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 · 2007-08-16 · Federal Communications Commission · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

104,149 words·~473 min read·/register/2007/08/16/07-4000

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [MD Docket No. 07-81; FCC 07-140] Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2007 AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this document, we amend our Schedule of Regulatory Fees to collect $290,295,160 in regulatory fees for Fiscal Year
(FY)2007, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). These fees are mandated by Congress and are collected to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission's enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities. DATES: Effective September 17, 2007, except that changes to the Schedule of Regulatory Fees made pursuant to section 9(b)(3) of the Communications Act, and incorporating regulatory fee payment obligations for interconnected VoIP service providers, shall become effective November 15, 2007, which is 90 days from date of notification to Congress. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at
(202)418-0444 or Rob Fream, Office of Managing Director at
(202)418-0408. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Adopted:* August 2, 2007. *Released:* August 6, 2007. By the Commission: Commissioner Copps approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement; Commissioner Adelstein concurring and issuing a statement. Table of Contents Heading Paragraph number I. Introduction 1 II. Report and Order 4 A. FY 2007 Regulatory Fee Assessment Methodology 4 1. Development of FY 2007 Regulatory Fees 5 a. Calculation of Revenue and Fee Requirements 5 b. Additional Adjustments to Payment Units 6 2. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Messaging Service 8 3. International Bearer Circuits 10 4. Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol Service Providers 11 5. Private Land Mobile Radio Service 21 B. Administrative and Operational Issues 24 1. Use of Fee Filer 25 2. Proposals for Notification and Collection of Regulatory Fees 28 a. Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers 31 b. Satellite Space Station Licensees 33 c. Media Services Licensees 35 d. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Cellular and Mobile Services Assessments 37 e. Cable Television Subscribers 43 III. Procedural Matters 46 A. Payment of Regulatory Fees 46 1. De Minimis Fee Payment Liability 46 2. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates 47 B. Enforcement 48 C. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 50 D. Congressional Review Act Analysis 51 IV. Ordering Clauses 52 Attachments Attachment A—Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Attachment B—Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2007 Attachment C—Calculation of Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees Attachment D—FY 2007 Schedule of Regulatory Fees Attachment E—Factors, Measurements, and Calculations that Determine Station Contours and Population Coverages Attachment F—FY 2006 Schedule of Regulatory Fees Attachment G—List of Commenters Attachment H—Rule Changes I. Introduction 1. In this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we conclude a proceeding to collect $290,295,160 in regulatory fees for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2007, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”). Section 9 regulatory fees are mandated by Congress and are collected to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission's enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities. 1 The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) seeks comment on the appropriate fee structure for Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”). 1 47 U.S.C. 159(a). 2. We retain the established methods, policies, and procedures for collecting section 9 regulatory fees adopted by the Commission in prior years. We have found that the assessment methodology adopted in prior regulatory fee cycles has provided a satisfactory means for collecting the Commission's annual appropriations. In addition to the assessment methodology, we retain and enhance our administrative measures used for notification and assessment of regulatory fees as in previous years, such as generating bills and pre-completed assessment notifications for certain regulatees. Beginning this year, we expand our billing efforts to include licensees of earth stations and cable television relay service (“CARS”) stations. We will also apply regulatory fee obligations to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) providers. Finally, we wish to take this opportunity to strongly encourage regulatees to electronically file their FY 2007 regulatory fee payments via Fee Filer. 3. The Commission is obligated to collect $290,295,160 in regulatory fees during FY 2007 to fund the Commission's operations. Consistent with our established practice, we intend to collect these regulatory fees during a filing window in September 2007 in order to collect the required amount by the end of our fiscal year. II. Report and Order A. FY 2007 Regulatory Fee Assessment Methodology 4. On April 18, 2007, we released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on regulatory fee issues. 2 As noted in the *FY 2007 NPRM* , the section 9 regulatory fee proceeding is an annual rulemaking process intended to ensure the Commission collects the fee amount required by Congress each year. In the *FY 2007 NPRM* , we proposed to largely retain the section 9 regulatory fee methodology used in the prior fiscal year. We received ten comments and six reply comments. 3 We address the issues raised in our *FY 2007 NPRM* below. 2 *See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2007* , Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 7975
(2007)(“ *FY 2007 NPRM* ”). 3 *See* Attachment G for the list of commenters and abbreviated names. 1. Development of FY 2007 Regulatory Fees a. Calculation of Revenue and Fee Requirements 5. In our FY 2007 regulatory fee assessment, we use essentially the same section 9 regulatory fee assessment methodology adopted for FY 2006. Each fiscal year, the Commission proportionally allocates the total amount that must be collected via section 9 regulatory fees. The results of our FY 2007 regulatory fee assessment methodology (including a comparison to the prior year's results) are contained in Attachment C. For FY 2007, we will use the FY 2006 congressionally mandated amount as the basis for calculating the unit fees for each fee category. To collect the $290,295,160 required by law, we adjust the FY 2006 amount downward by approximately 2.84 percent. 4 Consistent with past practice, we then divide the FY 2007 amount by the number of payment units in each fee category to determine the unit fee. 5 As in prior years, for cases involving small fees ( *e.g.* , licenses that are renewed over a multiyear term), we divide the resulting unit fee by the term of the license, and then round these unit fees consistent with the requirements of section 9(b)(2). 4 The percentage decrease of approximately 2.84 percent is based on the total amount of regulatory fees that was mandated by Congress to be collected in FY 2006, which included an amount of $288,771,000 in regulatory fees pursuant to section 9 of the Act and an additional $10,000,000 as required by section 3013 of the Deficit Reduction Act (Pub. L. 109-171). Together, the total amount of regulatory fees mandated by Congress to be collected in FY 2006 was $298,771,000. Also, the decrease in regulatory fee payments of approximately 2.84 percent in FY 2007 is reflected in the revenue that is expected to be collected from each service category. Because this expected revenue is adjusted for each individual service category each year by the number of estimated payment units in a service category, and then adjusted for rounding, the actual fee will likely differ by an amount more or less than 2.84 percent. For example, in industries where the number of payment units is declining, the per-unit regulatory fee amount for FY 2007 may actually be more than the amount for FY 2006. 