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 · 2007-07-12 · PROPOSED RULES · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

36,955 words·~168 min read·/register/2007/07/12/07-3382

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-07-12.xml --- 72 133 Thursday, July 12, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Apricots grown in Washington, 37991-37993 E7-13538 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Soybean promotion and research program; continuation, 37995-37997 E7-13548 Onions grown in South Texas, 37993-37995 E7-13547 PROPOSED RULES Avocados grown in South Florida, 38027-38030 07-3408 NOTICES Grade standards:
Avocados (Florida), 38057 E7-13549 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Forest Service Air Force Air Force Department PROPOSED RULES Military training and schools: Air Force Academy Preparatory School; application and selection, disenrollment, and assignment procedures, 38039-38042 E7-13250 Army Army Department NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Base closures and realignments— Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, 38068-38069 07-3386 Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Jackson County, MS; Federal Pascagoula Harbor Navigation Project, 38069 07-3393 Meetings: U.S. Military Academy, Board of Visitors; correction, 38069-38070 07-3392 Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: Optical data storage, 38070 07-3396 Real-time imaging spectropolarimeter based on an optical modulator, 38070 07-3395 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee to Director, 38086 E7-13523 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare:
Physicians fee schedule (2008 CY); proposed revisions to payment policies of ambulance services, etc., 38122-38395 07-3274 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.: Lake Huron, Mackinaw City, MI, 38012-38014 E7-13503 Lake Huron, St. Ignace, MI, 38015-38017 E7-13504 Onondaga Lake, Liverpool, NY, 38010-38012 E7-13501 Commerce Commerce Department See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Defense Defense Department See Air Force Department See Army Department Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:
Alabama, 38045-38050 E7-13543 Mississippi, 38051-38055 E7-13567 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 38079-38081 E7-13559 Meetings: Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, 38081-38083 E7-13557 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program and related Toxic Substances Control Act inventory status; availability, 38083-38085 E7-13558 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:
AEROTECHNIC Vertiebs-u. Service GmbH, 38000-38002 E7-13249 Airbus, 38006-38008 E7-13117 Bombardier, 38004-38006 E7-13081 Cirrus Design Corp., 37999-38000 E7-13248 Pacific Aerospace Corp. Ltd., 37997-37998 E7-13242 Rolls-Royce, 38002-38004 E7-13410 FCC Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Common carrier services: Licenses; transfer of control; consent applications— XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., 38055-38056 E7-13485 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 38074-38076 E7-13510 Hydroelectric applications, 38076-38079 E7-13519 E7-13520 E7-13521 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co., 38070-38071 E7-13511 Ecofin Holdings Ltd. et al., 38071 E7-13514 Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC, 38071 E7-13517 MidAmerican Energy Co., 38071-38072 E7-13513 Northern Natural Gas Co., 38072 E7-13515 Rockies Express Pipeline LLC, 38072 E7-13518 Saracen Energy MB, L.P., 38072-38073 E7-13522 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 38073 E7-13516 Warm Springs Biomass Project, LLC, 38073-38074 E7-13512 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies:
Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 38085 E7-13529 Formations, acquisitions, and mergers; correction, 38085-38086 E7-13530 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 38096-38097 E7-13469 Comprehensive conservation plans; availability, etc.: Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, NC, 38097-38098 E7-13563 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Kern County Valley Floor, CA; habitat conservation plan, 38098-38100 E7-13528 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings:
Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee, 38086-38087 E7-13560 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Resource Advisory Committees— Alpine County, 38057 07-3383 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services See U.S. Customs and Border Protection See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Low income housing: Housing assistance payments— Housing Choice Voucher Program and Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program (2008 FY); fair market rents, 38398-38458 07-3388 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Export administration regulations: Entity list— Iran; export and reexport license requirements, 38008-38010 E7-13551 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service IRS Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Income taxes:
Business aircraft; entertainment use deductions; hearing; correction, 38033 E7-13498 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Fresh garlic from— China, 38057-38060 E7-13552 Pasta from— Italy, 38060-38061 E7-13553 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations: High-brightness light emitting diodes and products containing same, 38101-38102 E7-13495 Justice Justice Department PROPOSED RULES Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990 and Protect Act; record-keeping and record inspection provisions:
Visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct; record-keeping, labeling, and inspection requirements, 38033-38039 E7-13500 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Oil and gas leases: Wyoming, 38100 E7-13525 Survey plat filings: New Mexico, 38100 07-3385 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Deepwater ports; license applications: Port Dolphin Energy LLC, 38116-38118 E7-13505 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Motor vehicle safety standards: Tire pressure monitoring systems, 38017-38025 07-3382 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Inventions, Government-owned; availability for licensing, 38087-38089 E7-13541 E7-13542 Meetings:
National Human Genome Research Institute, 38089 07-3397 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 38089 07-3401 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 38089-38090 07-3402 National Library of Medicine, 38090 07-3398 07-3399 Scientific Review Center, 38091 07-3400 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Northeastern United States fisheries— Summer flounder, scup and black sea bass, 38025-38026 E7-13555 NOTICES Marine mammals:
Incidental taking; authorization letters, etc.— Eglin Air Force Base, FL; Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal School training operations; Atlantic bottlenose and spotted dolphins, 38061-38065 E7-13424 Taking and importing— Beaufort Sea, AK; offshore oil and gas facilities construction and operation, 38065-38067 E7-13556 Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, E7-13531 38067-38068 E7-13532 Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission; U.S. Section General Advisory Committee, 38068 E7-13507 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Civil War battlefield lands; acquisition and preservation funding, 38100-38101 E7-13527 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Sunshine Act, 38103 E7-13577 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Rulemaking petitions: Crandall, Raymond A., 38030-38033 E7-13539 NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* USEC Inc., 38103-38104 07-3403 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special observances: Captive Nations Week (Proc. 8160), 38459-38462 07-3442 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:
Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 38104-38106 E7-13491 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 38106-38108 E7-13490 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 38109-38110 E7-13502 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 38110-38115 E7-13497 NYSE Arca, Inc., 38115-38116 E7-13506 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: SAMSHA National Advisory Council, 38091-38092 07-3387 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Maritime Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service MISSING FOR:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals Correction, 38119 Z7-12834 MISSING FOR: U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 38092-38095 E7-13508 E7-13509 E7-13566 E7-13568 E7-13571 07-3430 MISSING FOR: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 38095-38096 E7-13569 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES Medical benefits: Hospital care and medical services during certain disasters or emergencies, 38042-38045 E7-13278 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 38122-38395 07-3274 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 38398-38458 07-3388 Part IV Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 38459-38462 07-3442 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 133 Thursday, July 12, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 922 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0031; FV07-922-1 FIR] Apricots Grown in Designated Counties in Washington; Suspension of Container Regulations AGENCY:
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule suspending the container regulations prescribed under the Washington apricot marketing order. This rule continues in effect the action that indefinitely extended the temporary 2006 season container regulation suspension. The marketing order regulates the handling of fresh apricots grown in designated counties in the State of Washington, and is administered locally by the Washington Apricot Marketing Committee (Committee). This relaxation in the regulatory requirements allows handlers to pack and ship apricots in any size, shape, or type of container, thus providing the apricot industry with increased marketing flexibility. DATES: *Effective Date:* August 13, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Curry or Gary D. Olson, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW., Third Avenue, Suite 385, Portland, Oregon 97204-2807; Telephone:
(503)326-2724; Fax:
(503)326-7440; or E-mail: *Robert.Curry@usda.gov* or *GaryD.Olson@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone
(202)720-2491; Fax:
(202)720-8938; or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 922 (7 CFR part 922) regulating the handling of apricots grown in designated counties in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State of local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule continues in effect the indefinite suspension of the order's container regulations. This regulatory suspension provides additional flexibility to the apricot industry by allowing handlers to pack apricots in any type, shape, or size container. The container regulations prescribed under § 922.306 will remain suspended for the 2007 and future seasons unless the Committee recommends, and USDA approves, action to reinstate the regulations. For the 2006 season only, the Committee recommended a temporary suspension of the container regulations to help ensure that a thorough analysis of that season would be completed prior to any possible future action regarding the container regulations. After reviewing the effects of the temporary suspension on the 2006 apricot shipping season, the Committee determined that the industry could successfully market its fresh apricot crop without the container regulations in place. The Committee consequently concluded that the Washington apricot industry would be best served by an open-ended suspension of § 922.306. To facilitate prompt reinstatement of the container regulations should future market conditions warrant such, the Committee recommended that the 2006 temporary regulation suspension be extended indefinitely rather than replaced by a permanent removal of the regulations from the order. Section 922.52 of the order authorizes the issuance of regulations for grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container for any variety of apricots grown in the production area. Section 922.52(a)(3) specifically authorizes the establishment of the container regulations found in § 922.306. Section 922.53 authorizes the modification, suspension, or termination of regulations issued pursuant to § 922.52. Authority to regulate the size, weight, dimension, and pack of containers used in the marketing of fresh apricots was included in the order when promulgated in 1957. Container regulatory authority was included in the order to provide container standardization, to enhance orderly marketing conditions, and to provide for increased producer returns. The Committee meets prior to each season to consider recommendations for modification, suspension, or termination of any regulatory requirements for Washington apricots that are issued on a continuing basis. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The USDA reviews the Committee recommendations along with any supportive information submitted by the Committee, as well as information from other available resources, and determines whether modification, suspension, or termination of the regulatory requirements would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. During such a review at its February 15, 2007, meeting, the Committee determined, and unanimously recommended, that the 2006 season container regulation suspension (71 FR 16979; effective from April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007) be extended indefinitely. For a seamless extension of the suspension, the Committee recommended that this rule be effective by April 1, 2007. When effective, § 922.306 provides that apricots must be handled domestically in
(1)Open containers or telescopic fiberboard cartons weighing 28 pounds or greater;
(2)closed containers with 14 pounds or more of apricots packed in a row-faced or tray-pack configuration;
(3)closed containers with 12 pounds (or more) of random sized, non-row-faced apricots; or
(4)closed containers with 24 pounds or more of loose-packed apricots. In reaching a consensus to extend the 2006 regulatory suspension into the 2007 and future seasons, Committee members noted that, although container standardization had contributed to orderly marketing in the past, buyers today are increasingly interested in non-traditional packaging options designed for better handling and greater consumer acceptance. In addition, with the regulations suspended, handler members concurred that they now enjoy greater latitude in choosing the optimum container weight for a particular pack or customer. Committee members were unanimous in the opinion that this indefinite container regulation suspension provides the industry with the flexibility needed to meet the challenges of marketing fresh apricots. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. There are approximately 300 apricot producers within the regulated production area and approximately 22 regulated handlers. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000. Data from the Washington Agricultural Statistics Service shows that the total 5,900 ton Washington apricot utilization sold for an average of $969 per ton in 2005 with a total value of $5,715,000. Based on the number of producers in the production area (300), the average annual producer revenue from the sale of apricots in 2005 can thus be estimated at approximately $19,050. In addition, based on information from the Committee and USDA's Market News Service, 2005 f.o.b. prices ranged from $15.00 to $20.00 per 24-pound loose-pack container, and from $14.00 to $24.00 for 2-layer tray pack containers. Assuming that equal quantities of the 2005 season fresh apricot pack-out of 4,471 tons went into loose-pack (24-pound) containers and tray-pack containers (weighing an average of about 20 pounds each), average gross receipts per handler from the sale of fresh apricots would have been approximately one-half of the annual sales figure that the SBA uses to define the minimum size of a large agricultural service business ($750,000). Thus, the majority of producers and handlers of Washington apricots may be classified as small entities. At its February 15, 2007, meeting the Committee recommended that the temporary suspension of the order's container regulations (§ 922.306)—effective from April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007—be indefinitely extended to cover the 2007 shipping season as well as all future seasons. Section 922.52(a)(3) of the order specifically authorizes the establishment of container regulations. Further, § 922.53 authorizes the modification, suspension, or termination of regulations issued pursuant to § 922.52. This indefinite extension of the container regulation suspension is expected to continue to provide the apricot industry with increased marketing flexibility by allowing handlers to pack and ship apricots in any size, shape, or type of container. Container regulations have been utilized in past seasons to provide a degree of standardization and thus have helped in providing the industry with orderly marketing conditions. However, changing market dynamics and the experience gained through the 2006 suspension have convinced the Committee that container standardization is no longer necessary to ensure orderly marketing. Last year, rather than seeking an indefinite suspension of the regulations, the Committee recommended a temporary suspension so that it could conduct a thorough evaluation of the impact the relaxation would have on the industry during the 2006 shipping season prior to taking any further action for subsequent seasons. In reviewing the 2006 season at the February 15, 2007, meeting, the Committee easily reached a consensus that an indefinite continuation of the container regulation suspension would best fit the industry's marketing needs. The Committee anticipates that this rule will not negatively impact small businesses. This rule extends the suspension of the container requirements found under § 922.306 of the order's rules and regulations and should continue to provide enhanced marketing opportunities. The Committee discussed—and subsequently rejected—alternatives to its recommendation to extend the container regulation suspension. These included allowing the reinstatement of the regulations (by not taking any action) and continuing with annual and temporary regulatory suspensions such as recommended for the 2006 season. With a successful season behind them, Committee members were unanimous in their decision to recommend to USDA an extension of the container regulations suspension for an indefinite period. This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large apricot handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule. AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington apricot industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the February 15, 2007, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the **Federal Register** on April 4, 2007. Copies of the rule were made available to the Washington apricot industry by Committee staff, as well as through the Internet by the USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. That rule provided a 60-day comment period which ended June 4, 2007. No comments were received. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html* . Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 16263, April 4, 2007) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 922 Apricots, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PART 922—APRICOTS GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN WASHINGTON Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 922 that was published at 72 FR 16263 on April 4, 2007, is adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: July 9, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-13538 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 959 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0043; FV07-959-2 FIR] Onions Grown in South Texas; Exemption of Onions for Export AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule exempting onions being shipped to export markets from regulations prescribed under the South Texas onion marketing order. The marketing order regulates the handling of onions grown in South Texas, and is administered locally by the South Texas Onion Committee (Committee). This rule continues in effect the action that provides a special purpose shipment exemption for onions being shipped to export markets. Under this change, onion shipments for export will continue to be exempt from the grade, size, quality, and inspection requirements of the marketing order. This rule continues in effect the action that provides handlers additional flexibility in marketing onions of different grades and quality in various markets outside of the U.S. This change helps the South Texas onion industry develop additional markets for its onions, while increasing returns to producers and providing an increased supply of onions to help satisfy a rapidly developing export market. DATES: *Effective Date:* August 13, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Belinda G. Garza, Regional Manager, Texas Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone:
