of benefits to recreational and commercial fisheries is unknown because it depends on the introduction and subsequent establishment of largescale silver carp populations in the United States.
(b)This rule will not create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions. This rule pertains only to regulations promulgated by the Service under the Lacey Act. No other agencies are involved in these regulations.
(c)This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This rule does not affect entitlement programs. This rule is aimed at regulating the importation and movement of nonindigenous species that cause or have the potential to cause significant economic and other impacts on natural resources that are the trust responsibility of the Federal Government.
(d)OMB has determined that this rule raises novel legal or policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency publishes a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking may impact a small number of fishermen selling live silver carp. The number of fishermen targeting silver carp is unknown. Because the market for live silver carp is also unknown, we are unable to estimate the degree of impact of this rulemaking. We expect this rulemaking to have a minimal effect on commercial fishermen selling live silver carp because many live haulers do not transport live silver carp. We do not expect this rulemaking to affect aquaculture because silver carp, largescale silver carp, or any hybrids are not being cultured in the United States at this time. Many small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait and tackle shops, etc.) may benefit from continued recreational fishing without impacts from silver carp, largescale silver carp, or any hybrids. Furthermore, small businesses associated with commercial fishing (fishermen, wholesalers, and retailers) will also benefit from continued commercial fishing without impacts from silver carp, largescale silver carp, or any hybrids. We do not know the extent to which these small businesses will continue to benefit. However, we expect this benefit to be distributed across various watersheds, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a significant economic effect (benefit) on a substantial number of small entities in any region or nationally. Therefore, we certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). An initial or final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. For the reason described below, no individual small industry within the United States will be significantly affected if silver carp or largescale silver carp importation is prohibited. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Silver carp is in limited commercial trade in the United States and primarily as fillets; the largescale silver carp is not known to be imported or present in the United States. Silver carp are likely to negatively affect many native fishery resources if they continue to spread in the United States. The largescale silver carp could devastate many native fishery resources if it is introduced to U.S. waterways. This rulemaking will protect the environment from the introduction and spread of nonnative species and will indirectly work to sustain the economic benefits enjoyed by numerous small establishments connected with recreational and commercial fishing.
(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), this rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule would not prohibit intrastate transport or any use of silver carp or largescale silver carp within State boundaries. Any regulations concerning the use of silver carp or largescale silver carp within individual States will be the responsibility of each State. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required. Takings In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule would not impose significant requirements or limitations on private property use. Federalism In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. This rule would not have substantial direct effects on States, in the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, we determine that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Civil Justice Reform In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. The rule has been reviewed to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, was written to minimize litigation, provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and promotes simplification and burden reduction. National Environmental Policy Act We have prepared environmental assessments
(EAs)in conjunction with this rulemaking, and have determined that this rulemaking is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)). No comments on the draft environmental assessments were received. For copies of the final EAs, contact the individual identified above in the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , or access the documents at *http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/ANS/ANSInjurious.cfm.* Adding silver carp and largescale silver carp to the list of injurious wildlife is intended to prevent their further introduction and establishment into natural waters of the United States in order to protect native fishes, the survival and welfare of wildlife and wildlife resources, and the health and welfare of humans. Not listing silver carp as injurious may allow for an expansion to States where they are not already found, thus increasing the risk of their escape and establishment in new areas due to accidental release and, perhaps, intentional release. Their establishment is negatively impacting native fish, wildlife, and humans. Silver carp are established throughout much of the Mississippi River Basin. Releases of silver carp into natural waters of the United States are likely to occur again, and the species is likely to become established in additional U.S. waterways, threatening native fish populations, wildlife, and wildlife resources dependent on phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria, and detritus, and impacting human health. Largescale silver carp are not known to be in the United States, but if introduced to natural waters, they would likely impact the welfare and survival of native fish and wildlife, as well as the health and welfare of humans. In addition, largescale silver carp are visually similar to silver carp and can readily hybridize with silver carp, so they would be difficult to distinguish from silver carp. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule involves the importation and interstate movement of all forms of live silver carp, largescale silver carp, gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids. We are unaware of trade in these species by Tribes. Effects on Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. References Cited A complete list of all references used in this rulemaking is available upon request from the Branch of Invasive Species (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16 Fish, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service amends part 16, subchapter B of Chapter I, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below. PART 16—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows: Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42. 2. Amend § 16.13 as follows: a. By removing the word “and” at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(iii); b. By removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(BB) and adding in its place “; and” ; and c. By adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as set forth below. § 16.13 Importation of live or dead fish, mollusks, and crustaceans, or their eggs.