5 In many instances, the regulatory fee amount is a flat fee per licensee or regulatee. However, in some instances the fee amount represents a per-unit fee (such as for International Bearer Circuits), a per-unit subscriber fee (such as for Cable, Commercial Mobile Radio Service (“CMRS”) Cellular/Mobile and CMRS Messaging), or a fee factor per revenue dollar (Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider fee). The payment unit is the measure upon which the fee is based, such as a licensee, regulatee, subscriber fee, *etc* . b. Additional Adjustments to Payment Units 6. In calculating the FY 2007 regulatory fees listed in Attachment D, we further adjusted the FY 2006 list of payment units (Attachment B) based upon licensee databases and industry and trade group projections. Whenever possible, we verified these estimates from multiple sources to ensure the accuracy of these estimates. In some instances, Commission licensee databases were used, while in other instances, actual prior year payment records and/or industry and trade association projections were used in determining the payment unit counts. 6 Where appropriate, we adjusted and rounded our final estimates to take into consideration events that may impact the number of units for which regulatees submit payment, such as waivers and exemptions that may be filed in FY 2007, and fluctuations in the number of licensees or station operators due to economic, technical, or other reasons. Therefore, when we state that our estimated FY 2007 payment units are based on FY 2006 actual payment units, the number may have been rounded or adjusted slightly to account for these variables. 6 The databases we consulted include, but are not limited to, the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS), International Bureau Filing System (“IBFS”), Consolidated Database System (“CDBS”) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (“COALS”). We also consulted industry sources including, but not limited to, *Television & Cable Factbook* by Warren Publishing, Inc. and the *Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook* by Reed Elsevier, Inc., as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireline Competition Bureau's *Trends in Telephone Service* and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's *Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast* and *Annual CMRS Competition Report* . For additional information on source material, *see* Attachment B. 7. We consider additional factors in determining regulatory fees for AM and FM radio stations. These factors are facility attributes and the population served by the radio station. The calculation of the population served is determined by coupling current U.S. Census Bureau data with technical and engineering data, as detailed in Attachment E. Consequently, the population served, as well as the class and type of service (AM or FM), determines the regulatory fee amount to be paid. 7 7 In addition, beginning in FY 2005, we established a procedure by which we set regulatory fees for AM and FM radio and VHF and UHF television Construction Permits each year at an amount no higher than the lowest regulatory fee in that respective service category. For example, the regulatory fee for a Construction Permit for an AM radio station will never be more than the regulatory fee for an AM Class C radio station serving a population of less than 25,000. 2. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Messaging Service 8. In the *FY 2007 NPRM* , we proposed to continue our policy of maintaining the CMRS Messaging Service regulatory fee at the rate that was established in FY 2002 ( *i.e.* , $0.08 per subscriber), noting that the subscriber base in this industry has declined 79 percent from 40.8 million to 8.3 million from FY 1997 to FY 2006. 8 The only commenters addressing this issue, AAPC and USA Mobility, state that maintaining the fee amount at $0.08 per subscriber is the minimum action to take and that the Commission should consider reducing the fee amount. 9 8 *See FY 2007 NPRM* , 22 FCC Rcd at 7978, para 7. 9 AAPC Comments at 1; USA Mobility Comments at 3. No commenters opposed our proposal. 9. We continue to believe that maintaining the CMRS Messaging regulatory fee at the rate established in FY 2002, rather than allowing it to increase, is the appropriate level of relief to be afforded to the messaging industry. We are cognizant of the financial hardship that could be caused by increasing the fee (shrinking profit margins, additional loss of subscribers, reduced revenue, *etc* .) for this service category. Therefore, we adopt our proposal to maintain the CMRS Messaging Service regulatory fee for FY 2007 at $0.08 per subscriber. 3. International Bearer Circuits 10. In our *FY 2006 NPRM* , 10 we noted that VSNL Telecommunications
(US)Inc. (“VSNL”) had filed a Petition for Rulemaking urging the Commission to revise its regulatory fee methodology for bearer circuits; 11 and that we issued a Public Notice designating the proceeding as RM-11312 and requesting comment on the Petition. 12 We stated in our *FY 2006 Report and Order* that the issues presented in the Petition warrant consideration separately from the Commission's annual regulatory fee proceeding. 13 In our *FY 2007 NPRM* , we received a set of joint comments filed by seven submarine cable landing licensees urging the Commission to take similar action. 14 We reiterate that the issues presented in the Petition warrant consideration separately from the Commission's annual regulatory fee proceeding. 15 10 *See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2006* , MD Docket No. 06-68, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 3708, 3718, n.20
(2006)(“ *FY 2006 NPRM* ”). 11 *See* Petition for Rulemaking of VSNL Telecommunications
(US)Inc., RM-11312 (filed Feb. 6, 2006) (“VSNL Petition”). 12 *See* Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *Public Notice* , Report No. 2759 (rel. Feb. 15, 2006). 13 *See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2006* , MD Docket No. 06-68, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8092, 8098-99, para 18
(2006)(“ *FY 2006 Report and Order* ”). 14 *See* Joint Comments at 1. 15 We incorporate the instant comments of the seven cable landing licensees into the VSNL Petition proceeding, RM-11312. 4. Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Service Providers 11. In the *FY 2007 NPRM* , we observed that providers of interconnected VoIP 16 services are now required to contribute to the Universal Service Fund (“USF”) 17 and we tentatively concluded that the interconnected VoIP providers should also pay regulatory fees. 18 Our tentative conclusion was based on the mandate in section 9 of the Act that the Commission “assess and collect regulatory fees to recover the costs” of regulatory activities 19 as well as our analysis in the *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* . In this Report and Order we adopt our tentative conclusion in the *FY 2007 NPRM* and require interconnected VoIP providers to pay FY 2007 regulatory fees based on revenues reported on the FCC Form 499-A at the same rate as interstate telecommunications service providers (“ITSPs”). 20 16 *See* 47 CFR 9.3 for the definition of interconnected VoIP service. 17 *See Universal Service Contribution Methodology,* Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 06-122, 21 FCC Rcd 7518, 7536-543, paras. 34-49