(956)682-2833, Fax:
(956)682-5942, or E-mail: *Belinda.Garza@usda.gov* . Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:
(202)720-2491, Fax: (202)720-8938; or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 143 and Order No. 959, both as amended (7 CFR part 959), regulating the handling of onions grown in South Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule, unanimously recommended by the Committee at its March 16, 2007, meeting, continues in effect the action that exempts onion export shipments from the grade, size, quality and inspection requirements prescribed under the South Texas onion marketing order. To effectuate the exemption, paragraphs (e)(1) and
(f)of § 959.322 were modified by adding the term “export” to the list of authorized special purpose shipment categories. Section 959.52 of the order authorizes the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or termination of regulations for grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container for any variety of onions grown in the production area. Section 959.53 provides that regulations in effect pursuant to §§ 959.42, 959.52, or 959.60 may be modified, suspended or terminated to facilitate the handling of onions for specified special purpose shipments, including export. Section 959.60 provides that whenever onions are regulated pursuant to § 959.52, such onions must be inspected by the Federal-State Inspection Service, and certified as meeting the applicable requirements of such regulations. Section 959.322 contains the order's handling regulations and includes provisions for grade, size, and inspection requirements, as well as a minimum quantity exemption, certain special purpose shipment exemptions, and experimental shipments. The handling regulations also provide safeguards to ensure that onions being shipped for special purposes are handled in accordance with order provisions. The Committee meets prior to and during each season to consider recommendations for modification, suspension, or termination of the regulatory requirements for South Texas onions which have been issued on a continuing basis. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The USDA reviews Committee recommendations and information submitted by the Committee and other available information, and determines whether modification, suspension, or termination of the regulatory requirements would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Based on discussion at the March 16, 2007, meeting, the Committee conveyed to USDA that there was an extremely short supply of onions in Mexico and other countries. This shortage fueled a greater demand for all grades of onions. The Committee indicated that there was a great deal of interest in various foreign markets for onions of varying grade, size, and quality. Texas producers and handlers were characterized by the Committee as eager to supply this demand and were thus fully in support of relaxing the handling regulations in an effort to provide onions for the developing export markets. The Committee also reported that the onion supply situation in Texas was hampered by a very short onion crop—approximately 12,500 acres this year compared with approximately 18,000 acres in past seasons—and cold weather had caused some quality issues in certain areas of the South Texas onion production area. By exempting onions for export from the handling regulations, this rule continues in effect the action that provides handlers additional flexibility in marketing onions of different grades and quality in various markets outside of the U.S. This change helps the South Texas onion industry develop additional markets for its onions, while increasing returns to producers and provides an increased supply of onions to help satisfy a rapidly developing export market. All handlers making onion shipments for relief, charity, processing, or experimental purposes are required to apply for and obtain a Certificate of Privilege from the Committee to make such shipments. Once handlers are approved for such shipments, a Report of Special Purpose Onion Shipment form must be submitted to the Committee for each such onion shipment in order to ensure that the shipments are in accordance with Committee requirements. This rule continues in effect the action that allows all shipments to export markets to also be exempt from grade, size, quality, and inspection requirements and tracked through the use of the Report of Special Purpose Onion Shipment form. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. Small agricultural service firms are defined as those with annual receipts of less than $6,500,000. There are approximately 114 producers of onions in the production area and approximately 38 handlers subject to regulation under the order. Most of the handlers are vertically integrated corporations involved in producing, shipping, and marketing onions. For the 2005-06 marketing year, the industry's 38 handlers shipped onions produced on 17,694 acres with the average and median volume handled being 182,148 and 174,437 fifty-pound equivalents, respectively. In terms of production value, total revenues for the 38 handlers were estimated to be $44.2 million, with average and median revenues being $1.6 million and $1.12 million, respectively. The South Texas onion industry is characterized by producers and handlers whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity, and whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on the production of onions. Alternative crops provide an opportunity to utilize many of the same facilities and equipment not in use when the onion production season is complete. For this reason, typical onion producers and handlers either produce multiple crops or alternate crops within a single year. Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that all of the 38 handlers regulated by the order would be considered small entities if only their onion revenues are considered. However, revenues from other farming enterprises could result in a number of these handlers being above the $6,500,000 annual receipt threshold. All of the 114 producers may be classified as small entities based on the SBA definition if only their revenue from onions is considered. This rule continues in effect the action that exempts onion export shipments from the grade, size, quality and inspection requirements prescribed under the South Texas onion marketing order. To realize the exemption, paragraphs
(e)and
(f)of § 959.322 are modified by adding the term “export” to the list of authorized special purpose shipment categories. Section 959.52 of the order authorizes the issuance of regulations for grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container for any variety of onions grown in the production area. Section 959.53 provides for the exemption from the handling regulations certain kinds of onion shipments, including export. The Committee anticipates that this rule will not negatively impact small businesses. This rule continues in effect the action that exempts onions being shipped to export markets from the order's handling regulations, and thus provides enhanced marketing opportunities for all handlers, increased income for South Texas onion producers, and increased purchasing flexibility for foreign consumers. The Committee considered alternatives to this recommendation. One consideration would have relaxed the minimum quality requirements of all onion shipments, both domestic and export, from U.S. No. 1 to U.S. No. 2. Although this option may have taken care of the export market demands, it was rejected early in the discussion due to the problems associated with trying to market onions that grade less than U.S. No. 1 to U.S. consumers. Also briefly considered was the option of suspending the entire handling regulation, either on a temporary basis or indefinitely. The Committee also rejected this option as being too extreme for the current situation. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements that are contained in this rule are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. This rule will impose minimal additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements, deemed to be insignificant, on both small and large onion handlers that export onions. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, as noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule. The AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the South Texas onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the March 16, 2007, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Furthermore, interested persons were invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the **Federal Register** on April 9, 2007. Copies of the rule were mailed by the Committee's staff to all Committee members, onion handlers, and interested persons. In addition, the rule was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. That rule provided for a 60-day comment period, which ended June 8, 2007. No comments were received. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. This rule continues in effect the action that exempts onions for export from the handling regulations prescribed under the South Texas onion marketing order. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 17360, April 9, 2007) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 959 Onions, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PART 959—ONIONS GROWN IN SOUTH TEXAS Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 959 which was published at 72 FR 17360 on April 9, 2007, is adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: July 9, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-13547 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1220 [Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0084; LS-05-07] Soybean Promotion and Research Program; Section 610 Review AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Confirmation of regulations. SUMMARY: This document summarizes the results of an Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)review of the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Program under the criteria contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Based upon its review, AMS has determined that the Soybean Research and Promotion Order (Order) should be continued without change. ADDRESSES: Interested persons may obtain a copy of the review. Requests for copies should be sent to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2628-S, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251; Phone:
(202)720-1115; Fax:
(202)720-1125; or, online at *www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2638-S, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251 or e-mail *Kenneth.Payne@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Order (7 CFR 1220) is authorized under the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act
(Act)(7 U.S.C. 6301 *et seq.* ). This program is a national producer program for soybean and soybean product promotion, research, consumer information, and industry information as part of a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the soybean industry's position in the marketplace by maintaining and expanding existing domestic and foreign markets and uses for soybeans and soybean products, and to develop new markets and uses for soybean and soybean products. Soybean producers fund this program through a mandatory assessment of one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) of the net market price per bushel on soybeans marketed. Assessments collected under this program are used for promotion, research, consumer information, and industry information. The national program is administered by the United Soybean Board (Board), which has 64 producer members. Board members serve 3-year terms and represent 28 states and 2 geographic units. On February 18, 1999, AMS published in the **Federal Register** (64 FR 8014), a plan to review certain regulations, including the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Program, known as the Soybean Checkoff Program (Program), under criteria contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(U.S.C. 601-612). Updated plans were published in the **Federal Register** on January 4, 2002 (67 FR 525), August 14, 2003 (68 FR 48574), and March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14827). The reviews are being conducted over the next 10 years under section 610 of the RFA. Because many AMS regulations impact small entities, AMS decided, as a matter of policy, to review certain regulations which, although they may not meet the threshold requirement under section 610 of the RFA, warranted review. As part of its review of the Program, AMS published a notice of review and request for written comments on the Soybean Research and Promotion Order in the December 2, 2005 issue of the **Federal Register** (70 FR 72257). Comments were due January 31, 2006. Comments were received from 18 various State soybean associations, a national trade association, and several soybean producers. The review was undertaken to determine whether the Order should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded (consistent with the objectives of the Act) to minimize the impacts on small entities. In conducting this review, AMS considered the following factors:
(1)The continued need for the Order;
(2)the nature of complaints or comments from the public concerning the Order;
(3)the complexity of the Order;
(4)the extent to which the Order overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules and, to the extent feasible, with state and local governmental rules; and
(5)the length of time since the Order has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the Order. *Comments:* USDA received comments from 18 various State soybean associations, national trade associations, and soybean producers regarding the Order and/or the regulations in response to the published notice of review. A comment from the chairman of the United Soybean Board discussed background information about the Program as well as rationale for the continuation of the Order. The comment from the Board chairman addressed the intent of the 610 review. The chairman also referenced the results of the 2004 request for a referendum, in which only 3,206 valid requests for a referendum were cast. A total of 66,388 valid votes were required to prompt a referendum. Additionally, the comment referred to the recent return on investment study, which evaluated Program activities from 1995-2001, and determined that for every $1 invested, producers received $6.75 in returns. Thirteen comments addressed the process used by the Board for selecting contractors. To obtain contractors, the Board periodically announces Request for Proposals
(RFP)for potential contractors who provide specific services for the Board. As part of the oversight responsibility, USDA reviews and approves all contracts between the Board and contractors. The Board continually evaluates the work of all contractors, who are subject to audits. Competitive bidding is used by the Board and subcontractors, when deemed necessary. Eighteen comments received questioned how the Board manages the Program's finances. The Board's financial records are audited on an annual basis by an independent auditor. Through the Board's compliance program and auditing authority, Qualified State Soybean Boards