(a)* * *
(2)* * *
(v)Any live fish, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids of the species silver carp, *Hypophthalmichthys molitrix,* and largescale silver carp, *Hypophthalmichthys harmandi.* Dated: May 18, 2007. Todd Willens, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-13371 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 72 131 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 [Docket No. PRM-50-85] Eric Epstein, Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated April 11, 2007, which was filed with the Commission by Eric Epstein. The petition was docketed by the NRC on April 17, 2007, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-85. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations regarding emergency preparedness to require that all host school pick-up centers be at a minimum distance of five to ten miles beyond the radiation plume exposure boundary zone to ensure that all school children are protected in the event of a radiological emergency. DATES: Submit comments by September 24, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include PRM-50-85 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: *SECY@nrc.gov* . If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at
(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov* . Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (telephone
(301)415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitioner The petitioner is Eric Epstein, Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. The petitioner states that Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., was founded in 1977 and is a safe-energy organization based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., monitors Peach Bottom, Susquehanna, and Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations. The Proposed Amendments The petitioner believes that current NRC, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)emergency planning requirements fail to meet the safety needs of all school children. Further, the petitioner believes that the current planning requirements of these agencies do not establish a reasonable standard for offsite relocation distances that adequately protects the public's health and safety. The petitioner seeks to clarify NRC, DHS, and FEMA relocation requirements and requests that NRC promulgate and codify relevant regulations pertaining to radiological emergency readiness planning. The petitioner requests that NRC mandate that all host school pick-up centers be at a minimum distance of five to ten miles beyond the radiation plume exposure boundary zone, and has attached several exhibits to the petition to support this proposal. The support material includes information from the West Shore School District; maps and news articles; data from NRC's NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1; and other statements and exhibits. Conclusion The petitioner states that there is a regulatory gap, and an absence of minimum distance requirements, for host school pick-up centers in relation to radiation plume exposure boundary lines. The petitioner believes that allowing host school pick-up centers to be just outside of the 10-mile radiation plume exposure boundary zone fails to meet the safety needs of school children. The petitioner also believes that the proposed change in current regulations is necessary in order to ensure that all school children are properly protected in the event of a radiological emergency. Accordingly, the petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations related to emergency preparedness as described previously in the section titled, “The Proposed Amendments.” Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-13316 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 71 Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material; Solicitation of Issue Proposals AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Solicitation of Proposed Issues or Identified Problems with the International Atomic Energy Agency Regulations. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)and the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT)are jointly seeking proposed issues or identified problems with the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (referred to as TS-R-1). Proposed issues or identified problems that are submitted by the United States and other IAEA member states and International Organizations might necessitate subsequent domestic compatibility rulemakings by both NRC and DOT. DATES: Proposed issues or identified problems will be accepted until August 15, 2007. Proposals received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, however we are only able to assure consideration for proposals received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S. mail. Mail proposed issues or identified problems to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Deliver proposals to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Submit proposals by electronic mail to: *nrcrep@nrc.gov.* Copies of proposal documents received may be reviewed at the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, Public File Area 01-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele M. Sampson, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone:
(301)492-3292; e-mail: *mxs14@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The IAEA periodically revises its Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (TS-R-1) to reflect new information and accumulated experience. The DOT is the U.S. competent authority before the IAEA for radioactive material transportation matters. The NRC provides technical support to the DOT in this regard, particularly with regard to Type B and fissile transportation packages. The IAEA recently initiated the review cycle for a potential 2011 edition of TS-R-1. The IAEA's review process calls for Member States and International Organizations to provide proposals for review of issues or identified problems with the regulations to the IAEA by August 31, 2007. To assure opportunity for public involvement in the international regulatory development process, the DOT and the NRC are soliciting proposals for issues or identified problems with the IAEA international transportation standard, TS-R-1, at this time. A specific area of interest are proposals related to the IAEA package surface contamination limits in TS-R-1. In 2000, an IAEA Coordinated Research Project
(CRP)to review contamination control methods and develop a non-fixed contamination dose model for packages was initiated. The results of the CRP were published as IAEA-TECDOC-1449, *Radiological aspects of non-fixed contamination of packages and conveyances,* June 2005 (available at *www.iaea.org* ). The CRP concluded that the current limits for non-fixed contamination on packages were developed using very conservative assumptions. Potential alternative methods of specifying contamination limits could include a radionuclide specific approach. We are seeking input regarding the usefulness, feasibility or practicality of implementing dose-based package surface contamination limits, and the issues or identified problems pertinent to incorporation of new non-fixed contamination limits into TS-R-1. The focus of this solicitation is to identify issues or problems with the current 2005 edition of TS-R-1. While it is helpful to identify potential changes or solutions to resolve the identified issues or problems, it is not required to provide a proposed change to accompany each identified issue or problem. This information will assist the DOT and the NRC in having a full range of views as the agencies develop the proposed issues the U.S. will submit to the IAEA. II. Public Participation Proposed issues or identified problems should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** document. Proposals must be submitted in writing (electronic file on disk in WordPerfect format preferred) and should include: • Name; • Address; • Telephone No.; • E-mail address; • Principal objective of issue or identified problem ( *e.g.* , Required to provide adequate protection to health and safety of public and occupational workers, needed to define or redefine level of protection to health and safety of public and occupational workers, required for consistency within the Transport Regulations, required as a result of advances in technology, needed to improve implementation of the Transport Regulations); • Topic of issue or identified problem—Describe or frame the issue or the identified problem by reference to or using the table of contents of TS-R-1 (2005 Edition) and the Advisory Material for the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (TS-G-1.1 (ST-2)); • Justification for proposed change—Provide a clear statement of the main objectives of the proposed change and the solution “path” ( *e.g.* , change to regulations, additional guidance, a research project); • An assessment of the benefits and impacts of the proposed change—Including changes in public and occupational exposure, changes in accident risk, and effects on health, safety or the natural environment. The affected parties should be identified. • Paragraphs affected and proposed text change to regulatory text in TS-R-1; • Paragraphs affected and proposed text change to IAEA advisory material in TS-G-1.1; • A listing of any applicable reference documents; • Description of issue or identified problem to be addressed; • Summary of proposed solution to the issue or identified problem; and • Expected cost of implementation (negligible, low, medium or high). The DOT and the NRC will review the proposed issues, identified problems, rationales and, if included, changes and proposed solutions. Based in part on the information received, the U.S. will develop proposed issues or identified problems to be submitted to the IAEA by August 31, 2007. Proposed issues and identified problems from all Member States and International Organizations will be considered at an IAEA Transport Safety Standards Committee (TRANSSC) Meeting to be convened by IAEA on October 1-5, 2007, in Vienna, Austria. Prior to that meeting, the DOT and the NRC will consider holding a public meeting to discuss the U.S. proposed changes submitted to the IAEA. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Kevin Williams, Chief, Rules, Inspections, and Operations Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E7-13318 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28663; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-223-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes; and Model A310 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (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)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: * * * the FAA set-up in January 1999 an Ageing Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC) to investigate the potential safety issues in aging aircraft as a result of wear and degradation in their operating systems. Under this plan, all Holders of type Certificates aircraft are required to conduct a design review, to preclude the occurrence of potential unsafe conditions as the aircraft aged. The unsafe condition is degradation of the fuel system, which could result in loss of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 9, 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. • *eFederal Rulemaking 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)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. 2007-28663; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-223-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 because 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 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 2006-0285R1, dated November 13, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: * * * the FAA issued in July 1996 an Aging Non-structural Systems plan to address the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (WHCSS) report. To help fulfill the actions specified in this Aging Systems plan, the FAA set-up in January 1999 an Ageing Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC) to investigate the potential safety issues in aging aircraft as a result of wear and degradation in their operating systems. Under this plan, all Holders of type Certificates aircraft are required to conduct a design review, to preclude the occurrence of potential unsafe conditions as the aircraft aged. Further to AIRBUS investigations on this subject, corrected measures intended to improve the design of A310 and A300-600 fleet against potential unsafe conditions as the aircraft aged, are rendered mandatory by this AD. The unsafe condition is degradation of the fuel system, which could result in loss of the airplane. The corrective actions include: • Modify emergency power electrical routing. • Inspect certain wire routes and do necessary corrective action (repair chafed or burned wiring, damaged clamps, and introduce self-vulcanising silicone tape for wrapping the cable bundle at each clamping position). • Secure electrical routing. • Relocate temperature sensors and modify wires. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued the following Service Bulletins: • A300-24-6045, Revision 05, dated June 9, 2006. • A300-24-6069, Revision 01, dated April 27, 2006. • A310-24-2056, Revision 02, dated June 9, 2006. • A310-24-2079, Revision 01, dated April 27, 2006. • A310-29-2036, Revision 03, dated June 9, 2006. • A310-36-2010, Revision 03, dated May 24, 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, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the 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 described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 193 products of U.S. registry. We estimate that it would take about 267 work hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $17,637 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 to be $7,526,421, or $38,997 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-2007-28663; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-223-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by August 9, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes; and Model A310 series airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models, all serial numbers. Subjects
(d)Electrical Power, Hydraulic Power, and Pneumatic. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: * * * the FAA issued in July 1996 an Aging Non-structural Systems plan to address the White House Commission an Aviation Safety and Security (WHCSS) report. To help fulfill the actions specified in this Aging Systems plan, the FAA set-up in January 1999 an Ageing Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC) to investigate the potential safety issues in aging aircraft as a result of wear and degradation in their operating systems. Under this plan, all Holders of type Certificates aircraft are required to conduct a design review, to preclude the occurrence of potential unsafe conditions as the aircraft aged. Further to AIRBUS investigations on this subject, corrected measures intended to improve the design of A310 and A300-600 fleet against potential unsafe conditions as the aircraft aged, are rendered mandatory by this AD. The unsafe condition is degradation of the fuel system, which could result in loss of the airplane. The corrective actions include: Modify emergency power electrical routing; inspect certain wire routes and do necessary corrective action (repair chafed or burned wiring, damaged clamps, and introduce self-vulcanising silicone tape for wrapping the cable bundle at each clamping position); secure electrical routing; and relocate temperature sensors and modify wires. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)For Model A310 series airplanes, having received Airbus Modification 05911 and/or Airbus Modification 05910, or having received application of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2014 or A310-24-2099 in service; and Model A300-600 series airplanes having received in production Airbus Modification 06213, or having received application of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6008 (Airbus Modification 06214) in service; except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10510 has been embodied in production or airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2056, dated June 8, 1993; Revision 1, dated November 28, 1994; or Revision 02, dated June 9, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6045, dated June 8, 1993; Revision 1, dated June 2, 1994; Revision 2, dated August 11, 1994; Revision 3, dated November 28, 1994; Revision 4, dated May 5, 1995; or Revision 05, dated June 9, 2006; has been embodied in service: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the emergency power electrical routing under floor at pressure seal interface plates between FR (frame) 52 and FR53, in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2056, Revision 02, dated June 9, 2006; or A300-24-6045, Revision 05, dated June 9, 2006; as applicable.
(2)For Model A310 series airplanes, manufacturing serial number
(MSN)0162 up to 0706 included, and Model A300-600 series airplanes, MSN 0252 up to 0794 included; except airplanes on which the one-time detailed visual inspection in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2079, dated March 28, 2000; or Revision 01, dated April 27, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6069, dated March 28, 2000; or Revision 01, dated April 27, 2006; has been performed in service: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time detailed visual inspection of the electrical routes 1P and 2P between the rear panel 120VU (volt unit) and the circuit breaker panel 800VU located in the forward compartment and in case of finding, before further flight, repair chafed or burned wiring, damaged clamps and introduce self-vulcanising silicone tape for wrapping the cable bundle of each clamping position, in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-24-2079, Revision 01, dated April 27, 2006, or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6069, Revision 01, dated April 27, 2006; as applicable.
(3)For Model A310 series airplanes, equipped with Eaton (formerly Vickers) electrical pumps, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10017 has been embodied in production or airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-29-2036, dated August 10, 1992; Revision 1, dated December 16, 1992; Revision 2, dated September 20, 1993; or Revision 03, dated June 9, 2006; have been embodied in service: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, secure the electrical routing 1P, 2P, and the hydraulic line running to pump 11GE, in the hydraulic bay at FR54 by changing the routes and by adding a spacer and a clamp to prevent any chafing between them, in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-29-2036, Revision 03, dated June 9, 2006.
(4)For Model A310 series airplanes, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 06447 has been embodied in production or airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-36-2010, Revision 2, dated September 26, 1989; or Revision 03, dated May 24, 2006; have been embodied in service: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, relocate the temperature sensors and modify the associated wires in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-36-2010, Revision 03, dated May 24, 2006.