(2006)(“ *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* ”) (finding that interconnected VoIP service providers are “providers of interstate telecommunications” under section 254(d) and asserting the Commission's permissive authority to require interconnected VoIP service providers to contribute to the preservation and advancement of universal service), *aff'd in relevant part, Vonage Holdings Corp.* , v. *FCC* , No. 06-1276 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“ *Vonage* ”). 18 *FY 2007 NPRM* , 22 FCC Rcd at 7979, para. 10. 19 47 U.S.C. 159(a)(1). 20 Interconnected VoIP providers will pay FY 2007 regulatory fees during a separate filing window (to be determined later), most likely in 2008. For FY 2008, interconnected VoIP providers will be required to pay regulatory fees in the same filing window as other entities. a. Jurisdiction 12. By way of recent background, in the *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , the Commission, among other things, established universal service contribution obligations for providers of interconnected VoIP service based on its permissive authority under section 254(d) of the Act and its ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of the Act. 21 The Commission noted that significant growth in the number of VoIP subscribers in recent years is expected to continue. 22 In addition, the Commission observed that the USF revenue base had been diminishing and the contribution factor used to determine contributor payments into the fund has risen considerably as a result. 23 Interconnected VoIP service is increasingly used to replace traditional telephone service and, as the interconnected VoIP service industry continues to grow and to attract customers who previously relied on traditional voice service, it was inappropriate to exclude interconnected VoIP service from universal service contribution requirements. 24 In its *Vonage* decision, the DC Circuit upheld the Commission's decision to impose USF fees on interconnected VoIP providers. 25 Prior to the *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , the Commission asserted its ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of the Act to require providers of interconnected VoIP services to supply 911 emergency calling capabilities to their customers. 26 More recently, the Commission also extended the section 222 customer proprietary network information (“CPNI”) obligations, disability access obligations, and telecommunications relay services (“TRS”) requirements to providers of interconnected VoIP services using its Title I authority. 27 21 *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , 21 FCC Rcd at 7538-543, paras. 38-49. 22 *Id* ., 21 FCC Rcd at 7528-29, para. 19. 23 *Id* . 24 *Id* ., 21 FCC Rcd at 7541, para. 44. 25 *Vonage* at 15. Because it found that the Commission has authority under section 254(d) of the Act to impose USF contribution obligations on interconnected VoIP providers, the court did not decide whether the Commission also could have imposed this obligation pursuant to its Title I ancillary jurisdiction. *Id* . at 15-16. 26 *See E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers* , First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245
(2005)(“ *VoIP 911 Order* ”); 47 CFR Part 9. The Commission also concluded that providers of interconnected VoIP services are subject to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”). * See Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Services * , ET Docket No. 04-295, RM-10865, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14989, 14991-92, para. 8
(2002)(“ *CALEA First Report and Order* ”), *aff'd* , *American Council on Education* v. *FCC* , 451 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 27 *Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer Information, IP-Enabled Services* , CC Docket No. 96-115, WC Docket No. 04-36, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 6927
(2007)(“ *EPIC CPNI Order* ”); *IP-Enabled Services, Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities* , WC Docket No. 04-36, WT Docket No. 96-198, Report and Order, FCC 07-110 (rel. June 15, 2007) (“ *VoIP TRS Order* ”). 13. Consistent with our previous orders, we conclude that Title I of the Act gives us direct authority to impose regulatory fees on providers of interconnected VoIP services. In particular, we have previously found, based on sections 1 and 2(a) of the Act, coupled with the definitions set forth in section 3(33) (“radio communication”) and section 3(52) (“wire communication”), that interconnected VoIP services are covered by the Commission's general jurisdictional grant. 28 Section 1 of the Act states that the Commission is created “[f]or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States * * * a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges,” and that the agency “shall execute and enforce the provisions of th[e] Act.” 29 Section 2(a), in turn, confers on the Commission regulatory authority over all interstate communication by wire or radio. 30 As we have previously observed, interconnected VoIP services are covered by the statutory definitions of “wire communication” and/or “radio communication” because they involve “transmission of [voice] by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection * * *” and/or “transmission by radio * * *” of voice. 31 Therefore, these services come within the scope of the Commission's subject matter jurisdiction under section 2(a) of the Act. Accordingly, section 9 of the Act gives the Commission direct authority to impose regulatory fees on interconnected VoIP providers. Specifically, section 9 states that the Commission “shall assess and collect regulatory fees to recover the costs of the following regulatory activities of the Commission: Enforcement activities, policy and rulemaking activities, user information services, and international activities.” 32 In light of the many and increasing resources the Commission now dedicates to VoIP, the Commission should recover costs from interconnected VoIP providers. 33 28 *See, e.g., VoIP 911 Order* , 20 FCC Rcd at 10261-62, para. 28. 29 47 U.S.C. 151. 30 *See* 47 U.S.C. 152(a) (stating that the provisions of the Act “shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United States in such communication or such transmission of energy by radio * * *”). 31 *VoIP 911 Order* , 20 FCC Rcd at 10261-62, para. 28. 32 47 U.S.C. 159(a)(1). 33 *See, e.g.* , nn.26-27 *supra* . Although we find that section 9 by its terms allows us to impose regulatory fees on providers of interconnected VoIP services, we also find, consistent with our prior orders, that we have ancillary authority under Title I to impose these fees. *See, e.g., VoIP 911 Order* , 20 FCC Rcd at 10261-63, paras. 26-29. Interconnected VoIP providers fall within our Title I jurisdictional grant and the assessment of regulatory fees to fund Commission operations is critical to the effective performance of the Commission's responsibilities. 14. We disagree with the VON Coalition's argument that we do not have jurisdiction to extend regulatory fees to interconnected VoIP providers because regulatory fees can only be assessed on entities subject to licensing or certification requirements. 34 On the contrary, section 9 gives the Commission broad authority to impose regulatory fees. Section 9 does not limit the regulatory fee requirement to licensees. Moreover, the Commission has not, in the annual regulatory fee orders or otherwise, specifically limited the implementation of section 9 to “licensees.” To construe section 9 as narrowly as the VON Coalition proposes would prohibit the Commission from recovering costs from providers that impose costs on the Commission, simply because they were not licensees and would unreasonably lighten regulatory costs on certain industry segments at the cost of others. 34 VON Coalition Comments at 6-7; WCA Comments at 3-5 & Reply Comments at 2-3. b. Basis and Rate 15. Having concluded that the Commission has authority to assess regulatory fees on interconnected VoIP providers, we must determine how to assess those fees. Specifically, we must determine whether to base fees on revenues or subscribers, or some other basis, and at what rate. We conclude that interconnected VoIP providers should pay regulatory fees based on their interstate and international revenue at the same rate as ITSPs. 