(QSSB)are periodically reviewed to ensure proper accounting procedures are in place so that checkoff dollars are not commingled with non-checkoff dollars and are spent on authorized activities. AMS also reviews and approves the annual financial audit of the Board, the operating and administrative budgets of the Board, and amendments made to either budget as the fiscal year progresses. Producers and organizations representing soybean producers are encouraged to attend State meetings and provide input during the decision-making process. For budgeting purposes, the Board has adopted the use of a Budget Allocation Model, which allows all producers the opportunity to direct programs and funding. This model is used in conjunction with the Board's committee structure to allocate checkoff funds for Board activity. The Board is required under the Order to have its financial records annually reviewed by an independent certified public accountant. To date, the audits have not reflected any substantive reasons for concern and have indicated that the Board does adhere to the administrative cap set forth in the Act. Board financial information and meeting minutes are available to QSSBs and the general public upon request to the Board and are distributed to Board members. The Board, by representation of producers nominated by State boards and appointed by the Secretary, is responsible for decisions that impact the entire soybean industry. Therefore, AMS understands the value of transparency of the Board's decisions and actions. In fiscal year 2006, Beyond the Bean magazine was distributed quarterly to producers to communicate educational, action-oriented checkoff activities of the Board. Additionally, Board and committee meetings are open to the public. The public, which includes QSSB representatives and producers, are afforded the opportunity to participate in Board and committee meetings and are encouraged to provide input in the decision-making process. Fifteen comments made recommendations that include changes to the Act, such as: Doubling the assessment rate, changing how Board members are selected, the removal of legislation authorizing the Coordinating Committee, allowing for the payment of membership dues with checkoff dollars, and allowing checkoff funds generated in States to remain under the sole discretion and control of the each respective State. However, implementation of these suggestions would require changes to language in the Act itself, which would require congressional action. Fourteen comments recommended changes to the Order, including suggestions on how referendums are conducted and a request to correct an erroneously eliminated section that allows State checkoff programs to pay refunds and mandate that producers requesting a refund direct their total assessment to the Board. The Order was amended in January 2007 to add the eliminated section back into the Order. The Order currently allows for soybean producers to petition for a referendum every five years. Suggestions received from the public on how the Order can be revised concerning change the referendum process have been forwarded to the Board for further consideration. Five comments addressed the Board's decision to establish the United States Soybean Export Council (USSEC). AMS has reviewed all agreements and contracts to ensure that all activities were performed and permissible under the Act and Order. Preliminary information pertaining to the creation of USSEC and impact upon ASA are anticipated and will be distributed to Board members. Such information will also be made available to the public upon request. Five comments addressed the method used for calculating eligible soybean producers. According to the Act, the term “producer” is defined as “any person engaged in the growing of soybeans in the United States, who owns or shares the ownership and risk of loss of such soybeans.” USDA periodically reviews data available from the Farm Service Agency to determine the total number of producers eligible to participate in a request for referendum. Two comments indicated that the period used for Minimum Assessment Provision by the Board should begin either September or October instead of the beginning of the calendar year. The calendar year is used in order to provide consistency among the various accounting periods used by the QSSBs. Based upon this review, the USDA has determined that the Order is not unduly complex. The USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules or State and local regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the Order's requirements. While there are organizations that exist to conduct soybean research, the Board works with these organizations complementarily. In many cases, the work being done by these research institutions is either fully or partially funded by the Board. There are State programs that promote generic soybeans and soybean products. These State programs are, in most cases, affiliated with the Board as the QSSBs in their respective States or geographic units. Assessments are collected by QSSBs, portions of which are retained by their respective geographic units for local generic soybean promotion, research, and information. Additionally, these are some organizations that exist solely to represent soybean producers. These organizations are voluntary in nature and serve different functions. The activities of these organizations concentrate in areas not covered by the Order, and therefore do not duplicate or conflict with the Order Based upon the review, AMS has determined that the Order should continue without change. AMS plans to continue working with the soybean industry in maintaining an effective Program. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6301-6311. Dated: July 9, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-13548 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27863 Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-037-AD; Amendment 39-15126; AD 2007-14-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd Model 750XL Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This 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: To prevent the rudder trim tab upper pivot hole in the rudder rib flogging out, which may lead to aerodynamic flutter and possible loss of aircraft control * * * We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 16, 2007. On August 16, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on May 18, 2007 (72 FR 28003). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: To prevent the rudder trim tab upper pivot hole in the rudder rib flogging out, which may lead to aerodynamic flutter and possible loss of aircraft control * * * To correct the unsafe condition, you must inspect the rudder trim tab upper pivot for any lateral movement of the bush. If you find any lateral movement of the bush, install modification PAC/XL/0267. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 required 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 AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 16 work-hours per product to comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,000 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 parts. 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 this AD to the U.S. operators to be $15,960 or $2,280 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. 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 the NPRM, 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-14-04 Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd:** Amendment 39-15126; Docket No. FAA-2007-27863; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-037-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective August 16, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
(1)Not fitted with modification PAC/XL/0267 (upper bearing part number (P/N) 11-33121-1); and
(2)certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 55: Stabilizers. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: To prevent the rudder trim tab upper pivot hole in the rudder rib flogging out, which may lead to aerodynamic flutter and possible loss of aircraft control * * * To correct the unsafe condition, you must inspect the rudder trim tab upper pivot for any lateral movement of the bush. If you find any lateral movement of the bush, install modification PAC/XL/0267. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)Within the next 150 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after August 16, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, inspect the rudder trim tab upper pivot following the instructions in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/023, dated February 15, 2007.
(i)If there is any lateral movement of the bush found in any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, install modification PAC/XL/0267 following Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/023, dated February 15, 2007; and Pacific Aerospace Ltd Drawing No. 11-03131, Drawing Approved Date: February 17, 2007.
(ii)Modification PAC/XL/0267 comprises removing the upper bush P/N 11-33119-1 and installing upper bearing P/N 11-33121-1 following Pacific Aerospace Ltd Drawing No. 11-03131, Drawing Approved Date: February 17, 2007. Modification PAC/XL/0267 is a terminating action to the requirements of this AD.
(2)Within the next 450 hours TIS after August 16, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 24 months after August 16, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, modify the rudder trim tab upper pivot with modification PAC/XL/0267 following Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/023, dated February 15, 2007; and Pacific Aerospace Ltd Drawing No. 11-03131, Drawing Approved Date: February 17, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, 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: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), 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 Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand AD DCA/750XL/11, dated March 29, 2007; Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/023, dated February 15, 2007; and Pacific Aerospace Ltd Drawing No. 11-03131, Drawing Approved Date: February 17, 2007, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/023, dated February 15, 2007; and Pacific Aerospace Ltd Drawing No. 11-03131, Drawing Approved Date: February 17, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd., Hamilton Airport, Private Bag HN 3027, Hamilton, New Zealand; telephone: 011
(64)7-843-6144; fax: 011
(64)7-843-6134.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 29, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13242 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27976; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-042-AD; Amendment 39-15125; AD 2007-14-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cirrus Design Corporation Models SR20 and SR22 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Cirrus Design Corporation
(CDC)Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes. This AD requires you to replace the pick-up collar support and nylon screws, of the Cirrus Airplane Parachute System (CAPS), with a new design pick-up collar support and custom tension screws. This AD results from a CDC report of an in-flight CAPS activation where the parachute failed to successfully deploy. We are issuing this AD to correct pick-up collar support fasteners of the CAPS, which could result in the premature separation of the collar. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the parachute failing to successfully deploy (CAPS failure). DATES: This AD becomes effective on August 16, 2007. On August 16, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Cirrus Design Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth, Minnesota 55811; telephone:
(218)727-2737; Internet address: *http://www.cirrusdesign.com.* To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is FAA-2007-27976; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-042-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wess Rouse, Aerospace Engineer, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone:
(847)294-8113; fax:
(847)297-7834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On May 11, 2007, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain CDC Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)on May 17, 2007 (72 FR 27766). The NPRM proposed to require you to replace the pick-up collar support and nylon screws, of the CAPS, with a new design pick-up collar support and custom tension screws. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 2,677 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the replacement of the pick-up collar support of the CAPS: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 2 work-hours × $80 per hour = $160 $17 $177 $473,829 Note: CDC will provide warranty credit to the extent noted in Cirrus Alert Service Bulletin No. SB A2X-95-10 R2, Issued April 2, 2007, Revised: April 24, 2007. 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 AD. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27976; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-042-AD” in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-14-03 Cirrus Design Corporation:** Amendment 39-15125; Docket No. FAA-2007-27976; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-042-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective on August 16, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model SR20 airplanes, serial numbers
(SN)1005 through 1798, and Model SR22 airplanes, SN 0002 through 2437, that:
(1)Are certificated in any category; and
(2)have not incorporated the actions in their entirety of Cirrus Alert Service Bulletin No. SB A2X-95-10 R1, Issued April 2, 2007, Revised: April 10, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a Cirrus Design Corporation
(CDC)report of an in-flight Cirrus Airplane Parachute System
(CAPS)activation where the parachute failed to successfully deploy. We are issuing this AD to correct pick-up collar support fasteners of the CAPS, which could result in the premature separation of the collar. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the parachute failing to successfully deploy (CAPS failure). Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures Replace the pick-up collar support of the CAPS with the new design pick-up collar support and the two nylon collar support screws with new custom aluminum tension screws. One of the following must do the replacement: Within the next 25 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after August 16, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) or within 60 days after August 16, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first Follow Cirrus Alert Service Bulletin No. SB A2X-95-10 R2, Issued April 2, 2007, Revised: April 24, 2007.
(1)A CDC trained and authorized parachute system technician who also holds an Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) mechanic certificate; or
(2)A CDC trained and authorized parachute system technician who is supervised by an A&P mechanic. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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: Wess Rouse, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone:
(847)294-8113; fax:
(847)297-7834. 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. Material Incorporated by Reference
(g)You must use Cirrus Alert Service Bulletin No. SB A2X-95-10 R2, Issued April 2, 2007, Revised: April 24, 2007, or Cirrus Alert Service Bulletin No. SB A2X-95-10 R1, Issued April 2, 2007, Revised: April 10, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Cirrus Design Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth, Minnesota 55811; telephone:
(218)727-2737; Internet address: *www.cirrusdesign.com.*
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 29, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13248 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27680 Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-026-AD; Amendment 39-15128; AD 2007-14-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; AEROTECHNIC Vertiebs-u. Service GmbH Model Honeywell CAS67A ACAS II Systems Appliances AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This 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: It was detected by the STC holder that in earlier installations of the ACASII system there were no isolation diodes installed in the Heading and Attitude Valid lines. The absence of an isolation diode in the valid lines can prevent the valid flag to come up even if a gyro fault exists. The problem has only been detected for Heading Valid lines but could equally affect the Attitude Valid lines. With installation of the ACASII, the heading and attitude valid lines have to be connected to the TPU67A. On valid state, the signals are +28VDC. On invalid, the signals are open. This condition of direct connection (without an isolation diode installed) of the valid lines to the TPU67A, if not corrected, could cause the TPU67A to feed current into the open stated valid lines. This prevents the flag to appear even if the gyro is invalid, providing the flight crew with erroneous navigation information. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 16, 2007. On August 16, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on April 26, 2007 (72 FR 20780). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It was detected by the STC holder that in earlier installations of the ACASII system there were no isolation diodes installed in the Heading and Attitude Valid lines. The absence of an isolation diode in the valid lines can prevent the valid flag to come up even if a gyro fault exists. The problem has only been detected for Heading Valid lines but could equally affect the Attitude Valid lines. With installation of the ACASII, the heading and attitude valid lines have to be connected to the TPU67A. On valid state, the signals are +28VDC. On invalid, the signals are open. This condition of direct connection (without an isolation diode installed) of the valid lines to the TPU67A, if not corrected, could cause the TPU67A to feed current into the open stated valid lines. This prevents the flag to appear even if the gyro is invalid, providing the flight crew with erroneous navigation information. For the reasons stated above, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires the installation of isolation diodes into the signal lines to the TPU67A to prevent reverse feed of the valid lines. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 required 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 AD. Costs of Compliance The FAA is not aware of any airplanes on the U.S. Registry that have the affected equipment installed. All airplanes with this equipment included in the applicability of this rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action at this time. However, the FAA considers this rule necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Registry. Should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Registry, accomplishment of the required action will take approximately 8 work-hours at an average labor rate of $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $50 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, the total cost impact of this AD will be $690 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. 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 the NPRM, 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-14-06 AEROTECHNIC Vertiebs -u. Service GmbH:** Amendment 39-15128; Docket No. FAA-2007-27680; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-026-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective August 16, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Honeywell CAS67A ACAS II systems that are installed on, but not limited to, DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Models Dornier 228-100, Dornier 228-101, Dornier 228-200, Dornier 228-201, and Dornier 228-212 airplanes that:
(1)Had Supplemental Type Certificate No. SA1310 installed prior to January 31, 2005; and
(2)are certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 34: Navigation. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It was detected by the STC holder that in earlier installations of the ACASII system there were no isolation diodes installed in the Heading and Attitude Valid lines. The absence of an isolation diode in the valid lines can prevent the valid flag to come up even if a gyro fault exists. The problem has only been detected for Heading Valid lines but could equally affect the Attitude Valid lines. With installation of the ACASII, the heading and attitude valid lines have to be connected to the TPU67A. On valid state, the signals are +28VDC. On invalid, the signals are open. This condition of direct connection (without an isolation diode installed) of the valid lines to the TPU67A, if not corrected, could cause the TPU67A to feed current into the open stated valid lines. This prevents the flag to appear even if the gyro is invalid, providing the flight crew with erroneous navigation information. For the reasons stated above, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires the installation of isolation diodes into the signal lines to the TPU67A to prevent reverse feed of the valid lines. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, within the next 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after August 16, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), modify the Honeywell CAS67A ACASII System Installation following Aerotechnic Vertiebs -u. Service GmbH Service Bulletin No. DO228-119780-0104, Revision 2, dated December 21, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found 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.