(5)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with any applicable service bulletin in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding provisions of paragraph
(f)of this AD. Table 1.—Acceptable Earlier Revisions of Service Bulletins Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level Date A300-24-6045 Original June 8, 1993. 1 June 2, 1994. 2 August 11, 1994. 3 November 28, 1994. 4 May 5, 1995. A300-24-6069 Original March 28, 2000. A310-24-2056 Original June 8, 1993. 1 November 28, 1994. A310-24-2079 Original March 28, 2000. A310-29-2036 1 December 16, 1992. 2 September 20, 1993. A310-36-2010 2 September 26, 1989. 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, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0285R1, dated November 13, 2006, and the Airbus Service Bulletins in Table 2 of this AD for related information: Table 2.—Airbus Service Bulletins Service Bulletin Revision level Date A300-24-6045 Revision 05 June 9, 2006. A300-24-6069 Revision 01 April 27, 2006. A310-24-2056 Revision 02 June 9, 2006. A310-24-2079 Revision 01 April 27, 2006. A310-29-2036 Revision 03 June 9, 2006. A310-36-2010 Revision 03 May 24, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 26, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13352 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28664; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-007-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER 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 all Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection to determine the material of the forward and aft gray water drain masts. For airplanes having composite gray water drain masts, this proposed AD would also require installation of a copper bonding jumper between a ground and the clamp on the tube of the forward and aft gray water composite drain masts. This proposed AD results from a report of charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast found during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment on a Model 767-300F airplane. We are proposing this AD to prevent a fire near a composite drain mast and possible disruption of the electrical power system due to a lightning strike on a composite drain mast, which could result in the loss of several functions essential for safe flight. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 24, 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:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 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: Dave Webber, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6451; 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-2007-28664; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-007-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 Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that, during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment on a Model 767-300F airplane, an operator found charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast. Additional charring on the insulation blankets was noticed several feet away along the routing of the drain mast's ground wire and power wires. Analysis of the damaged parts revealed that a lightning strike on the composite drain mast caused the damage to the wires and insulation blankets. This condition, if not corrected, could cause disruption of electrical power and fire and heat damage to equipment in the event of a lightning strike on the composite drain mast, which could result in the potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight. A design review of the gray water composite drain mast installation on Model 737NG, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes revealed that the installation of a heavier bonding jumper is necessary to provide adequate lightning protection to the gray water composite drain mast installation. The subject area on Model 777 airplanes is almost identical to that on the affected Model 767-300F airplane. Therefore, Model 777 airplanes might be subject to the unsafe condition revealed on the Model 767-300F airplane. We are currently considering additional rulemaking to address the identified unsafe condition on Model 737NG, 757, and 767 airplanes. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-30-0014, dated July 24, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing a 135-ampere copper bonding jumper between a ground and the clamp on the tube of the forward and aft gray water composite drain masts. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Referenced Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Referenced Service Bulletin Operators should note that, although Model 777-200LR series airplanes are not included in the effectivity of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-30-0014, dated July 24, 2006, this proposed AD is applicable to those airplanes. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing. Costs of Compliance There are about 164 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 Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection to determine gray water drain mast material 1 $80 None $80 20 $1,600. Installation of bonding jumper 4 80 Between $132 and $274, depending on kit and number of kits needed (1 or 2) Between $452 and $594 Up to 20 Between $9,040 and $11,880. 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-2007-28664; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-007-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 24, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast found during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment on a Model 767-300F airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire near a composite drain mast and possible disruption of the electrical power system due to a lightning strike on a composite drain mast, which could result in the loss of several functions essential for safe flight. 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 To Determine Material of Gray Water Drain Mast
(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the forward and aft gray water drain masts to determine whether the drain mast is made of aluminum or composite material. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the material of the forward and aft gray water drain masts can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1)For any aluminum gray water drain mast identified during the inspection or records check required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, no further action is required by this AD for that drain mast only.
(2)For any composite gray water drain mast identified during the inspection or records check required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Installation of Bonding Jumper
(g)For any composite gray water drain mast identified during the inspection or records check required by paragraph
(f)of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install a 135-ampere copper bonding jumper between a ground and the clamp on the tube of the gray water composite drain mast, in accordance with the Accomplishment instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-30-0014, dated July 24, 2006. Installation of Bonding Jumper Not Necessary for Aluminum Drain Masts
(h)For airplanes on which the forward composite drain mast has been replaced with an aluminum drain mast per Boeing Service Bulletin 777-38-0026: Installation of the bonding jumper specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD is not required for the forward gray water drain mast, as specified in Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-30-0014, dated July 24, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)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 June 26, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13353 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28665; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-081-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 and A300-600 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: Three cases of outer deflector panel found detached or broken during ground inspection have been reported to Airbus. * * * [A]n operator has also reported a missing portion of hinge on one panel. * * * Mishandling or failure of the small portion of hinge located inboard of the affected deflector panel is suspected to be the main cause of the deflector damage. This can cause misalignment of the deflector panel followed by hinge pin migration and possible further damages to the deflector on flap retraction. If not corrected, such situation could lead to the loss of deflector panel and injured people on the ground. 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 August 9, 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:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 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 Operations office 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 Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2007-28665; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-081-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 2007-0062, dated March 7, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Three cases of outer deflector panel found detached or broken during ground inspection have been reported by operators to Airbus. The affected deflector panel is the most outboard of the two outer deflectors. In addition, an operator has also reported a missing portion of hinge on one panel. The missing portion of hinge is held to the structure through one Camloc fastener. Mishandling or failure of the small portion of hinge located inboard of the affected deflector panel is suspected to be the main cause of the deflector damage. This can cause misalignment of the deflector panel followed by hinge pin migration and possible further damages to the deflector on flap retraction. If not corrected, such situation could lead to the loss of deflector panel and injured people on the ground. The aim of this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is to mandate the one time inspection to detect and prevent damage to inner and outer shroud box deflectors. The corrective action includes repairing any discrepancy, or removing the affected deflector door according to the Configuration Deviation List (CDL). You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued the following service information. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. • Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0247, including Appendix 01, dated November 7, 2006. • Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6104, including Appendix 01, dated November 7, 2006. • Airbus A300 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Appendix—Configuration Deviation List, Page 6.03.27, dated February 1, 1993. • Airbus A300-600 AFM, Appendix—Configuration Deviation List, Page 6.03.27, dated May 1, 1992. 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 167 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 16 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 $213,760, or $1,280 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this 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-2007-28665; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-081-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by August 9, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes, all certified models, all serial numbers, certificated in any category; except Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes from Manufacturer's Serial Number 0872 onward, which received application of Airbus modifications 13245 and 13282 during production. Subject
(d)Wings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Three cases of outer deflector panel found detached or broken during ground inspection have been reported by operators to Airbus. The affected deflector panel is the most outboard of the two outer deflectors. In addition, an operator has also reported a missing portion of hinge on one panel. The missing portion of hinge is held to the structure through one Camloc fastener. Mishandling or failure of the small portion of hinge located inboard of the affected deflector panel is suspected to be the main cause of the deflector damage. This can cause misalignment of the deflector panel followed by hinge pin migration and possible further damages to the deflector on flap retraction. If not corrected, such situation could lead to the loss of deflector panel and injured people on the ground. The aim of this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is to mandate the one time inspection to detect and prevent damage to inner and outer shroud box deflectors. The corrective action includes repairing any discrepancy, or removing the affected deflector door according to the Configuration Deviation List (CDL). Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do a detailed visual inspection of the inner and outer shroud box flap deflectors in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0247, including Appendix 01, dated November 7, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6104, including Appendix 01, dated November 7, 2006; as applicable.