16. In the *FY 2007 NPRM* , we sought comment on whether interconnected VoIP providers should be assessed regulatory fees based on revenues, which would be consistent with the regulatory fee methodology used for interstate telecommunications service providers, or if we should use a numbers-based approach, which would be consistent with the methodology used for CMRS. 35 Most commenters addressing this issue favor a numbers-based or subscriber-based approach, as opposed to a revenue-based approach. 36 We instead adopt a revenue-based approach as adopted in the *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* for USF contributions. The Commission's conclusion that interconnected VoIP service is more closely analogous to wireline toll service than to CMRS guides us here. 37 As a result, we will use revenue as the basis for imposing regulatory fees on interconnected VoIP providers instead of a subscriber-based approach, which is the basis for wireless providers. 38 35 *FY 2007 NPRM* , 22 FCC Rcd at 7979, para. 10. 36 *See, e.g.* , Nuvio Comments at 4; IUB Comments at 2-4; Comcast Comments at 1-2; WCA Comments at 3; NCTA Reply Comments at 2; VON Coalition Reply Comments at 6. Nuvio and VON Coalition suggest that if the Commission adopts a numbers-based assessment, the assessment should be on active numbers and not the inventory of numbers. Nuvio Comments at 4; VON Coalition Reply Comments at n. 16. 37 The D.C. Circuit rejected Vonage's challenge to that conclusion because Vonage was unable to show why usage patterns for VoIP are more like those for wireless than for wireline toll. *Vonage* at 18. 38 *See* NTCA Comments at 2. 17. Commenters contend that broadband providers often offer a bundle of services to consumers and it may be difficult to separate the telecommunications service revenues from the other revenues. 39 Consistent with our decision in the *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , however, interconnected VoIP providers may avoid separating revenue types by using a safe-harbor level of 64.9 percent interstate or international revenues for purposes of calculating regulatory fee obligations. 40 Interconnected VoIP providers may contribute based on a lesser percentage if they provide supporting traffic studies. 41 39 Nuvio Comments at 4; Iowa Utilities Board Comments at 2-4; Comcast Comments at 1-2; WCA Comments at 3; NCTA Reply Comments at 2. Nuvio suggests that if the Commission adopts a numbers-based assessment, the assessment should be on active numbers and not the inventory of numbers. Nuvio Comments at 4. 40 *See 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , 21 FCC Rcd at 7544-45, para. 53; *Vonage* , slip op. at 7, 17-19. 41 Consistent with the *Vonage* decision, interconnected VoIP providers need not at this time obtain pre-approval of their traffic studies. Rather, they must submit any studies upon which they rely no later than the deadline for submitting the FCC Form 499-Q for the same time period. *Vonage* , slip op. at 19-20; *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , 21 FCC Rcd at 7535, para. 32. 18. We also conclude that interconnected VoIP providers will pay regulatory fees on their interstate and international revenues at the same rate as ITSPs. As we stated in the *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , interconnected VoIP providers offer a service that is almost indistinguishable, from the consumers' point of view, from the service offered by interstate telecommunications service providers. 42 Further, the explosive growth of the VoIP industry in recent years has resulted in recent Commission actions addressing the service. 43 The growth of the VoIP industry and the extent to which VoIP service is used as a substitute for analog voice service have necessitated a number of Commission rulemaking proceedings pertaining to interconnected VoIP services. 42 The Commission has determined that interconnected VoIP service is increasingly used to replace analog voice service. *See 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , 21 FCC Rcd at 7542, para. 48. 43 *See, e.g., 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , 21 FCC Rcd at 7541-43, paras. 46-49; *VoIP 911 Order* , 20 FCC Rcd at 10261-266, paras. 26-35; EPIC *CPNI Order* at para. 55. 19. We recognize that the costs and benefits associated with our regulation of interconnected VoIP providers are not identical as those associated with regulating interstate telecommunications service and CMRS. 44 For example, at this time interconnected VoIP providers are not subject to the Commission's enforcement authority in most instances and only recently have the Commission's rulemaking activities involved interconnected VoIP providers. 45 The Commission does not maintain a database system pertaining to interconnected VoIP providers similar to the registration and filing systems for CMRS and wireline carriers. 46 In addition, interconnected VoIP providers do not receive certain benefits, such as universal service support payments and interconnection rights, as Title II carriers do. 47 Section 9 is clear, however, that regulatory fee assessments are based on the burden imposed on the Commission, not benefits realized by regulatees. 48 Interconnected VoIP providers create costs at the Commission by participating in rulemaking proceedings, waiver petitions, and other matters in the wake of our assertion of ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of the Act to require providers of interconnected VoIP services to contribute to the universal service fund, supply 911 emergency calling capabilities to their customers, comply with section 222 CPNI obligations, and comply with our disability access and TRS requirements. 49 The provision of interconnected VoIP service is a growing industry 50 and we can reasonably assume that this regulatory burden on the Commission will continue to increase. 51 Thus, this category of service providers should share in the costs of the Commission's regulatory activities in the same manner as ITSPs. Section 9 does not require the Commission to engage in a company-by-company assessment of relative regulatory costs. In any given year, companies grouped in the ITSP category, or other regulatory fee categories, might be the subject of more regulation than others, *e.g.* , merger proceedings. As a result, our responsibility here is to identify the category of regulatory fee payees with which interconnected VoIP providers most closely relate. On this note, we also observe that interconnected VoIP providers are able to offer their services because they interconnect with the PSTN, and they thereby benefit from our substantial regulation of telecommunications service providers. 52 44 *See* WCA Comments at 6; VON Coalition Comments at 15-17 & n.42. 45 VON Coalition Comments at 16. 46 *Id* . 47 VON Coalition Comments at 17; WCA Comments at 6. We note that interconnected VoIP service is currently an eligible service for purposes of the schools and libraries program. In addition, the Commission recently clarified that wholesale telecommunications carriers have interconnection rights under sections 251(a) and