(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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), 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)AD No. 2007-0059, dated March 5, 2007, and Aerotechnic Vertiebs -u. Service GmbH Service Bulletin No. DO228-119780-0104, Revision 2, dated December 21, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Aerotechnic Vertiebs -u. Service GmbH Service Bulletin No. DO228-119780-0104 Revision 2, dated December 21, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact AEROTECHNIC Vertriebs-und Service GmbH, Baden Airpark, Montreal Avenue D425, 77836 Rheinmuenster; telephone: +49 7229 66 2400; facsimile: +49 7229 66 2409.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 29, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13249 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24325; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-10-AD; Amendment 39-15129; AD 2007-14-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211-524 and -535 Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Rolls-Royce plc
(RR)RB211-524 and -535 series turbofan engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive fluorescent penetrant inspections
(FPI)of the high pressure
(HP)compressor stage 1 and 2 rotor discs for cracks. This AD results from reports of low-cycle-fatigue cracks found at overhaul in the interface weld between the HP compressor stage 1 and 2 rotor disc. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 16, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of August 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; telephone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936. The Docket Operations office is located at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine And Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7178; fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to certain RR RB211-524 and -535 series turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on September 25, 2006 (71 FR 57449). That action proposed to require initial and repetitive FPI and borescope inspections of the HP compressor stage 1 and 2 rotor discs for cracks. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Unrealistic Compliance Time Rolls-Royce plc states that the compliance time of 30 days after the effective date of the AD as specified in the proposed AD, is unrealistic and would be an unacceptable burden to operators. We agree. We changed paragraph
(f)to read “At the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, perform an initial fluorescent penetrant inspection
(FPI)and borescope inspection of the HP compressor stage 1 and 2 discs for cracks.” Borescope Inspection Requirement Rolls-Royce plc also states that in their Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)No. RB.211-72-AE359, Revision 1, dated November 17, 2005, there is no requirement for performing borescope inspections. We do not agree. That ASB requires borescope inspections per paragraphs 3A(3) through 3A(4)(o)(i). We did not change the AD. Correction to the Applicability Since we issued the proposed AD, we found that we overlooked listing an applicable engine model, model RB211-524D4-B-19. We investigated and found that no U. S. operators currently operate airplanes with this engine model. We added this model number to this AD to complete the applicability listing. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 884 RB211-524 and -535 series turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per engine to perform the inspections, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost to U.S. operators of performing one inspection on all of the engines, to be $141,440. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2007-14-07 Rolls-Royce plc:** Amendment 39-15129; Docket No. FAA-2006-24325; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-10-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective August 16, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following Rolls-Royce plc
(RR)RB211-524 and -535 series turbofan engines: -524B2-19 -524C2-B-19 -524B-02 -524D4X-19 -524B3-02 -524D4X-B-19 -524C2-19 -524G2-19 -524B4-02 -524G3-19 -524B4-D-02 -524H-36 -524D4-19 -524H2-19 -524D4-39 -535E4-37 -524B-B-02 -535E4-B-37 -524B2-B-19 -535E4-C-37 -524D4-B-19 -535E4-B-75 -524D4-B-39 -535C-37 These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 747, 757, 767 series, Lockheed L-1011 series, and Tupolev Tu204 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of low-cycle fatigue cracks found at overhaul in the interface weld between the high pressure
(HP)compressor stage 1 and 2 rotor discs. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure and damage to 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. Initial and Repetitive Inspections
(f)At the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, perform an initial fluorescent penetrant inspection
(FPI)and borescope inspection of the HP compressor stage 1 and 2 discs for cracks.
(g)Thereafter, at every engine shop visit, perform repetitive FPIs and borescope inspections of HP compressor stage 1 and 2 rotor discs for cracks.
(h)Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(4)(o) of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)No. RB.211-72-AE359, Revision 1, dated November 17, 2005, to do the inspections.
(i)Accept or reject as necessary, HP compressor stage 1 and 2 rotor discs using inspection criteria paragraphs 3.A.(5)(a) through 3.A.(5)(f) of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AE359, Revision 1, dated November 17, 2005. Definition
(j)For the purpose of this AD, an engine shop visit is defined as anytime the HP compressor stage 1 and 2 rotor discs are removed from the HP compressor stage 3 disc. Reporting Requirements
(k)Within 10 days, report inspection findings of cracks to the RR local field service office representative. The Office of Management and Budget has approved the reporting requirements specified in paragraph 3.A.(6)(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AE359, Revision 1, dated November 17, 2005, and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(l)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(m)United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority airworthiness directive No. G-2005-0028 R1, dated October 18, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(n)You must use Rolls-Royce plc Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AE359, Revision 1, dated November 17, 2005, to perform the inspections required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; telephone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 3, 2007. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13410 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26353; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-189-AD; Amendment 39-15124; AD 2007-14-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) airplanes. This AD requires inspecting to identify the part number and serial number of the selector valves of the nose landing gear
(NLG)and the nose gear door, and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of uncommanded partial retractions of the NLG. We are issuing this AD to prevent internal leakage of the selector valve, which, under certain conditions, could result in an uncommanded retraction of the NLG with consequent damage to the airplane and possible serious injury to ground personnel. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 16, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of August 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7305; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket 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. Discussion The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on April 26, 2007 (72 FR 20777). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require inspecting to identify the part number and serial number of the selector valves of the nose landing gear
(NLG)and the nose gear door, and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the supplemental NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance
(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 502 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection to determine the manufacturer part number and serial number of the selector valve(s) takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the required inspection for U.S. operators is $40,160, or $80 per airplane. The general visual inspection of the selector valve(s), if accomplished, takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of that inspection for U.S. operators is $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-14-02 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Amendment 39-15124. Docket No. FAA-2006-26353; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-189-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective August 16, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) airplanes; certificated in any category; having serial numbers (S/Ns) as identified in the service bulletins specified in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable. Table 1.—Bombardier Service Bulletins Service bulletin Revision level Date 600-0721 (for Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes) 01 February 20, 2006. 601-0558 (for Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) airplanes) 01 February 20, 2006. 604-32-021 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes) 02 February 20, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of uncommanded partial retractions of the nose landing gear (NLG). We are issuing this AD to prevent internal leakage of the selector valve, which, under certain conditions, could result in an uncommanded retraction of the NLG with consequent damage to the airplane and possible serious injury to ground personnel. 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 and Corrective Actions
(f)Within 500 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect to determine the manufacturer part numbers (P/Ns) and serial numbers of the selector valves of the NLG and nose gear door. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the serial numbers of the selector valves can be conclusively determined from that review. For any subject selector valve having Tactair Fluid Controls P/N 750006000 and a S/N from 0001 through 0767 inclusive, before further flight, do related investigative (including a general visual inspection for proper installation of the lock wire of the end cap) and corrective actions; in accordance with the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD. Note 1: Operators should be aware that selector valves having Bombardier P/N 601R75146-1 may be supplied by different manufacturers and have different manufacturer part numbers. Only airplanes having selector valves manufactured by Tactair Fluid Controls, having P/N 750006000, are subject to the investigative and corrective actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Note 3: The service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD refer to Tactair Fluid Controls Service Bulletin SB750006000-1, Revision A, dated September 6, 2005, as an additional source of service information for doing the related investigative and corrective actions required by this AD. Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(g)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-32-021, Revision 01, dated February 20, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes), are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, New York 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. Related Information
(i)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-16, dated July 6, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(j)You must use the applicable service bulletins identified in Table 2 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Table 2.—Material Incorporated by Reference Bombardier Service Bulletin Revision level Date 600-0721 01 February 20, 2006. 601-0558 01 February 20, 2006. 604-32-021 02 February 20, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13081 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27768; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-174-AD; Amendment 39-15123; AD 2007-14-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 and A340 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes. This AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 16, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of August 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2797; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive
(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket 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. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16741). That NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Changes to This AD We have removed Model A330-302, A330-303, and A340-643 airplanes from the applicability of this AD, since we have not yet certificated those airplane models for operation in the U.S. If these airplane models are certificated, the airworthiness limitations required by this AD will be included as airworthiness limitations in the FAA-approved type design. In the NPRM, we referred to Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on April 28, 2006), as the appropriate source of service information for revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for Model A340 airplanes. We have revised paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD to also refer to Issue 2, dated October 26, 2006 (approved by the EASA on November 22, 2006); and Issue 3, dated November 23, 2006 (approved by the EASA on February 26, 2007), of the Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05, as appropriate sources of service information. Airbus issued Operator Information Telex
(OIT)SE 999.0076/06, dated June 20, 2006, to identify the applicable sections of the Airbus A330 Airplane Maintenance Manual
(AMM)necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1932/05 and to identify the applicable sections of the Airbus A340 AMM necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1933/05. We have added a note to paragraphs (f)(1) and (g)(1) of this AD to refer to that OIT. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $4,320, or $160 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-14-01 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15123. Docket No. FAA-2007-27768; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-174-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective August 16, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-243, A330-301, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-312, A340-313, A340-541, and A340-642 airplanes; certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include a new inspection and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with the operator maintenance documents is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections and CDCCLs, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspection and CDCCLs described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(i)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections and CDCCLs that will preserve the critical ignition source prevention feature of the affected fuel system. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Revise Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)for Model A330 Airplanes
(f)For Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-243, A330-301, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.
(1)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined in Airbus A330 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1932/05, Issue 2, dated October 26, 2006 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)on November 17, 2006), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks” (hereafter referred to as “Section 1 of Document 95A.1932/05”). For the task identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1932/05, the initial compliance time starts from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, and the repetitive inspection must be accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1932/05.
(i)The effective date of this AD.
(ii)The date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness. Note 2: Airbus Operator Information Telex
(OIT)SE 999.0076/06, dated June 20, 2006, identifies the applicable sections of the Airbus A330 airplane maintenance manual
(AMM)necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1932/05.
(2)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined in Airbus A330 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1932/05, Issue 2, dated October 26, 2006 (approved by the EASA on November 17, 2006), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.” Revise ALS for Model A340 Airplanes
(g)For Model A340-211, A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-312, A340-313, A340-541, and A340-642 airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A340 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined in Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on April 28, 2006); Issue 2, dated October 26, 2006 (approved by the EASA on November 22, 2006); or Issue 3, dated November 23, 2006 (approved by the EASA on February 26, 2007) (all of these issues are hereafter referred to as “Section 1 of Document 95A.1933/05,” as applicable). For the task identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1933/05, the initial compliance time starts from the effective date of this AD, and the repetitive inspection must be accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1933/05. Note 3: Airbus OIT SE 999.0076/06, dated June 20, 2006, identifies the applicable sections of the Airbus A340 AMM necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1933/05.