(1)If any discrepancy or damage is found, before next flight do the action in paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Repair the affected flap deflector in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0247, including Appendix 01, dated November 7, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6104, including Appendix 01, dated November 7, 2006; as applicable.
(ii)Remove the affected deflector door as described in Airbus A300 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Appendix—Configuration Deviation List, Page 6.03.27, dated February 1, 1993; or Airbus A300-600 AFM, Appendix—Configuration Deviation List, Page 6.03.27, dated May 1, 1992; as applicable. The removed door may be reinstalled once it has been repaired in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0247, including Appendix 01, dated November 7, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6104, including Appendix 01, dated November 7, 2006; as applicable.
(2)Report to Airbus the results of the inspection done in accordance with paragraph
(f)of this AD, using the inspection report included in Appendix 01 of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD. 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, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, International Branch, 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: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. 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 European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0062, dated March 7, 2007, and the service information identified in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Table 1.—Airbus Service Information Service information Date Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0247, including Appendix 01 November 7, 2006. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6104, including Appendix 01 November 7, 2006. Airbus A300 Airplane Flight Manual, Appendix—Configuration Deviation List, Page 6.03.27 February 1, 1993. Airbus A300-600 Airplane Flight Manual, Appendix—Configuration Deviation List, Page 6.03.27 May 1, 1992. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 26, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13354 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28661; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-013AD] 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 installation of an automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps, installation of a placard in the airplane flight deck if necessary, and concurrent modification of the P5-2 fuel control module assembly. This proposed AD would also require revisions to the Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of certain operating restrictions for airplanes equipped with an automated center tank fuel pump shutoff control. This proposed AD would also require a revision to the Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-19 and No. 28-AWL-23. This proposed AD would also require installation of two secondary override fuel pump control relays to each existing primary override fuel pump control relay for the center fuel tank fuel boost pumps. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent center tank fuel pump operation with continuous low pressure, which could lead to friction sparks or overheating in the fuel pump inlet or could create a potential ignition source inside the center fuel tank; these conditions, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a center fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 24, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 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: Kathrine Rask, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Ave SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6505; 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-2007-28661; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-013-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 Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Boeing has found that certain failures will result in the center tank fuel pumps continuing to run after the tank has been depleted. Depending on the failure, pump low pressure may not be annunciated, or power may not be removed from the pump when the pump has been commanded “OFF.” Operation of the center tank fuel pump with continuous low pressure could lead to friction sparks or overheating in the fuel boost pump inlet. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Other Relevant Rulemaking On April 18, 2001, we issued AD 2001-08-24, amendment 39-12201 (66 FR 20733, April 25, 2001), applicable to all Boeing Model 737 airplanes. That AD requires revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM)to prohibit extended dry operation of the center tank fuel pumps (with no fuel passing through the pumps). Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and
(k)of this proposed AD would terminate the AFM revision required by paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-08-24 for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes that have the automatic shutoff system installed. On September 24, 2002, we issued AD 2002-19-52, amendment 39-12900 (67 FR 61253, September 30, 2002), applicable to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, Model 747 airplanes, and Model 757 airplanes. That AD requires revising the AFM to advise the flightcrew of certain operating restrictions for maintaining minimum fuel levels, prohibits use of the horizontal stabilizer tank on certain airplanes, and prohibits the installation of certain fuel pumps. That AD requires concurrent removal of the currently required AFM revisions and insertion of new AFM revisions, requires installation of placards to alert the flightcrew to the operating restrictions, and prohibits installation of any un-inspected pumps. That AD permits the AFM revision and placard to be removed under certain conditions. Installation of a placard in accordance with paragraph
(e)of AD 2002-19-52, amendment 39-12900, is acceptable for compliance with paragraph
(h)of this AD. On November 23, 2002, we issued emergency AD 2002-24-51, amendment 39-12992, applicable to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, Model 747 airplanes, and Model 757 airplanes. (We issued a **Federal Register** version of AD 2002-24-51 on December 23, 2002 (68 FR 10, January 2, 2003).) That AD requires revising the AFM to require the flightcrew to maintain certain minimum fuel levels in the center fuel tanks and, for certain airplanes, to prohibit the use of the horizontal stabilizer fuel tank and certain center auxiliary fuel tanks. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and
(k)of this proposed AD would terminate the AFM revision specified in paragraph
(b)of AD 2002-24-51 for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes that have the automatic shutoff system installed. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006. This service bulletin describes procedures for installing an automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps. Installation of the automatic shutoff system includes the following actions: • In the J4 junction box, changing wiring and connector termination positions and installing relays, transformers, markers, and wires to a certain wire bundle. • In the J20 junction box, changing wiring and installing relays, markers, and wires to a certain wire bundle. • At the P5 overhead panel in the flight compartment, replacing the P5-2 fuel control module with a reworked P5-2 fuel control module. • In the flight compartment, installing the P61-8 fuel test panel and installing circuit breakers and markers in the P6-3 circuit breaker panel. • Adding wiring to certain wire bundles in the P6 circuit breaker panel, between the flight and electronics compartment, in the J4 and J20 junction boxes, in the E2-1 and E4-2 electronics shelves in the electrical compartment, between the E2-1 electronics shelf and the P5-2 fuel control panel, between the E4-2 electronics shelf and the P5-2 fuel control panel, between the E2-1 electronics shelf and the J20 junction box, and between the E4-2 electronics shelf and the J4 junction box. We have also reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1248, dated December 21, 2006. This service bulletin describes procedures for installing two secondary override fuel pump control relays to each existing primary override fuel pump control relay for the center fuel tank fuel boost pumps. The installation includes installing a new overlay marker and Brady label, changing and adding certain wires, and connecting the new relays to the power