(b)of the Act, including when providing wholesale services to interconnected VoIP providers. *See Time Warner Cable Request for Declaratory Ruling that Competitive Local Exchange Carriers May Obtain Interconnection Under Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers* , WC Docket No. 06-55, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 07-709 (WCB rel. Mar. 1, 2007). 48 Commenters have not attempted to quantify the relative burden imposed on the Commission by interconnected VoIP providers. 49 *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , 21 FCC Rcd at 7541-43, paras. 46-49; *VoIP 911 Order* , 20 FCC Rcd at 10261-266, paras. 26-35; *EPIC CPNI Order* at para. 55; *VoIP TRS Order* at para. 16. 50 *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* , 21 FCC Rcd at 7528-29, para. 19. 51 We recognize that including interconnected VoIP providers in our regulatory fee schedule at this time will have a minimal impact on the fees assessed other carriers, but this may change as the industry grows and their share of regulatory fees increases. 52 In addition, those companies that currently offer their customers both Title II services and interconnected VoIP services may choose to shift customers from the traditional landline service to the interconnected VoIP service in order to reduce the regulatory fee burden. 20. Because we are adding interconnected VoIP services to our regulatory fee assessments, we conclude that this is a permitted amendment under section 9(b)(3) of the Act. Section 9(b)(4)(B) of the Act in turn requires us to notify Congress 90 days before the change may take effect. We will provide Congress notification upon publication of this order, and will release a public notice once the amendment takes effect, if there is no Congressional objection. 5. Private Land Mobile Radio Service 21. EWA argues that the fee for Private Land Mobile Radio Service (“PLMRS”) exclusive use licenses has increased from $5 per year in 2001 to $20 per year in 2006, and for PLMRS shared use licenses, the fee has increased from $5 to $10 during the same time period. 53 EWA further contends that this increase in fee rates is not associated with a corresponding increase in the cost of regulating the PLMRS industry, and as a result, the Commission's FY 2007 proposed Part 90 PLMRS regulatory fee of $35 (PLMRS Exclusive Use) and $15 (PLMRS Shared Use) is unjustified. 53 EWA Comments at 2-3. 22. We disagree. In our *FY 2004 Report and Order* , the Commission stated that regulatory fees need not be precisely calibrated on a service-by-service basis to the actual costs of the Commission's regulatory activities for that service. 54 The Commission stated that, “the initial Schedule of Regulatory Fees that Congress enacted in section 9(g) reflects a `costs adjusted for benefits' approach permitted under section 9.” 55 Procedurally, the Commission calculates regulatory fees by proportionally allocating the total amount that must be collected in section 9 regulatory fees (known as “Expected Revenue”), and dividing this allocated amount by the estimated number of units in its respective fee category. In the case of PLMRS (Shared Use and Exclusive Use), the resulting figure is also divided by 10, the length of the term of a PLMRS license. Because PLMRS licenses have a ten-year term, and regulatory fees are not collected again from these licenses until after 10 years have passed, it is possible that in any given year, there may be fewer units that are either renewing their PLMRS licenses or applying for new ones. For example, between FY 2001 and FY 2006, the unit estimates for PLMRS Exclusive Use decreased from 5,500 units (FY 2001) to 2,200 units (FY 2006), a 60 percent reduction, while PLMRS Shared Use unit estimates decreased from 58,000 units (FY 2001) to 25,000 units (FY 2006), a 57 percent reduction. 56 At the same time that PLMRS (Shared Use and Exclusive Use) unit estimates were decreasing by nearly 60 percent, our congressionally mandated regulatory fees collections amount increased from $200.1 million (FY 2001) to $298.8 million (FY 2006), an increase of 49 percent. The combination of an increasing collections amount mandated by Congress combined with a decrease in the number of units resulted in a higher unit fee between FY 2001 and FY 2006 for PLMRS Shared Use and PLMRS Exclusive Use fee categories. 54 *See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2004* , MD Docket No. 04-73, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 11662, 11665-67, paras. 6-12
(2004)(“ *FY 2004 Report and Order* ”). 55 *See FY 2004 Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 11666, para. 8. 56 Data derived from regulatory fee Report and Orders for fiscal years 2001-2006. 23. We also note that the unit fee increase has been gradual over time. For example, between FY 2001 and FY 2006, the PLMRS Shared Use unit fee remained steady at $5 per year between FY 2001 and FY 2005, and increased only to $10 per year beginning in FY 2006. During the same time period, the PLMRS Exclusive Use unit fee remained at $5 per year in FY 2001 and FY 2002, increased to the level of $10 per year in FY 2003, FY 2004, and FY 2005, and then increased to $20 per year in FY 2006. Because these fee increases are based primarily on a declining unit base and an increasing congressional mandate to collect more annual regulatory fees, common factors that contribute to unit fee changes each year, we decline to modify or reduce the PLMRS (Shared Use and Exclusive Use) unit fee as EWA suggests. B. Administrative and Operational Issues 24. In our *FY 2007 NPRM,* we sought comment on the administrative and operational processes used to collect the annual section 9 regulatory fees. Although these issues do not affect the amount of regulatory fees parties are obligated to submit, the administrative and operational issues affect the process of submitting payment. 1. Use of Fee Filer 25. We did not seek specific comment on the use of our online Fee Filer application in the *FY 2007 NPRM.* We take this opportunity, however, to *strongly encourage regulatees to electronically file their FY 2007 regulatory fee payments via Fee Filer,* 57 rather than submitting payment with a completed hardcopy Form 159, Form 159-B, and/or Form 159-W. The benefits of electronically filing via Fee Filer are expeditious payment submissions that are less expensive (no U.S. postage if paying online) and less prone to error. It also results in improved record keeping and payment reconciliation efforts, and reduces paperwork burdens on payers and Commission staff alike. 57 Fee Filer can be accessed at *http://www.fcc.gov/fees/feefiler.html.* 26. Traditionally, we have received hardcopy Form 159-Cs (Continuation Sheets) from our regulatees needing to make voluminous payment transactions. Our “voluminous payers” will benefit even more so by using Fee Filer. Having expanded our pre-billing initiatives in FY 2007, some regulatees will receive more than one Form 159-B; and some will be obligated to pay for fees that were pre-billed and other fees that were not pre-billed. Fee Filer relieves regulatees of the need to mail several different pre-bills or to follow different filing instructions for different fees; and enables all fee obligations to be paid simply either online or by following pre-printed instructions on a Fee Filer-produced voucher. 27. We note that Fee Filer accepts electronic credit card transactions of up to $99,999.99 and ACH payment transactions from a bank account of an unlimited dollar amount. Fee Filer also facilitates payment by check or wire transfer by producing a one-page Remittance Voucher Form 159-E which can be mailed to our lockbox bank. 2. Proposals for Notification and Collection of Regulatory Fees 28. In our *FY 2007 NPRM,* we sought comment on the administrative processes that the Commission uses to notify regulatees and collect regulatory fees. We received no comment on these general processes. Each year, we generate public notices and fact sheets that notify regulatees of the fee payment due date and provide additional information regarding regulatory fee payment procedures. Consistent with our established practice, we will provide public notices, fact sheets and all other relevant material on our Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html* for the FY 2007 regulatory fee cycle. As a general practice, we will not send regulatory fee material to regulatees via surface mail. However, in the event that regulatees do not have access to the Internet, we will mail public notices and other relevant material upon request. Regulatees and the general public may request such information by contacting the FCC Financial Operations HelpDesk at