(2)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A340 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined in Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations,” of Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on April 28, 2006); Issue 2, dated October 26, 2006 (approved by the EASA on November 22, 2006); or Issue 3, dated November 23, 2006 (approved by the EASA on February 26, 2007). No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs
(h)Except as provided by paragraph
(i)of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph
(f)or
(g)of this AD, as applicable, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(j)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0205, dated July 11, 2006; and EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0023, dated January 25, 2007; also address the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use the service information listed in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference Service information Issue level Date Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Original April 11, 2006. Airbus A330 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1932/05 Issue 2 October 26, 2006. Airbus A340 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations Original April 11, 2006. Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05 Issue 1 December 19, 2005. Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05 Issue 2 October 26, 2006. Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05 Issue 3 November 23, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-13117 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 070615200-7202-01] RIN 0694-AE06 Addition of Entities to the Entity List AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS)is amending the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR)to add five
(5)entities located in Iran to the Entity List. The Entity List is a compilation of end-users that present an unacceptable risk of using or diverting certain items to activities related to weapons of mass destruction. BIS requires a license for most exports or reexports to these entities and maintains the Entity List to inform the public of these license requirements. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective: July 12, 2007. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AE06, by any of the following methods: *E-mail:* *publiccomments@bis.doc.gov* Include “RIN 0694-AE06” in the subject line of the message. *Fax:*
(202)482-3355. Please alert the Regulatory Policy Division, by calling
(202)482-2440, if you are faxing comments. *Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:* Timothy Mooney, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230, *Attn:* RIN 0694-AE06. Send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to
(202)395-7285; and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. Comments on this collection of information should be submitted separately from comments on the final rule ( *i.e.* RIN 0694-AE06)—all comments on the latter should be submitted by one of the three methods outlined above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rithmire, Chairman, End-User Review Committee, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044; by telephone
(202)482-6105; or by e-mail to *mrithmir@bis.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The End-User Review Committee
(ERC)is a U.S. Government interagency group whose activities include reviewing and making recommendations related to end-users of concern to the U.S. Government for export control purposes. The ERC is a part of the “inform by” process. The “inform by” process is an interagency activity to review candidates for addition to the Entity List. This process was established December 10, 1996 by the National Security Council as a reformation of the Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiatives (EPCI). This interagency committee, the ERC, is responsible for reviewing potential additions or deletions from the Entity List. This rule implements a decision made by the ERC on May 1, 2007 to add five
(5)entities in Iran to Supplement No. 4 to part 744 (the Entity List) to inform the public of three
(3)of these entities' involvement in prohibited nuclear activities described in § 744.2 of the EAR and two
(2)of these entities' involvement in prohibited rocket systems and unmanned aerial vehicle activities described in § 744.3 of the EAR based upon the sanctions imposed on these entities pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 and Executive Order 13382 (70 FR 38567, July 1, 2005). The ERC determined that for the three
(3)entities listed pursuant to § 744.2(b) of the EAR, there is an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, any of the activities described in § 744.2(a) of the EAR, and that for the two
(2)entities listed pursuant to § 744.3(b) of the EAR, there is an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, activities described in § 744.3(a)(1) or (a)(2). To implement the May 1, 2007 ERC decision, this rule makes the following revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Additions to the Entity List Pursuant to 15 CFR 744.2(b), this rule amends Supplement No. 4 to part 744 (the Entity List) by adding three
(3)entities located in Iran to the Entity List. This notifies the public that a license is required for the export or reexport of all items subject to the EAR to: Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (a.k.a. Sazeman-E Energy Atomi), P.O. Box 14144-1339, End of North Karegar Avenue, Tehran, Iran; Kala Electric Company (a.k.a. Kalaye Electric Company), 33 Fifteenth
(15th)Street, Seyed-Jamal-Eddin-Assad Abadi Avenue, Tehran, Iran; and, Mesbah Energy Company (a.k.a. “MEC”), 77 Armaghan Gharbi Street, Valiasr Blve,Tehran, Iran. Also in Supplement No. 4, pursuant to 15 CFR 744.3(b), this rule adds two
(2)entities in Iran to the Entity List. This notifies the public that a license is required for the export or reexport of all items subject to the EAR to: Shahid Bakeri Industrial Group (a.k.a. “SBIG”), Tehran, Iran; and, Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (a.k.a. “SHIG”), Damavand Tehran Highway, Tehran, Iran. License applications for these five entities will be considered with a presumption of denial for all items subject to the EAR. Savings Clause Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or for export or reexport without a license
(NLR)as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting or reexporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport on July 12, 2007, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license
(NLR)so long as they are exported or reexported before August 13, 2007. Any such items not actually exported or reexported before midnight on August 13, 2007 require a license in accordance with this rule. Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended most recently by the Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (Aug. 7, 2006), has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222. Rulemaking Requirements 1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by the OMB under control numbers 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748. Miscellaneous and recordkeeping activities account for 12 minutes per submission. Total burden hours associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act and Office Management and Budget control number 0694-0088 are expected to increase slightly as a result of this rule. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132. 4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744 Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism. Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows: PART 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* ; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec. 221, Pub. L. 107-56; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of October 27, 2006, 71 FR 64109 (October 31, 2006). 2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended immediately following the country of India, by adding, in alphabetical order, the country of Iran and Iranian entities: “Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (a.k.a. Sazeman-E Energy Atomi), P.O. Box 14144-1339, End of North Karegar Avenue, Tehran, Iran”; “Kala Electric Company (a.k.a. Kalaye Electric Company), 33 Fifteenth
(15th)Street, Seyed-Jamal-Eddin-Assad Abadi Avenue, Tehran, Iran”; “Mesbah Energy Company (a.k.a. ‘MEC’), 77 Armaghan Gharbi Street, Valiasr Blve,Tehran, Iran”; “Shahid Bakeri Industrial Group (a.k.a. ‘SBIG’), Tehran, Iran”; and, “Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (a.k.a. ‘SHIG’), Damavand Tehran Highway, Tehran, Iran”; and the License Requirement column, License Review Policy column and **Federal Register** Citation column for these entities, to read as follows. Supplement No. 4 to Part 744.—Entity List Country Entity License requirement License review policy Federal Register citation * * * * * * * IRAN Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (a.k.a. Sazeman-E Energy Atomi), P.O. Box 14144-1339, End of North Karegar Avenue, Tehran, Iran For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.2 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 72 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 07/12/07. Kala Electric Company (a.k.a. Kalaye Electric Company), 33 Fifteenth
(15th)Street, Seyed-Jamal-Eddin-Assad Abadi Avenue, Tehran, Iran For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.2 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 72 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 07/12/07. Mesbah Energy Company (a.k.a. “MEC”), 77 Armaghan Gharbi Street, Valiasr Blve,Tehran, Iran For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.2 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 72 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 07/12/07. Shahid Bakeri Industrial Group (a.k.a. “SBIG”), Tehran, Iran For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.3 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 72 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 07/12/07. Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (a.k.a. “SHIG”), Damavand Tehran Highway, Tehran, Iran For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.3 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 72 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 07/12/07. * * * * * * * Dated: July 9, 2007. Christopher A. Padilla, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13551 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-062] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; USA Wakeboard Nationals, Onondaga Lake, Liverpool, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone encompassing the navigable waters of Onondaga Lake, Liverpool, NY. This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a Power Boat Race. This safety zone restricts vessel traffic from a portion of Onondaga Lake, Liverpool, NY. DATES: This rule is in effect from 8 a.m. July 11, 2007 to 5:30 p.m. July 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of the docket CGD09-07-062, and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd., Buffalo, New York 14203 between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tracy Wirth, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo;
(716)843-9573. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest or ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from the hazards associated with Power Boat Races. Based on recent accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined Power Boat Races pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, congested waterways, and alcohol use could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Discussion of Rule The proposed safety zone consists of all navigable waters of Onondaga Lake, Liverpool, NY starting at position 43°05′00″ N, 076°11′15″ W, South East to 43°04′15″ N, 076°12′12″ W, South to 43°03′42″ N, 076°11′16″ W, West to 43°04′22″ N, 076°10′36″ W [Datum: NAD 83]; one and a half miles from Marina Basin. The size of this zone was determined using the location of the race course approved by the Captain of the Port Buffalo and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone, and the zone is in areas where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zone's activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Onondaga Lake, Liverpool, NY between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on July 11-15, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for nine and a half hours for five days. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that this safety zone and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone; therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. A new temporary § 165.T09-062 is added to read as follows § 165.T09-062 Safety Zone; USA Wakeboard Nationals, Onondaga Lake, Liverpool, NY.
(a)*Location* . The following area is a temporary safety zone: all waters of the Onondaga Lake, Liverpool, NY 43°05′00″ N, 076°11′15″ W, South East to 43°04′15″ N, 076°12′12″ W, South to 43°03′42″ N, 076°11′16″ W, West to 43°04′22″ N, 076°10′36″ W [DATUM: NAD 83]; one and a half miles from Marina Basin.
(b)*Enforcement period* . This rule will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. July 11-15, 2007.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or the on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or the on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(5)Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all direction given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 28, 2007. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E7-13501 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-060] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Mackinac Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration, Lake Huron, Mackinaw City, MI AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Huron, Mackinaw City, MI. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Huron during the Mackinac Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration July 28, 2007 fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-07-060 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Sault Ste MT, 337 Water St., Sault Ste Marie, MI 49783 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., (Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT. John Peterson, Prevention Department, Sector Sault Ste Marie, MI 337 Water St., Sault Ste Marie, MI 49783;
(906)635-3341. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Mackinac Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 9 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on July 28, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of Lake Huron within a 2000 ft. radius around Mackinaw City Colonial Park, Mackinaw City, MI at position 45-47.26N 084-43.783W. [DATUM: NAD 83]. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Huron off Mackinaw City, between 9 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on July 28, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only three hours for one event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that this safety zone and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. A new temporary § 165.T09-060 is added to read as follows: § 165.T09-060 Safety zone; Mackinac Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration, Lake Huron, Mackinaw City, MI.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: all waters of Lake Huron within a 2000 ft. radius around Mackinaw City Colonial Park, Mackinaw City, MI at position 45-47.26N, 084-43.783W [DATUM: NAD 83].
(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 28, 2007.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie, or his designated on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie or his designated on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 25, 2007. L.W. Hewett, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie. [FR Doc. E7-13503 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-061] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Mackinac Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration, Lake Huron, St. Ignace, MI AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Huron, St. Ignace, MI. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Huron during the Mackinac Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration July 28, 2007 fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-07-061 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Sault Ste Marie, 337 Water St., Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, 49783 between 7:30 a.m. (local) and 4 p.m. (local), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT. John Peterson, Prevention Department, Sector Sault Ste Marie, MI, 337 Water St., Sault Ste Marie, MI 49783;
(906)635-3341. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Mackinac Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 9 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on July 28, 2007. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of Lake Huron within a 2000 ft. radius around the Mackinac Bridge Authority Pier, St. Ignace, MI at position 45-50.78N, 084-43.285W. [DATUM: NAD 83]. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Huron off St. Ignace, between 9 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on July 28, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only three hours for one event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that this safety zone and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. A new temporary § 165.T09-061 is added to read as follows: § 165.T09-061 Safety zone; Mackinac Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration, Lake Huron, St. Ignace, MI.
(a)*Location* . The following area is a temporary safety zone: waters of Lake Huron within a 2000 ft. radius around the Mackinac Bridge Authority Pier, St. Ignace, MI at position 45-50.78N, 084-43.285W [DATUM: NAD 83].
(b)*Effective period* . This regulation is from 9 p.m. to 11:59 a.m. on July 28, 2007.
(c)*Regulations* .