distribution panel. We have also reviewed Revision December 2005 and Revision May 2006 of Section 9 of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D626A001-CMR (hereafter referred to as “the MPD”). Subsection F, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,” of the MPD describes new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)for fuel tank systems. The AWLs include: • AWL inspections, which are periodic inspections of certain features for latent failures that could contribute to an ignition source. • Critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs), which are limitation requirements to preserve a critical ignition source prevention feature of the fuel tank system design that is necessary to prevent the occurrence of an unsafe condition. The purpose of a CDCCL is to provide instruction to retain the critical ignition source prevention feature during configuration change that may be caused by alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions. A CDCCL is not a periodic inspection. Subsection F of the MPD, Revision December 2005, adds new fuel system AWL No. 28-AWL-19, which is a repetitive inspection of the automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps to verify functional integrity. Subsection F of the MPD, Revision May 2006, adds new fuel system AWL No. 28-AWL-23, which is a repetitive inspection of the power failed on protection system for the center tank fuel boost pumps to verify functional integrity. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206 recommends concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Component Service Bulletin 233A3202-28-03, dated January 12, 2006. Boeing Component Service Bulletin 233A3202-28-03 describes procedures for replacing the left and right center boost pump switches of the P5-2 fuel control module assembly with new switches and changing the wiring of the P5-2 fuel control module assembly. 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 the following actions: • Installation of an automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps. • Installation of a placard in the airplane flight deck, if necessary. (Placards are necessary only for “mixed fleet operation,” which means that some airplanes in an operator's fleet are equipped with automatic shutoff systems while other airplanes are not.) • Concurrent modification of the P5-2 fuel control module assembly. • Revisions to the Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of certain operating restrictions for airplanes equipped with an automated center tank fuel pump shutoff control. • Revision to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-19, which would require repetitive inspections of the automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps to verify functional integrity. • Installation of two secondary override fuel pump control relays to each existing primary override fuel pump control relay for the center fuel tank fuel boost pumps. • Revision to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-23, which would require repetitive inspections of the power failed on protection system for the center tank fuel boost pumps to verify functional integrity. This proposed AD would also allow accomplishing the revision to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with later revisions of the MPD as an acceptable method of compliance if they are approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Costs of Compliance There are about 2,109 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The estimated cost of parts for installing an automatic shutoff system depends on the configuration of an airplane. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Installation of the automatic shutoff system 89 $23,072 to $34,559 $30,192 to $41,679 616 $18,598,272 to $25,674,264. Placard installation, if necessary 1 $10 $90 616 $55,440. Concurrent modification of fuel control module assembly 9 $3,815 $4,535 616 $2,793,560. AFM revision 1 None $80 616 $49,280. AWL revision to add 28-AWL-19 1 None $80 616 $49,280. Installation of secondary pump control relays 65 $2,964 $8,164 726 $5,927,064. AWL revision to add 28-AWL-23 1 None $80 726 $58,080. 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-2007-28661; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-013-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 24, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)Accomplishing certain paragraphs of this AD terminates certain requirements of AD 2001-08-24, amendment 39-12201, and terminates certain requirements of AD 2002-24-51, amendment 39-12992. 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 Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1248, dated December 21, 2006. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections of the automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(p)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure acceptable maintenance of the automatic shutoff system. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent center tank fuel pump operation with continuous low pressure, which could lead to friction sparks or overheating in the fuel pump inlet or could create a potential ignition source inside the center fuel tank; these conditions, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a center fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Information References
(f)The term “Revision December 2005 of the MPD,” as used in this AD, means the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D626A001-CMR, Section 9, Revision December 2005. The term “Revision May 2006 of the MPD,” as used in this AD, means the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900 MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Section 9, Revision May 2006. The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as applicable:
(1)For installation of an automatic shutoff system required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006;
(2)For modification of the fuel control module assembly required by paragraph
(i)of this AD: Boeing Component Service Bulletin 233A3202-28-03, dated January 12, 2006; and
(3)For installation of the secondary override pump control relays required by paragraph
(l)of this AD: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1248, dated December 21, 2006. Installation of Automatic Shutoff System for the Center Tank Fuel Boost Pumps
(g)For the airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, install an automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in the applicable service bulletin. If a placard has been previously installed on the airplane in accordance with paragraph
(h)of this AD, the placard may be removed from the flight deck of only that airplane after the automatic shutoff system has been installed. Installing automatic shutoff systems on all airplanes in an operator's fleet, in accordance with this paragraph, terminates the placard installation required by paragraph
(h)of this AD, for all airplanes in an operator's fleet. Placard Installation for Mixed Fleet Operation
(h)For the airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006: Concurrently with installing an automatic shutoff system on any airplane in an operator's fleet, as required by paragraph
(g)of this AD, install a placard adjacent to the pilot's primary flight display on all airplanes in the operator's fleet not equipped with an automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps. The placard must read as follows (unless alternative placard wording is approved by an appropriate FAA Principal Operations Inspector): “AD 2002-24-51 fuel usage restrictions required.” Installation of a placard in accordance with paragraph
(e)of AD 2002-19-52, amendment 39-12900, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Installing an automatic shutoff system on an airplane, in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD, terminates the placard installation required by this paragraph, for only that airplane. Installing automatic shutoff systems on all airplanes in an operator's fleet, in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD, terminates the placard installation required by this paragraph, for all airplanes in an operator's fleet. If automatic shutoff systems are installed concurrently on all airplanes in an operator's fleet in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD, or if operation according to the fuel usage restrictions of AD 2002-24-51 is maintained until automatic shutoff systems are installed on all airplanes in an operator's fleet, the placard installation specified in this paragraph is not required. Concurrent Modification of P5-2 Fuel Control Module Assembly