(877)480-3201, Option 4. 29. As discussed above, we do not send public notices and fact sheets to regulatees en masse. However, we will continue to send specific regulatory fee pre-bills or assessment notifications via surface mail to the select fee categories discussed below. 58 Pre-bills are hardcopy billing statements that the Commission mails to certain regulatees. In prior years, the Commission only sent pre-bills to ITSPs and satellite space station licensees. The remaining regulatees did not receive pre-bills. 58 An assessment is a proposed statement of the amount of regulatory fees owed by an entity to the Commission (or proposed subscriber count to be ascribed for purposes of setting the entity's regulatory fee) but it is not entered into the Commission's accounting system as a current debt. A pre-bill is considered an account receivable in the Commission's accounting system. Pre-bills reflect the amount owed and have a payment due date of the last day of the regulatory fee payment window. Consequently, if a pre-bill is not paid by the due date, it becomes delinquent and is subject to our debt collection procedures. *See also* 47 CFR 1.1161(c), 1.1164(f)(5), and 1.1910. 30. In our *FY 2007 NPRM,* we sought comment on expanding our section 9 regulatory fee pre-billing initiatives to include our service categories for earth stations and CARS stations, beginning in FY 2007. We stated that we could accomplish pre-billing for these categories because they are comprised of relatively few payment units (relative to many other categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees), and because we maintain licensing databases for both categories. 59 The ACA supports our proposal to pre-bill earth stations and CARS stations, noting that it can promote timely filings and payments, and further reduce administrative burdens and costs for small cable operators. 60 We received no comments regarding our proposal. Effective this fiscal year, we will pre-bill our earth station and CARS station service categories. 59 *See FY 2007 NPRM,* 22 FCC Rcd at 7981, para. 19. 60 ACA Comments at 4. a. Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers 31. In FY 2001, we began mailing pre-completed FCC Form 159-W assessments to carriers in an effort to assist them in paying their ITSP regulatory fee. The fee amount on FCC Form 159-W was calculated from the FCC Form 499-A worksheet. Beginning in FY 2004, we converted our usage of the FCC Form 159-W from an “assessment of amount due” to a pre-bill. We have successfully used the Form 159-W as a pre-billing instrument in the fiscal years following, and we proposed to continue our ITSP pre-billing initiative in FY 2007 in our *FY 2007 NPRM.* We received no comment on this proposal, and will continue to mail pre-bills ITSPs in FY 2007. 32. This fiscal year, we will round lines 14 (total subject revenues) and 16 (total regulatory fee owed) on FCC Form 159-W to the nearest dollar. Line 14 must be rounded to a whole dollar amount because this data field is linked to the FCC Form 159 Remittance Advice Block 25A (quantity), which can only accept whole numbers. It logically follows that if line 14 must be rounded, then the form's final line that calculates the total fee owed (line 16) should be rounded to the nearest dollar as well. Also, rounding lines 14 and 16 will nominally ease the filing and payment burdens of our Form 159-W filers. We received no comment on this administrative change as proposed in our *FY 2007 NPRM,* and will therefore implement the change for FY 2007. b. Satellite Space Station Licensees 33. Beginning in FY 2004, we mailed regulatory fee pre-bills via surface mail to licensees in our two satellite space station service categories. Specifically, geostationary orbit space station (“GSO”) licensees received bills requesting regulatory fee payment for satellites that
(1)were licensed by the Commission and operational on or before October 1 of the respective fiscal year; and
(2)were not co-located with and technically identical to another operational satellite on that date ( *i.e.* , were not functioning as a spare satellite). Non-geostationary orbit space station (“NGSO”) licensees received pre-bills requesting regulatory fee payment for systems that were licensed by the Commission and operational on or before October 1 of the respective fiscal year. 34. For FY 2007, we proposed to continue mailing pre-bills for our GSO and NGSO satellite space station categories. 61 We received no comment on this matter, and will continue to mail pre-bills to our GSO and NGSO satellite space station categories. 61 *See FY 2007 NPRM,* 22 FCC Rcd at 7980-81, para. 17. c. Media Services Licensees 35. Beginning in FY 2003, we sent fee assessment notifications via surface mail to media services entities on a per-facility basis. The notifications provided the assessed fee amount for the facility in question, as well as the data attributes that determined the fee amount. We have since refined this initiative with improved results. 62 In our *FY 2007 NPRM* , we proposed to continue our assessment initiative for media services licensees this year. 63 We received no comment on the proposal. 62 Some of those refinements have been to provide licensees with a Commission-authorized Web site to update or correct any information concerning their facilities, and to amend their fee-exempt status, if need be. Also, our notifications now provide licensees with a telephone number to call in the event that they need customer assistance. The notifications themselves have been refined so that licensees of fewer than four facilities receive individual fee assessment postcards for their facilities; whereas licensees of four or more facilities now receive a single assessment letter that lists all of their facilities and the associated regulatory fee obligation for each facility. 63 Fee assessments were proposed again to be issued for AM and FM Radio Stations, AM and FM Construction Permits, FM Translators/Boosters, VHF and UHF Television Stations, VHF and UHF Television Construction Permits, Satellite Television Stations, Low Power Television (“LPTV”) Stations, Class A Television Stations, and LPTV Translators/Boosters, to the extent that applicants, permittees and licensees of such facilities do not qualify as government entities or non-profit entities. Fee assessments have not been issued for broadcast auxiliary stations in prior years, nor will they be issued in FY 2007. 36. Consistent with procedures used last year, we will mail assessment notifications to licensees to their primary record of contact populated in CDBS (Consolidated Database System) and to their secondary record of contact, if available. We will continue to make the Commission-authorized web site available to licensees to update or correct any information concerning their facilities and to amend their fee-exempt status, if need be. 64 Licensees opting not to file their fee payment electronically through Fee Filer must submit a completed hardcopy FCC Form 159 with their fee payment; *i.e.* , the assessment notifications cannot be used as a substitute for a completed Form 159. 64 The Commission-authorized Web site for media services licensees is *http://www.fccfees.com.* d. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Cellular and Mobile Services Assessments 37. As we have done in prior years, we will send assessment letters to CMRS providers using Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (“NRUF”) data that is based on “assigned” number counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”). 65 The letters will not include Operating Company Numbers (“OCNs”) with their respective assigned number counts, but rather, OCNs with an aggregate total of assigned numbers for each carrier. As in prior years, carriers will be given an opportunity to amend their subscriber counts listed on the assessment letter. 65 *See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2005 and Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2004,* MD Docket Nos. 05-59 and 04-73, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 12259, 12264, paras. 38-44 (2005). 