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie, or his designated on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie or his designated on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 25, 2007. L.W. Hewett, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie. [FR Doc. E7-13504 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA 2007-28694, Notice 1] RIN 2127-AJ90 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; partial response to petitions for reconsideration. SUMMARY: This document responds in part to petitions for reconsideration of our statutorily-mandated rulemaking establishing a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) requiring installation in new light vehicles of a tire pressure monitoring system
(TPMS)capable of detecting when one or more of a vehicle's tires is significantly under-inflated. We established the standard in a final rule published in April 2005. We responded to petitions for reconsideration of that final rule in a final rule published in September 2005. This final rule responds to the petition for reconsideration of our September 2005 final rule submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which raised a number of technical issues pertaining to the combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction indicator lamp. (The agency will respond subsequently in a separate notice to a second petition for reconsideration submitted by ETV Corporation Pty Limited.) We are granting the Alliance's petition, and through this document, we are amending the standard accordingly. We anticipate that today's amendments, which are of a minor technical nature, will not necessitate redesign of current TPMSs nor appreciably change the costs of compliance with the safety standard. DATES: *Effective Date:* The amendments made in this final rule are effective August 13, 2007. Voluntary compliance is permitted immediately. *Petitions for Reconsideration:* If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration for this rule, your petition must be received by August 27, 2007. The agency will not consider redundant petitions. ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket number above and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this document (Section VI; Rulemaking Analyses and Notices) for DOT's Privacy Act Statement regarding documents submitted to the agency's dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. George Soodoo or Mr. Samuel Daniel, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Telephone: 202-366-2720) (Fax: 202-366-4329). For legal issues, you may call Ms. Rebecca Schade, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Summary of Decision II. Background A. The TREAD Act B. Rulemaking History Prior to the April 2005 Final Rule C. The April 2005 Final Rule D. The September 2005 Final Rule; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration III. New Petitions for Reconsideration IV. Discussion and Analysis—TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp Telltale Requirements V. Benefits and Costs VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices I. Summary of Decision This document responds to a petition for reconsideration submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) related to our rulemaking establishing FMVSS No. 138, *Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,* which was adopted in a final rule published in the **Federal Register** on April 8, 2005. 1 The petitioner sought further amendments to the standard pertaining to matters that it deemed either to be insufficiently addressed by or newly arising from our September 2005 final rule 2 responding to petitions for reconsideration of the April 2005 final rule. Specifically, the petitioner requested changes to the specifications for the TPMS malfunction warning provided by a combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction warning telltale ( *see* section IV of this document for a complete discussion of issues raised in the petition and their resolution). We have decided to grant the petition for the reasons below. (We further note that a second petition for reconsideration was submitted by ETV Corporation Pty Limited (ETV), in response to which the agency is currently analyzing additional data. In order to prevent unnecessary delay in responding to the separate and distinct requests for amendment set forth in the Alliance's petition, we have decided to bifurcate our response to this latest round of petitions for reconsideration of the TPMS rulemaking. Accordingly, we have decided to respond to the ETV petition subsequently, as part of a separate document.) 1 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005) (Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586-1). 2 70 FR 53079 (Sept. 7, 2005) (Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251-1). After careful consideration of the Alliance's request and available data, the agency has decided to amend FMVSS No. 138 in response to one technical matter raised in this latest round of petitions for reconsideration, which involves the standard's requirements and test procedures related to operation of the combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction indicator lamp
(MIL)telltale. Specifically, we have decided to retain the requirement for the system to detect a system malfunction and to initiate a 60-90 second flashing sequence by the combined TPMS telltale (followed by continuous illumination) within 20 minutes of occurrence of that malfunction. However, we are amending the standard to provide that if the TPMS subsequently encounters additional, separate malfunctions, the TPMS may (but is not required to) initiate another flashing sequence for each distinct malfunction condition. As a related matter, we are amending the standard's test procedures to provide that only one malfunction will be simulated during each malfunction detection test ( *i.e.* , one per ignition cycle). Under the standard, the agency may still test for more than one malfunction, although each additional malfunction would be simulated in a separate test during a different ignition cycle, rather than simulating multiple TPMS malfunctions simultaneously during the same ignition cycle. Effective Date In light of the fact that the phase-in for FMVSS No. 138 commenced on October 5, 2005, we find that there is good cause to make these amendments effective 30 days after publication. The changes resulting from this final rule responding to the Alliance's petition for reconsideration generally involve requested technical modifications and clarifications to the standard. We believe that vehicle manufacturers and other interested stakeholders would benefit from rapid implementation of these amendments. We note, however, that vehicle manufacturers may voluntarily comply with the requirements of this final rule immediately. II. Background A. The TREAD Act Congress enacted the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000 3 on November 1, 2000. Section 13 of that Act 4 required the Secretary of Transportation, within one year of the statute's enactment, to complete a rulemaking “to require a warning system in new motor vehicles to indicate to the operator when a tire is significantly under inflated.” Section 13 also required the regulation to take effect within two years of the completion of the rulemaking. Responsibility for this rulemaking was delegated to NHTSA. 3 Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000). 4 *See* 49 U.S.C. 30123 note (2003). B. Rulemaking History Prior to the April 2005 Final Rule Since passage of the TREAD Act, FMVSS No. 138 has had a protracted regulatory history. In summary, the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)5 on July 26, 2001, which was followed by a final rule 6 published on June 5, 2002. 5 66 FR 38982 (July 26, 2001) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-30). 6 67 FR 38704 (June 5, 2002) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-219). After issuance of the June 2002 final rule, Public Citizen, Inc., New York Public Interest Research Group, and the Center for Auto Safety filed a lawsuit challenging certain aspects of the TPMS regulation. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) issued its opinion in *Public Citizen, Inc.* v. *Mineta* 7 on August 6, 2003, holding that the TREAD Act unambiguously mandates TPMSs capable of monitoring each tire up to a total of four tires. The Court's decision effectively precluded the one-tire, 30-percent under-inflation detection option in the June 5, 2002 final rule, or any similar option for a system that cannot detect under-inflation in any combination of tires up to four tires. 7 340 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003). We note, however, that the Second Circuit was presented with a final rule that did not specify a requirement for TPMS operability with a spare tire, but the Court did not find fault with that aspect of the safety standard. Moreover, the petitioners in *Public Citizen, Inc.* v. *Mineta* did not object to that aspect of the TPMS final rule in their litigation filings. 8 Instead, the Court's opinion explicitly sanctioned the agency's four-tire, 25 percent under-inflation detection option (without any provision requiring TPMS operability with spare tires), stating, “We conclude that the agency's adoption of a one-tire, 30 percent option was both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious, and that the agency's adoption of the phase-in period and the four-tire, 25 percent option were not.” 9 8 The only reference to TPMS operability with spare tires was provided at page 7 of the petitioners' brief, which, in a description of different types of TPMSs, merely stated, “Direct systems can also work with a spare tire.” 9 *Id.* at 62. Ultimately, the Court vacated the standard in its entirety and directed the agency to conduct further rulemaking. NHTSA published a final rule in the **Federal Register** on November 20, 2003, vacating FMVSS No. 138. 10 10 68 FR 65404 (Nov. 20, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA-2003-16524-1). The agency commenced rulemaking efforts to re-establish FMVSS No. 138 in a manner consistent with the Court's opinion and responsive to issues raised in earlier petitions for reconsideration, the majority of which remained relevant. To this end, the agency published a new NPRM 11 on September 16, 2004, obtained and considered public comments, and published a final rule 12 in the **Federal Register** on April 8, 2005. (For a more complete discussion of the regulatory history of the TPMS rulemaking, readers should consult the June 5, 2002 final rule, the September 16, 2004 NPRM, and the April 2005 final rule.) 11 69 FR 55896 (Sept. 16, 2004) (Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19054-1). 12 70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005) (Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586-1). C. The April 2005 Final Rule In re-establishing FMVSS No. 138, the April 2005 final rule required passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, except those with dual wheels on an axle, to be equipped with a TPMS to alert the driver when one or more of the vehicle's tires, up to all four of its tires, is significantly under-inflated. 13 Subject to the phase-in schedule and the exceptions below, the final rule mandated compliance with the requirements of the standard, commencing with covered vehicles manufactured on or after October 5, 2005 ( *i.e.* , model year
(MY)2006). The standard is intended to be technology-neutral, so as to permit compliance with any available TPMS technology that meets the standard's performance requirements. 13 There are two types of TPMSs currently available, direct TPMSs and indirect TPMSs. Direct TPMSs have a pressure sensor in each wheel that transmits pressure information to a receiver. In contrast, indirect TPMSs do not have tire pressure sensors, but instead rely on the wheel speed sensors, typically a component of an anti-lock braking system, to detect and compare differences in the rotational speed of a vehicle's wheels, which correlate to differences in tire pressure. We anticipate that new types of TPMS technology may be developed in the future that will be capable of meeting the standard's requirements. For example, such systems might incorporate aspects of both direct and indirect TPMSs ( *i.e.* , hybrid systems). In concert with TPMS suppliers, tire manufacturers might be able to incorporate TPMS sensors directly into the tires themselves. In issuing a performance standard, NHTSA is cognizant of and seeks to encourage technological innovation. The following points highlight the key provisions of the April 2005 final rule. • The TPMS is required to detect and to provide a warning to the driver within 20 minutes of when the pressure of one or more of the vehicle's tires, up to a total of four tires, is 25 percent or more below the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure for the tires, or a minimum level of pressure specified in the standard, whichever pressure is higher. These minimum activation pressures are included in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 138. • The TPMS is not required to monitor the spare tire (if provided), either when it is stowed or when it is installed on the vehicle. • The TPMS must include a low tire pressure warning telltale 14 (yellow) that must detect (within 20 minutes) and remain illuminated as long as any of the vehicle's tires remain under-inflated ( *i.e.* , at a level below the standard's detection level for low tire pressure) and the vehicle's ignition locking system is in the “On” (“Run”) position. 15 The TPMS's low tire pressure warning telltale must perform a bulb-check at vehicle start-up. 14 As part of the final rule, we added two versions of the TPMS low tire pressure telltale and a TPMS malfunction telltale to Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, *Controls and Displays* (since changed to Table 1). 15 We note that if a vehicle manufacturer elects to install a low tire pressure telltale that indicates which tire is under-inflated, the telltale must correctly identify the under-inflated tire. ( *See* S4.3.2, as contained in the April 2005 final rule.) • The TPMS is required to be certified as meeting the standard's performance requirements with the tires originally installed on the vehicle at the time of initial vehicle sale. This requirement reflects a change from the June 2002 final rule, which required vehicle manufacturers to certify compliance with any optional or replacement tires of the size(s) recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. This modification to the standard was because of new information demonstrating that a small number of aftermarket and replacement tires have construction characteristics that may prevent the continued proper functioning of the TPMS when original equipment tires are replaced and because of the difficulty in identifying those problematic tires. 16 16 Available information at the time of the April 2005 final rule showed that a very small number of replacement tires (estimated at less than 0.5 percent of production) may have characteristics and material content that cause the vehicle's TPMS to exhibit functional problems. Specifically, the Rubber Manufacturers Association submitted information on the prevalence of tires with characteristics identified as potentially being incompatible with proper TPMS functioning, at least in some cases. These problems are primarily related to the tires' construction ( *e.g.* , high carbon content in low aspect-ratio tires, thicker sidewall, or steel body ply sidewall). According to the RMA, in 2002, light vehicle tires having either steel body ply cords (steel casing tires) or run-flat capability accounted for less than 0.5 percent of tires distributed in the United States. ( *See* letter from Steven Butcher, Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association, to NHTSA (October 31, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-282)). At that time, the agency also noted information showing that there were over four million TPMS-equipped vehicles. ( *See* letter from Robert Strassburger, Vice President, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, to NHTSA (October 20, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-277)). As discussed in the April 2005 final rule, neither the agency nor vehicle manufacturers had received reports indicating any significant performance problems with those TPMSs when replacement tires are installed on the vehicle ( *see* 70 FR 18136, 18159 (April 8, 2005)), and the agency is similarly unaware of any significant compatibility problems between aftermarket TPMSs and replacement tires ( *see* 67 FR 38704, 38731 (June 5, 2002)). This information was generally consistent with the information above suggesting that the magnitude of the compatibility problem between TPMSs and replacement tires is likely to be a small one. However, neither the agency nor the commenters were able to identify a clear design solution for this problem, one which would pose an insurmountable certification challenge for vehicle manufacturers if the agency were to require ongoing TPMS operability with all replacement tires. However, in light of the agency's concern that TPMSs should continue to provide safety benefits in the foreseeable event of replacement tires subsequently being installed on the vehicle, the agency adopted its present approach requiring a TPMS malfunction indicator lamp, which can also detect the presence of replacement tires that are not compatible with the TPMS. The agency acknowledged the practicability concerns associated with vehicle manufacturers' trying to identify existing and future replacement tires which could negatively impact the performance of TPMSs, particularly given that tire production is outside the vehicle manufacturers' control. Although we agreed that this situation could pose substantial difficulties in terms of compliance certification, we also stated our continued belief that a typical vehicle will outlast its original set of tires and that drivers should continue to have the opportunity to receive the benefits of the TPMS after the vehicle's original tires are replaced. Accordingly, the agency decided on a new approach intended to accommodate both concerns, specifically through a requirement for a TPMS malfunction indicator (discussed immediately below) that can detect when tires installed on the vehicle are incompatible with the TPMS. • The TPMS must also include a TPMS malfunction indicator to alert the driver when the system is non-operational, and thus unable to provide the required low tire pressure warning. 17 The TPMS malfunction indicator must detect a malfunction within 20 minutes of occurrence of a system malfunction and provide a warning to the driver. This final rule provided two options by which vehicle manufacturers may indicate a TPMS malfunction: 17 We note that the TPMS telltale(s) may be incorporated as part of a reconfigurable display, provided that all requirements of the standard are met.