(i)For the airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006, equipped with any fuel control module assembly identified in paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing Component Service Bulletin 233A3202-28-03, dated January 12, 2006: Before or concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph
(g)of this AD, replace the left and right center boost pump switches of the P5-2 fuel control module assembly with new switches and change the wiring of the P5-2 fuel control module assembly, by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the applicable service bulletin. Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Revision
(j)For the airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006: Concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph
(g)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
(1)Revise Section 1 of the Limitations section of the Boeing 737-600/-700/-700C/-800/-900 AFM to include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. “Intentional dry running of a center tank fuel pump (low pressure light illuminated) is prohibited.” Note 2: When a statement identical to that in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
(2)Revise Section 3 of the Normal Procedures section of the Boeing 737-600/-700/-700C/-800/-900 AFM to include the following statements. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. “Center Tank Fuel Pumps *Alternative Method of Compliance
(AMOC)to AD 2001-08-24 and AD 2002-24-51 for Aircraft with the Automated Center Tank Fuel Pump Shutoff* Center tank fuel pumps must not be “ON” unless personnel are available in the flight deck to monitor low pressure lights. For ground operation, center tank fuel pump switches must not be positioned “ON” unless the center tank fuel quantity exceeds 1000 pounds (453 kilograms), except when defueling or transferring fuel. Upon positioning the center tank fuel pump switches “ON” verify momentary illumination of each center tank fuel pump low pressure light. For ground and flight operations, the corresponding center tank fuel pump switch must be positioned “OFF” when a center tank fuel pump low pressure light illuminates [1]. Both center tank fuel pump switches must be positioned “OFF” when the first center tank fuel pump low pressure light illuminates if the center tank is empty. [1] When established in a level flight attitude, both center tank pump switches should be positioned “ON” again if the center tank contains usable fuel. Defueling and Fuel Transfer When transferring fuel or defueling center or main tanks, the fuel pump low pressure lights must be monitored and the fuel pumps positioned to “OFF” at the first indication of the fuel pump low pressure [1]. Defueling the main tanks with passengers on board is prohibited if the main tank fuel pumps are powered [2]. Defueling the main tanks with passengers on board is prohibited if the center tank fuel pumps are powered and the auto-shutoff system is inhibited [2]. [1] Prior to transferring fuel or defueling, conduct a lamp test of the respective fuel pump low pressure lights. [2] Fuel may be transferred from tank to tank or the aircraft may be defueled with passengers on board, provided fuel quantity in the tank from which fuel is being taken is maintained at or above 2000 pounds (900 kilograms).” Note 3: When statements identical to those in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD have been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)Revision for AWL No. 28-AWL-19
(k)For the airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006: Concurrently with installing an automatic shutoff system in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD, revise the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-19 of Subsection F of Revision December 2005 of the MPD into the MPD. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Installation of Secondary Override Pump Control Relays
(l)For the airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1248, dated December 21, 2006: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install two secondary override fuel pump control relays to each existing primary override fuel pump control relay for the center fuel tank fuel boost pumps, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. AWLs Revision for AWL No. 28-AWL-23
(m)For the airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1248, dated December 21, 2006: Concurrently with installing the secondary override pump control relays in accordance with paragraph
(l)of this AD, revise the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-23 of Subsection F of Revision May 2006 of the MPD into the MPD. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Terminating Action for AD 2001-08-24
(n)Accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and
(k)of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-08-24 for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes that have the automatic shutoff system installed. After accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and
(k)of this AD, the AFM limitation required by paragraph
(a)of AD 2001-08-24 may be removed from the AFM for those airplanes. Terminating Action for AD 2002-24-51
(o)Accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and
(k)of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph
(b)of AD 2002-24-51 for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes that have the automatic shutoff system installed. After accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and
(k)of this AD, the AFM limitations required by paragraph
(b)of AD 2002-24-51 may be removed from the AFM for those airplanes. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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 June 26, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13326 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28662; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-014-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 Series Airplanes; and Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 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 airplanes, identified above. This proposed AD would require inspecting to determine if certain motor-operated shutoff valve actuators for the fuel tanks are installed, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also require revising the Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes), and No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 (for Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300). This proposed AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are proposing this AD to prevent electrical energy from lightning, hot shorts, or fault current from entering the fuel tank through the actuator shaft, which could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 24, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 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: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6497; 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-2007-28662; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-014-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 Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Boeing has found that, under specific conditions, it was possible for electrical current to flow through certain motor operated shutoff valve actuators in the fuel tank. Boeing has developed a new valve actuator to replace those actuators. A motor-operated shutoff valve actuator that does not have sufficient protection against electrical energy from lightning, hot shorts, and fault current, could allow electrical energy to enter the fuel tank through the actuator drive shaft, which could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 737-28A1207, dated February 15, 2007, and 757-28A0088, dated January 25, 2007. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0088 describes procedures for inspecting to determine the part number (P/N) of motor-operated valve
(MOV)actuators for the fuel tanks; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1207 also specifies removing MOV actuators having a certain P/N. The service bulletins specify that no more work is necessary if the P/N is acceptable. For Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes, the affected MOVs are at 3 locations: The left engine fuel shutoff
(spar)valve, the right engine fuel shutoff