38. If the number of subscribers on the assessment letter differs from the subscriber count the service provider provided on its NRUF form, the provider may correct its subscriber count by returning the assessment letter or by contacting the Commission and stating a reason for the change, such as the purchase or the sale of a subsidiary, including the date of the transaction, and any other information that will help to justify a reason for the change. 39. If we receive no response or correction to our initial assessment letter, we will expect the provider's section 9 fee payment to be based on the number of subscribers listed on that letter. We will review all amendments to assessment letters and determine whether a change in the number of subscribers is warranted. We will then generate and mail a final assessment letter. The final assessment letter will inform carriers as to whether or not we accept the amended subscriber count. 40. Although an initial and a final assessment letter will be mailed to CMRS providers that have filed an NRUF form, some providers may not be sent assessment letters if they did not file the NRUF form. These providers shall compute their section 9 fee payment using the standard methodology 66 that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (e.g., compute their subscriber counts as of December 31, 2006), and submit their payment accordingly, either via Fee Filer, or attached to a completed hardcopy FCC Form 159. However, regardless of whether a provider receives an assessment letter or calculates its subscriber count independently, the Commission may audit the number of subscribers for which section 9 fees are paid. In the event that the Commission determines that the number of subscribers is inaccurate or that an insufficient reason is given for making a correction on the initial assessment letter, the Commission will assess the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid. 66 Federal Communications Commission, *Regulatory Fees Fact Sheet: What You Owe—Commercial Wireless Services for FY 2005* at 1 (rel. Jul. 2005). 41. *Aggregate Subscriber Levels.* Also in our *FY 2007 NPRM,* we noted that last year we eliminated the requirement for CMRS providers to identify their individual call signs when making their section 9 fee payment. This simplified the payment process for all CMRS providers by enabling them to pay their section 9 fees at the aggregate level. 67 In our *FY 2007 NPRM,* we proposed to continue this practice and we received no comment. We shall therefore continue to allow CMRS providers to pay their section 9 fees at the aggregate subscriber level. 67 *See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2006,* MD Docket No. 06-68, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8092, 8105, para. 48 (2006). 42. *Consolidated CMRS Section 9 Fee Categories.* Finally, in our *FY 2007 NPRM,* we proposed to consolidate the CMRS cellular and CMRS mobile fee categories into one CMRS fee category. This action would eliminate the need for CMRS providers to separate their subscriber counts into CMRS cellular and CMRS mobile fee categories during the fee payment process. At one time, the Commission perceived a need to monitor the CMRS cellular and CMRS mobile fee categories separately. 68 However, we deem this no longer necessary and therefore proposed to reduce administrative burdens on CMRS providers by consolidating the two categories into one. We received no specific comment on this proposal. We will therefore consolidate our CMRS mobile category (which would have been payment type code 0712 in FY 2007) into the CMRS cellular category (payment type code 0711 in FY 2007). On a going forward basis, all CMRS cellular and mobile providers shall make their section 9 fee payments using the Commission's payment type code _11. This procedural change does not affect CMRS Messaging (Paging) providers, who will continue to make their section 9 fee payment using fee code 0713 in FY 2007 and _13 in the outyears. 68 In our *FY 1998 Report and Order,* the Commission classified Wireless Communications Service (“WCS”), which included Personal Communications Services (Part 24), as a CMRS Mobile Service, stating that CMRS is “an ‘umbrella’ descriptive term attributed to various existing broadband services authorized to provide interconnected mobile radio services” 68 However, beginning in FY 1998, a separate fee code was provided for Personal Communications Service (“PCS”) to monitor the number of units in this service category. e. Cable Television Subscribers 43. In our FY 2007 NRPM, we proposed to continue to permit cable television operators to base their regulatory fee payment on their company's aggregate year-end subscriber count, rather than requiring them to sub-report subscriber counts on a per community unit identifier
(CUID)basis. 69 This practice has worked well for the Commission the past three fiscal years and has eased administrative burdens for the cable television industry. One commenter supports this proposal. 70 We received no opposing comments, and will thereby continue to employ this payment procedure this fiscal year. 69 *See FY 2007 NPRM,* 22 FCC Rcd at 7983, para. 28. 70 ACA Comments at 2. 44. We also proposed to send an e-mail reminder to addresses populated in the Media Bureau's Cable Operations and Licensing System (“COALS”), as we did last year, to notify recipients of the FY 2007 regulatory fee payment due date and the fee amount for basic cable television subscribers. Cable television operators are required to file their cable-related forms at the Commission via the COALS Web site. To date, more than 98 percent of all cable operators have their email addresses recorded in the database. One commenter supports this proposal. 71 We received no opposing comments, and will therefore send an e-mail reminder to cable operators again this fiscal year. 71 ACA Comments at 2. 45. Sending reminders via e-mail has proven to be an effective practice and we therefore proposed to discontinue our other practice of sending fee assessment letters via surface mail to cable television operators who are on file as having paid regulatory fees the previous fiscal year. One commenter asks the Commission to continue sending fee assessment letters via surface mail to cable operators that serve fewer than 5,000 subscribers, stating that these operators rely exclusively on the U.S. postal service for their day-to-day operations. 72 We decline the commenter's request. After conducting this assessment initiative for three years, we have concluded that it is inadequate for accurate assessment purposes and we will instead direct the Commission's resources towards more useful fee collection activities. In addition, we note that we make available all relevant regulatory fee material on our Web site. If regulatees cannot access the Internet to obtain the necessary information for paying their regulatory fees, they may request such information to be sent via surface mail by contacting the FCC Financial Operations HelpDesk at
(877)480-3201, Option 4. 72 ACA Comments at 3. III. Procedural Matters A. Payment of Regulatory Fees 1. De Minimis Fee Payment Liability 46. Consistent with past practice, regulatees whose total FY 2007 regulatory fee liability, including all categories of fees for which payment is due, amounts to less than $10 will be exempted from payment of FY 2007 regulatory fees. 2. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates 47. The Commission will, for the convenience of payers, accept fee payments made in advance of the window for the payment of regulatory fees. Licensees are reminded that, under our current rules, the responsibility for payment of fees by service category is as follows:
(a)*Media Services:* Regulatory fees must be paid for initial construction permits that were granted on or before October 1, 2006 for AM/FM radio stations, VHF/UHF television stations and satellite television stations. Regulatory fees must be paid for all broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2006. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2006, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.