(1)Installation of a separate, dedicated telltale (yellow) that illuminates upon detection of the malfunction and remains continuously illuminated as long as the ignition locking system is in the “On” (“Run”) position and the situation causing the malfunction remains uncorrected, or
(2)Designing the low tire pressure telltale so that it flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds and no longer than 90 seconds when a malfunction is detected, after which the telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as the ignition locking system is in the “On” (“Run”) position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be repeated upon each subsequent vehicle start-up until the situation causing the malfunction has been corrected. If the option for a separate telltale is selected, the TPMS malfunction telltale must perform a bulb-check at vehicle start-up. In implementing FMVSS No. 138, NHTSA adopted a two-year phase-in as part of the April 2005 final rule, with a schedule as follows: 20 percent of a vehicle manufacturer's light vehicles are required to comply with the standard during the period from October 5, 2005 to August 31, 2006; 70 percent during the period from September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007, and all light vehicles thereafter. The final rule also included provisions for carry-forward and carry-backward credits at the manufacturer's option, as well as special timing provisions for small volume manufacturers, final-stage manufacturers, and alterers. Vehicle manufacturers are not required to comply with the requirements related to the TPMS malfunction indicator (including associated owner's manual requirements) until September 1, 2007; however, at that point, all covered vehicles must meet all relevant requirements of the standard ( *i.e.* , no additional phase-in for MIL requirements). The final rule also included phase-in reporting requirements consistent with the phase-in schedule discussed above. D. The September 2005 Final Rule; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration NHTSA received a total of 17 petitions for reconsideration of the April 2005 final rule (two of which were subsequently withdrawn prior to issuance of the agency's decision). All of these petitions may be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586. The petitioners requested further amendments to the TPMS standard, most of which involved technical matters. These issues related to certain requirements of the April 2005 final rule, including:
(1)The under-inflation detection level;
(2)the under-inflation and malfunction detection times;
(3)functioning of the TPMS with spare tires;
(4)tire reserve load;
(5)compliance testing conditions and procedures;
(6)system disablement and reprogrammability;
(7)telltale issues;
(8)breadth of the malfunction detection requirement;
(9)minimum activation pressure;
(10)owner's manual requirements;
(11)sharing of TPMS servicing information, and
(12)phase-in calculations. In response to this first set of petitions, the agency published a final rule in the **Federal Register** on September 7, 2005 that made a number of technical amendments to Standard No. 138, of which the following are relevant to the current petitions: • While retaining the final rule's requirement for the TPMS malfunction indicator lamp to illuminate whenever there is a malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of control or response signals in the vehicle's tire pressure monitoring system, the agency decided to amend the standard's test procedures to clarify that telltale lamps will not be disconnected because such malfunctions will be indicated during the bulb check(s) required under the standard. • The rule amended the regulatory text in FMVSS No. 138 to clarify that for a combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction indicator telltale, the same flashing/continuous illumination sequence is required for one or more malfunctions that may affect the system simultaneously ( *i.e.* , no more than one flashing sequence per ignition cycle). III. New Petitions for Reconsideration NHTSA received two petitions for reconsideration submitted in response to the September 2005 final rule for TPMS from ETV Corporation 18 and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 19 These petitions may be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251. (As explained above, the agency will respond in a separate rulemaking document to the petition submitted by ETV Corporation; the amendments requested in the ETV petition will be discussed and addressed in that document. Accordingly, the balance of the discussion in this document will focus on the matters raised in the Alliance's petition for reconsideration.) 18 Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251-2. 19 Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251-3. As noted above, the Alliance's petition requested further amendments to FMVSS No. 138, primarily related to the specifications for the TPMS malfunction warning provided by a combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale. All of the issues raised in the Alliance's petition for reconsideration presently before us are addressed in the Discussion and Analysis section immediately below. IV. Discussion and Analysis TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp Telltale Requirements FMVSS No. 138 requires each TPMS to include a low tire pressure warning telltale that is mounted inside the occupant compartment in front of and in clear view of the driver and which is identified by one of the symbols for the “Low Tire Pressure Telltale” in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101, *Controls and Displays.* The low tire pressure warning telltale is required to illuminate under the conditions specified in S4.2 of FMVSS No. 138, and it must also perform a check of lamp function when the ignition locking system is activated to the “On” (“Run”) position or a position between “On” (“Run”) and “Start” that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. ( *See* S4.3, as contained in the April 2005 final rule.) Under the final rule, the TPMS-equipped vehicle is also required to be equipped with a TPMS malfunction indicator (beginning September 1, 2007). This malfunction indicator may be provided either through a separate, dedicated telltale or through a combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale. For the separate TPMS MIL, the telltale must be mounted inside the occupant compartment in front of and in clear view of the driver and be identified by the word “TPMS,” as described under “TPMS Malfunction Telltale” in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101. The dedicated TPMS malfunction telltale is required to illuminate under the conditions specified in S4.4 of FMVSS No. 138 for as long as the malfunction exists, and it must also perform a check of lamp function when the ignition locking system is activated to the “On” (“Run”) position or a position between “On” (“Run”) and “Start” that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. ( *See* S4.4(b), as contained in the April 2005 final rule.) If the vehicle manufacturer elects to provide a combination telltale, it must meet the requirements of S4.2 and S4.3, as discussed above, and paragraph S4.4(c)(2) of the standard in the April 2005 final rule, which required a TPMS malfunction to be indicated as follows:
(2)Flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but no longer than 90 seconds upon detection of any condition specified in S4.4(a) after the ignition locking system is activated to the “On” (“Run”) position. After this period of prescribed flashing, the telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as the malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the “On” (“Run”) position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the “On” (“Run”) position until the situation causing the malfunction has been corrected. As discussed below, the Alliance's initial petition for rulemaking requested amendments related to the operation of the TPMS related telltale(s), one of which involved seeking clarification regarding how a combined TPMS telltale should operate when multiple malfunctions occur. The Alliance identified the following potential approaches:
(1)Have one flashing sequence cover all TPMS malfunctions;
(2)Have each malfunction trigger a separate warning, or
(3)Extend the length of the flashing sequence to indicate more than one malfunction. The recommendation of the Alliance was to leave the choice among these approaches to vehicle manufacturer discretion. Regarding the issue of multiple malfunctions, we decided, in the September 2005 final rule, that for vehicles with a combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction warning indicator, the telltale must flash for a single period of at least 60 seconds, but no longer than 90 seconds and then remain continuously illuminated. In that rule, we expressed our concern that permitting multiple flashing sequences could lead to consumer confusion and would undermine the consistency of the message provided across the vehicle fleet. We further stated that this flashing sequence is intended to alert the driver to any and all TPMS malfunctions detected by the system, and we expressed our belief that once a consumer is warned that a TPMS malfunction exists, that person would be expected to take the vehicle to a service professional to diagnose and correct the problem(s). This reaction is not likely to change depending upon the number of malfunctions, and we further stated that we anticipate that all conditions impairing operation of the TPMS would be resolved at that time. Accordingly, we amended the regulatory text of the standard to specify how multiple malfunctions would be indicated. Thus, in the September 2005 final rule, we made minor technical changes to S4.4(c)(2) of the standard to clarify this matter, which reads as follows:
(2)When the ignition locking system is activated to the “On” (“Run”) position, flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but no longer than 90 seconds upon detection of any condition(s) specified in S4.4(a). After this period of prescribed flashing, the telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as a malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the “On” (“Run”) position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the “On” (“Run”) position until the situation(s) causing the malfunction(s) has
(have)been corrected. In its second petition for reconsideration, 20 the Alliance asked the agency to further clarify S4.4(c)(2). The Alliance asserted that that provision does not appear, on its face, to preclude initiation of a second flashing sequence during the same ignition cycle if the system detects a subsequent TPMS malfunction. However, as the Alliance stated in its petition, the preamble to the September 2005 final rule made clear the agency's intention to permit only a single flashing sequence per ignition cycle for the combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale. The Alliance's second petition provided new information which more fully explained the nature of its concerns with S4.4(c)(2) and the anticipated impact that the agency's current provision would have on the automobile industry, if NHTSA were to continue to limit the TPMS malfunction indicator in a combined telltale to a single flashing sequence in one ignition cycle, even if subsequent TPMS malfunctions are detected. 20 The Alliance raised this issue in an October 24, 2005 letter to the agency, which it alternatively asked to be treated as a request for a letter of interpretation pertaining to S4.4(c)(2) or a petition for rulemaking (Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251-3). In a letter dated December 21, 2005, NHTSA responded that the language of the regulation and the portion of the preamble dealing with S4.4(c)(2), when read together, left little ambiguity in terms of how the agency would interpret that provision, so the agency stated its intention to treat the Alliance's letter as a petition for reconsideration of the September 2005 final rule ( *see* Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251-9). According to the Alliance, the agency's current approach is unduly restrictive and would prevent a number of current system design architectures from complying with the standard's TPMS malfunction indicator requirements. The Alliance stated that many current vehicle architectures utilize “distributed logic,” in which the TPMS telltale can be independently commanded from different parts of the system. In terms of the system's operation, the Alliance further explained that the combined TPMS telltale, which is located in the instrument cluster, may be commanded to flash by the multi-function control module, or, if it loses communications with the multi-function control module, the telltale recognizes the loss and initiates a flash sequence. The Alliance stated that in most cases, a TPMS fault detected by a multi-function control module will initiate a flash sequence per the current requirements of S4.4(c)(2), but in extremely rare instances, communication between the multi-function control module and the telltale may be lost, which would result in a second flashing sequence during the same ignition cycle. However, the Alliance acknowledged that in such situations, subsequent ignition cycles would produce only a single flashing sequence due to such lost communications. (General Motors North America (General Motors) submitted supplemental information in support of the Alliance's petition intended to illustrate instances in which sequential faults in the TPMS could trigger the MIL to flash more than once during an ignition cycle. 21 ) 21 The General Motors submission explained the fault scenarios discussed in the Alliance's petition through a series of block diagrams of a generic TPMS showing a tire pressure sensor, a TPMS receiver, and a display controller. ( *See* Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251-13.) The Alliance argued that a requirement that a second flashing sequence never occur during the same ignition cycle would prohibit the use of a distributed logic and could, in effect, require all fault detection and control logic to be located at the telltale location. According to the Alliance, such system redesigns would not be practicable prior to the September 1, 2007 mandatory compliance date for the TPMS malfunction indicator requirements. In addition, the Alliance argued that no additional safety benefits would result from requiring system redesigns to ensure that combined TPMS malfunction indicators are limited to a single flashing sequence during each ignition cycle. The Alliance stated that the agency did not provide any data or study to show that multiple telltale flashing sequences resulting from multiple malfunctions would cause consumer confusion. Instead, the Alliance countered that current, voluntary TPMS malfunction systems operating in the manner described above have been in production for more than two years, and there has been no apparent consumer confusion. Furthermore, the Alliance argued that consumer confusion is unlikely, because multiple TPMS malfunctions during the same ignition cycle are expected to be highly infrequent events. (We note that Ford Motor Company
(Ford)submitted confidential data showing the frequency of multiple TPMS malfunctions that would trigger a second MIL flashing sequence, an occurrence which the data showed to be an extremely rare event. 22 ) 22 Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586-15. Based upon the above reasoning, the Alliance's petition requested that the agency permit, but not require, subsequent flash sequences when the initial malfunction is followed by others in the same ignition cycle, and it urged the agency to amend S4.4(c)(2) to read as follows:
(2)When the ignition locking system is activated to the “On” (“Run”) position, flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but no longer than 90 seconds upon detection of any *singular condition* specified in S4.4(a). After this period of prescribed flashing, the telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as a malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the “On” (“Run”) position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the “On” (“Run”) position until the situation(s) causing the malfunction(s) has