(spar)valve, and the fuel crossfeed valve. For Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, the affected MOVs are at 6 locations for airplanes in the single crossfeed configuration, or at 7 locations for airplanes in the dual crossfeed configuration. If the P/N is not acceptable, the service bulletins specify related investigative and corrective actions as follows: For all airplanes: Reworking the index plate; reworking the adapter plate if necessary; installing the adapter/shaft plate with sealant; installing the index plate with sealant; installing a new MOV actuator on the index plate with sealant; installing bonding jumpers with sealant. For Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes the actions also include installing shield ground terminals using sealed fay surface bonding for the main tank fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS). All of these actions include steps that specify measuring the electrical bonding resistance between various components and reworking the bonding if necessary. We have also reviewed Subsection F, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,” of Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document D626A001-CMR, Section 9, Revision May 2006; and Subsection G, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,” of Boeing 757 MPD Document D622N001, Section 9, Revision October 2006 (hereafter referred to as Revisions May 2006 and October 2006 of the MPDs). These sections of the MPDs describe the critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCL) and inspections applicable to the MOV installation. CDCCLs are limitation requirements to preserve a critical ignition source prevention feature of the fuel tank system design that is necessary to prevent the occurrence of an unsafe condition. The purpose of a CDCCL is to provide instruction to retain the critical ignition source prevention feature during configuration change that may be caused by alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions. A CDCCL is not a periodic inspection. Subsection F of Revision May 2006 of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900 MPD adds new fuel system AWLs 28-AWL-21 (lightning and fault current protection—MOV actuator), No. 28-AWL-22 (repair of the MOV actuator), and 28-AWL-24 (lightning and fault current protection—MOV actuator). Subsection G of Revision October 2006 of the Boeing 757 MPD adds new fuel system AWLs No. 28-AWL-23 (lightning and fault current protection—MOV actuator), No. 28-AWL-24 (repair of the MOV actuator), and No. 28-AWL-25 (lightning and fault current protection—MOV actuator). 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 the following actions: • Inspecting to determine if certain motor-operated shutoff valve actuators for the fuel tanks are installed, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. • Revising the Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24 (for 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes). • Revising the Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 (for Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300). This proposed AD would also allow accomplishing the revision to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with later revisions of the MPD as an acceptable method of compliance if they are approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. Costs of Compliance There are about 2,916 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 1,406 airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection for MOV actuators 1 $80 1,406 $112,480 AWL revisions 3 240 1,406 337,440 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-2007-28662; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-014-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 24, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes; and Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 737-28A1207, dated February 15, 2007, and 757-28A0088, dated January 25, 2007. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections and maintenance actions. Compliance with these limitations is required by 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these limitations, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for revision to the airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)in the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document D626A001-CMR and the Boeing 757 MPD Document D622N001-9, as applicable, according to paragraph
(h)of this AD. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical energy from lightning, hot shorts, or fault current from entering the fuel tank through the actuator shaft, which could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Bulletin Reference
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as applicable:
(1)For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1207, dated February 15, 2007; and
(2)For Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0088, dated January 25, 2007. Inspection and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions
(g)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the applicable motor-operated valves
(MOVs)to determine whether an MOV with the affected part number (P/N) identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the P/N of the part can be conclusively determined from that review. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. Revision of AWLs Section
(h)Concurrently with the actions in paragraph
(g)of this AD: Revise the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating the information in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
(1)Section F., “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,” of Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document D626A001-CMR, Section 9, Revision May 2006, into the MPD to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24.
(2)Section G., “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,” of Boeing 757 MPD Document D622N001, Section 9, Revision October 2006, into the MPD to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 June 26, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13366 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28554; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-13] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Winfield, FL AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish Class E5 airspace at Winfield, FL. An Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP), helicopter point in space approach, has been developed for Interstate-10 Rest Stop Heliport, Winfield, FL. As a result, controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level
(AGL)is needed to contain the SIAP. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-28554; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-13, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room C210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5627. 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, aeronaturical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-28554; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Office of the Regional Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337, 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 Superintendent of Document's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to establish Class E5 airspace at Winfield, FL. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. 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. It, therefore,
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)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 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 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. § 71.1 [AMENDED] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO FL E5 Winfield, FL [NEW] Point In space Coordinates (Lat. 30°16′15″ N, long. 82°46′20″ W) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the point in space (lat. 30°16′15″ N, long. 82°46′20″ W) serving Interstate - 10 Rest Stop Heliport. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 26, 2007. Kathy Kutch, Acting Group Manager, System Support, Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. 07-3341 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 26
Traces to 26 documents
11 references not yet in our index
  • 42 CFR 83
  • Pub. L. 108-375
  • 42 USC 7384-7385
  • 42 CFR 82
  • 50 CFR 16
  • 50 CFR 16.11-16
  • 50 CFR 16.22
  • 10 CFR 50
  • 10 CFR 71
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 14 CFR 71
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final Rule
U.S.C.§ 7384q
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 552a
U.S.C.§ 2210
U.S.C.§ 7384l
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 601
U.S.C.§ 3501
Cite42 CFR 83
Pub. L.Pub. L. 108-375
Cite42 USC 7384-7385
Cites 37 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.