(have)been corrected. *Subsequent malfunctions occurring during any key cycle may, but are not required to, reinitiate the prescribed flashing sequence at any time.* (Emphasis in original) After carefully considering the new information presented in the Alliance's second petition and the supporting information provided by General Motors and Ford, we have decided to amend the standard's requirements and test procedures related to operation of the combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction indicator telltale. Specifically, we have decided to retain the requirement for the system to detect a system malfunction and to initiate a 60-90 second flashing sequence for the TPMS combined telltale (followed by continuous illumination) within 20 minutes of occurrence of that malfunction. However, we are amending the standard to provide that if the TPMS subsequently encounters additional, separate malfunctions, the TPMS may, but is not required to, initiate another flashing sequence for each distinct malfunction condition. As a related matter, we are amending the standard's test procedures to provide that only one malfunction will be simulated during each malfunction detection test ( *i.e.* , one per ignition cycle). Under the standard, the agency may still test for more than one malfunction, although this would be in separate tests during different ignition cycles, rather than simulating multiple TPMS malfunctions during the same ignition cycle. We are adopting this approach for the reasons that follow. Based upon the latest information provided by the Alliance and certain of its members, the agency now better understands the technical difficulties associated with requiring TPMSs with a combined telltale to limit the MIL flashing sequence to once per ignition cycle in the event of multiple, independent malfunctions. Redesigning affected TPMSs to overcome this technical limitation may not be practicable prior to the September 1, 2007 compliance deadline for the MIL. Furthermore, the new information provided by Ford suggests that a second TPMS malfunction within an ignition cycle is likely to be an extremely rare event. A third TPMS malfunction within a given ignition cycle is likely to be a matter of only theoretical concern. Accordingly, we believe that the occurrence of more than one flashing sequence would be highly infrequent and, therefore, would not pose a nuisance to drivers or lead to considerable confusion. Although operation of the combined telltale may not be entirely uniform across the vehicle fleet, the message will nonetheless remain highly consistent, given the expected rarity of multiple TPMS malfunctions. Thus, in light of the data provided, we do not believe the potential delay that might accompany a strict limitation to one MIL flashing sequence for a combined telltale is warranted. Because we have decided to grant the request in the Alliance's petition to permit more than one MIL flash sequence during a given ignition cycle, it is no longer necessary to retain that aspect of S6(k) which provides for simulation of multiple TPMS malfunctions at the same time ( *i.e.* , to ensure that the combined TPMS telltale is limited to a single flashing sequence per ignition cycle). The system is still required to detect any TPMS malfunction, as required under S4.4(a). Accordingly, we have decided to amend the standard's test procedures to limit simulation of TPMS malfunctions to one per ignition cycle, which is consistent with the methodology employed in other Federal motor vehicle safety standards ( *e.g.* , FMVSS No. 105, *Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems* (S7.9, *Service brake system test—partial failure* ), FMVSS No. 135, *Light Vehicle Brake Systems* (S7.10, *Hydraulic circuit failure* )). This modification will also simplify testing under the standard. However, the agency reiterates its intention to preserve its ability to test for more than one type of TPMS malfunction. We believe that such a provision is necessary to ensure the robustness of the system, although this objective will now be achieved by simulating different malfunctions during different ignition cycles, rather than multiple malfunctions during the same ignition cycle. V. Benefits and Costs Section VI of the April 2005 final rule summarized the costs associated with the TPMS standard, as more fully described in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
(FRIA)23 accompanying the final rule. The FRIA addresses the full range of anticipated costs related to TPMSs, including the cost of different TPMS technologies, overall vehicle costs, maintenance costs, testing costs, and opportunity costs. 23 Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586-2. In summary, the FRIA estimated that the average incremental cost for all vehicles to meet the standard's requirements would range from $48.44-$69.89 per vehicle, depending upon the specific technology chosen for compliance. Since approximately 17 million vehicles are produced for sale in the U.S. each year, the total annual vehicle cost is expected to range from approximately $823-$1,188 million per year. The agency estimated that the net cost per vehicle would be $26.63-$100.25 (assuming a one-percent TPMS malfunction rate for replacement tires) and that the total annual net cost would be approximately $453-$1,704 million. The agency has determined that the technical amendments resulting from this final rule responding to the Alliance's petition for reconsideration will not appreciably change the costs and benefits reported in the FRIA. Accordingly, the agency has decided that the estimates in that document remain valid and that additional analysis is not required. VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Vehicle Safety Act Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, *Motor Vehicle Safety* (49 U.S.C. 30101 *et seq.* ), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. 24 These motor vehicle safety standards set the minimum level of performance for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to be considered safe. 25 When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. 26 The Secretary also must consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and the extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic accidents and associated deaths. 27 The responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety standards has been delegated to NHTSA. 28 24 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 25 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 26 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 27 *Id.* 28 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. As noted previously, section 13 of the TREAD Act mandated a regulation to require a tire pressure monitoring system in new vehicles. In satisfaction of this congressional directive, NHTSA established FMVSS No. 138, *Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,* in a final rule published in the **Federal Register** on April 8, 2005. The agency received 17 petitions for reconsideration of the final rule (two of which were subsequently withdrawn), the agency published a final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration in the **Federal Register** on September 7, 2005, and the agency received two additional petitions for reconsideration in response to this latest TPMS rulemaking (one of which is addressed here). Most of these petitions requested amendments involving technical modifications. In this final rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration, the agency carefully considered the statutory requirements of both the TREAD Act and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. First, this final rule reflects the agency's careful consideration and analysis of all issues raised in the Alliance's petition for reconsideration. In responding to the issues raised in the petition, the agency considered all relevant motor vehicle safety information. In preparing this document, the agency carefully evaluated relevant, available research, testing results, and other information related to various TPMS technologies. In sum, this document reflects our consideration of all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. Second, to ensure that the TPMS requirements remain practicable, the agency evaluated the potential impacts of the petition's requested actions in light of the cost, availability, and suitability of various TPMSs, consistent with our safety objectives and the requirements of the TREAD Act. As noted above, most of the changes contained in this final rule involve relatively minor modifications to the April 2005 and September 2005 final rules for TPMS. In sum, we believe that this final rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration is practicable and will maintain the benefits of the TPMS standard, including prevention of deaths and injuries associated with significantly under-inflated tires, increased tread life, fuel economy savings, and savings associated with avoidance of property damage and travel delays ( *i.e.* , from crashes prevented by the TPMS). Third, the regulatory text following this preamble is stated in objective terms in order to specify precisely what performance is required and how performance will be tested to ensure compliance with the standard. Specifically, this final rule makes minor modifications to the performance requirements for operation of the TPMS, in terms of providing warnings related to system malfunction. The standard's test procedures continues to carefully delineate how testing will be conducted, including malfunction testing. The agency continues to believe that this test procedure is sufficiently objective and would not result in any uncertainty as to whether a given vehicle satisfies the requirements of the TPMS standard. Fourth, we believe that this final rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration will meet the need for motor vehicle safety by making certain modifications that will enhance the ability of the TPMS standard to provide a warning to the driver when the system becomes non-operational, thereby permitting the driver to take corrective action in a timely fashion and potentially averting crash-related injuries. Finally, we believe that this final rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration is reasonable and appropriate for motor vehicles subject to the applicable requirements. As discussed elsewhere in this notice, the modifications to the standard resulting from this final rule will further the agency's efforts to address Congress' concern that significantly under-inflated tires could lead to tire failures resulting in fatalities and serious injuries. Under the TREAD Act, Congress mandated installation of a system in new vehicles to alert the driver when a tire is significantly under-inflated, and NHTSA has determined that TPMSs meeting the requirements of this final rule offer an effective countermeasure in these situations. Accordingly, we believe that this final rule is appropriate for covered vehicles that are or would become subject to these provisions of FMVSS No. 138 because it furthers the agency's objective of preventing deaths and serious injuries associated with significantly under-inflated tires. B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Although the April 2005 final rule was determined to be economically significant, this final rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration involves only relatively minor technical amendments to FMVSS No. 138. Accordingly, this rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. Further, this action has been determined to be “not significant” under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The agency has estimated that the incremental costs associated with the minor modifications to the standard resulting from this final rule will not appreciably change the costs of compliance with FMVSS No. 138. Accordingly, the figures presented in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, docketed along with the April 2005 final rule, remain apposite without modification. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( *i.e.* , small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for this certification is that the present final rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration only makes minor technical modifications to the safety standard for TPMS. As discussed in detail in the April 2005 final rule establishing FMVSS No. 138, we do not anticipate that the TPMS standard will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and nothing in this final rule would change either that assessment or its underlying reasoning. D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rule does not have federalism implications, because 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 the responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect of today's rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive provision: “When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.” 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1). In addition, we note that the final rule establishing a safety standard for tire pressure monitoring systems was mandated by Congress, pursuant to section 13 of the TREAD Act. It is this statutory commands that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation would be inappropriate. In addition to the express pre-emption noted above, the Supreme Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements unenforceable. *See Geier* v. *American Honda Motor Co.,* 529 U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may become clear through subsequent experience with today's standard and test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if warranted. *See id.* at 883-86. E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1)Clearly specifies the pre-emptive effect;
(2)clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation;
(3)provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4)clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any;
(5)adequately defines key terms; and
(6)addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement. Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The pre-emptive effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court. F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks) Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency. This final rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration is not an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and furthermore, the problems associated with underinflated tires equally impact all persons riding in a vehicle, regardless of age. Consequently, this final rule does not involve decisions based upon health and safety risks that disproportionately affect children, as would necessitate further analysis under Executive Order 13045. G. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. As part of the April 2005 final rule, each of the estimated 21 affected vehicle manufacturers is required to provide one phase-in report for each of two years, beginning in the fall of 2006. Pursuant to the June 5, 2002 TPMS final rule, the OMB approved the collection of information “Phase-In Production Reporting Requirements for Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,” assigning it Control No. 2127-0631 (expiration 6/30/06). NHTSA has been given OMB clearance to collect a total of 42 hours a year (2 hours per respondent) for the TPMS phase-in reporting. NHTSA subsequently requested and was granted an OMB extension of this clearance (expiration 9/30/09). However, the present final rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration does not contain any additional information collection requirements beyond those contained in the April 2005 final rule. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The NTTAA does not apply to symbols. There are no voluntary consensus standards related to TPMS available at this time. However, NHTSA will consider any such standards as they become available. I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)requires federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995 (so currently about $118 million in 2004 dollars)). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. As discussed in that notice, the April 2005 final rule establishing FMVSS No. 138 is not expected to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, of more than $118 million annually, but it is expected to result in an expenditure of that magnitude by vehicle manufacturers and/or their suppliers. In that final rule, NHTSA adopted a performance requirement for a system with a four-tire, 25-percent under-inflation detection capability; we believe that this approach is consistent with safety and the mandate in the TREAD Act, and it should provide a number of technological choices, thereby offering broad flexibility to minimize costs of compliance with the standard. In contrast, the present final rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration only makes technical modifications to the standard. Therefore, we do not believe that this final rule will appreciably change the costs of compliance with FMVSS No. 138. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. J. National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. K. Regulatory Identifier Number
(RIN)The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN)to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. L. Privacy Act Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* List of Subjects in 49 CFR part 571 Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 571 as follows: PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Section 571.138 is amended by revising paragraphs S4.4(c)(2) and S6(k), and adding paragraph S6(o) to read as follows: § 571.138 Standard No. 138; Tire pressure monitoring systems. S4.4 *TPMS malfunction.*
(c)*Combination low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale.* * * *
(2)Flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but no longer than 90 seconds upon detection of any condition specified in S4.4(a) after the ignition locking system is activated to the “On” (“Run”) position. After each period of prescribed flashing, the telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as a malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the “On” (“Run”) position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the “On” (“Run”) position until the situation causing the malfunction has been corrected. Multiple malfunctions occurring during any ignition cycle may, but are not required to, reinitiate the prescribed flashing sequence. S6 *Test procedures.*
(k)Simulate one TPMS malfunction by disconnecting the power source to any TPMS component, disconnecting any electrical connection between TPMS components, or installing a tire or wheel on the vehicle that is incompatible with the TPMS. When simulating a TPMS malfunction, the electrical connections for the telltale lamps are not to be disconnected.
(o)The test may be repeated using the test procedures in paragraphs S6(k)-(n), with each such test limited to simulation of a single malfunction. Issued: July 5, 2007. Nicole R. Nason, Administrator. [FR Doc. 07-3382 Filed 7-6-07; 4:34 pm]
Connectionstraces to 34
Traces to 34 documents
25 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 922
  • 7 USC 601-674
  • 7 CFR 959
  • 7 CFR 1220
  • 7 USC 6301-6311
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 15 CFR 744
  • Pub. L. 106-387
  • Pub. L. 107-56
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 49 CFR 571
  • Pub. L. 106-414
  • 114 Stat. 1800
  • 340 F.3d 39
  • 49 CFR 1.50
  • 13 CFR 121
  • 529 U.S. 861
  • Pub. L. 104-113
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
C.F.R.§ 121.201
U.S.C.§ 6301
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 552
F. App'x340 F.3d 39
SCOTUS529 U.S. 861
Cite7 CFR 922
Cites 59 · 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.