(b)*Wireline (Common Carrier) Services:* Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2006. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2006, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.
(c)*Wireless Services:* CMRS cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based upon a subscriber, unit or circuit count): Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2006. The number of subscribers, units or circuits on December 31, 2006 will be used as the basis from which to calculate the fee payment. The first eleven regulatory fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees (see Attachment D) pay what we refer to as “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount of their 5-year or 10-year term of initial license, and only pay regulatory fees again for the license at the time its next renewal. So while we include these eleven categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees to publicize the fee amounts, we do not actually collect these fees on an annual basis.
(d)*Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Services (cable television operators and CARS licensees):* Regulatory fees must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 2006. 73 Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS licenses that were granted on or before October 1, 2006. In instances where a CARS license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2006, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the license as of the fee due date. 73 Cable television system operators should compute their basic subscribers as follows: Number of single family dwellings + number of individual households in multiple dwelling unit (apartments, condominiums, mobile home parks, etc.) paying at the basic subscriber rate + bulk rate customers + courtesy and free service. *Note:* Bulk-Rate Customers = Total annual bulk-rate change divided by basic annual subscription rate for individual households. Operators may base their count on “a typical day in the last full week” of December 2006, rather than on a count as of December 31, 2006.
(e)*International Services:* Regulatory fees must be paid for earth stations, geostationary orbit space stations and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems that were licensed and operational on or before October 1, 2006. In instances where a license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2006, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the license as of the fee due date. Regulatory fees must be paid for international bearer circuits, the payments of which are determined by the number of active circuits as of December 31, 2006. 74 74 Regulatory fees for International Bearer Circuits are to be paid by facilities-based common carriers that have active international bearer circuits in any transmission facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier, which includes active circuits to themselves or to their affiliates. In addition, non-common carrier satellite operators must pay a fee for each circuit sold or leased to any customer, including themselves or their affiliates, other than an international common carrier authorized by the Commission to provide U.S. international common carrier services. Non-common carrier submarine cable operators are also to pay fees for any and all international bearer circuits sold on an indefeasible right of use (“IRU”) basis or leased to any customer, including themselves or their affiliates, other than an international common carrier authorized by the Commission to provide U.S. international common carrier services. *See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2001,* MD Docket No. 01-76, Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 13525, 13593 (2001); *Regulatory Fees Fact Sheet: What You Owe—International and Satellite Services Licensees for FY 2004* at 3 (rel. July 2004) (the fact sheet is available on the FCC Web site at: *http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249904A4.pdf)* . On February 6, 2006, VSNL Telecommunications
(US)Inc. filed a Petition for Rulemaking urging the Commission to reform the current International Bearer Circuit Fee rules and policies as applied to non-common carrier submarine cable operators. See Petition for Rulemaking of VSNL Telecommunications
(US)Inc., RM-11312 (filed Feb. 6, 2006). This Petition remains pending before the Commission, which has issued a Public Notice requesting comment on the petition. See Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *Public Notice* , Report No. 2759 (rel. Feb. 15, 2006). The Commission intends to resolve the complex issues presented by this Petition separately, and any comments on these issues filed in the instant proceeding will be incorporated into, and addressed, with those filed on the Petition for Rulemaking. B. Enforcement 48. As a reminder to all licensees, section 159(c) of the Act requires us to impose an additional charge as a penalty for late payment of any regulatory fee. As in years past, a late payment penalty of 25 percent of the amount of the required regulatory fee will be assessed on the first day following the deadline date for filing of these fees. Regulatory fee payment must be received and stamped at the lockbox bank by the last day of the regulatory fee filing window, and not merely postmarked by the last day of the window. Failure to pay regulatory fees and/or any late penalty will subject regulatees to sanctions, including the Commission's Red Light Rule ( *see* 47 CFR 1.1910) and the provisions set forth in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (“DCIA”). We also assess administrative processing charges on delinquent debts to recover additional costs incurred in processing and handling the related debt pursuant to the DCIA and 47 CFR 1.1940(d) of the Commission's rules. These administrative processing charges will be assessed on any delinquent regulatory fee, in addition to the 25 percent late charge penalty. In case of partial payments (underpayments) of regulatory fees, the licensee will be given credit for the amount paid, but if it is later determined that the fee paid is incorrect or not timely paid, then the 25 percent late charge penalty (and other charges and/or sanctions, as appropriate) will be assessed on the portion that is not paid in a timely manner. 49. Furthermore, our regulatory fee rules provide that we will withhold action on any applications or other requests for benefits filed by anyone who is delinquent in any non-tax debts owed to the Commission (including regulatory fees) and will ultimately dismiss those applications or other requests if payment of the delinquent debt or other satisfactory arrangement for payment is not made. *See* 47 CFR 1.1161(c), 1.1164(f)(5), and 1.1910. Failure to pay regulatory fees can also result in the initiation of a proceeding to revoke any and all authorizations held by the entity responsible for paying the delinquent fee(s). C. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 50. This Report and Order contains modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” D. Congressional Review Act Analysis 51. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). IV. Ordering Clauses 52. Accordingly, *it is ordered* pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 159, and 303(r) that the FY 2007 section 9 regulatory fee assessment requirements *are adopted* as specified herein. 53. *It is further ordered* that Part 1 of the Commission's Rules *are amended* as set forth in Attachment H, and the these Rules shall become effective 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** , except that changes to the Schedule of Regulatory Fees made pursuant to section 9(b)(3) of the Communications Act, and incorporating regulatory fee payment obligations for interconnected VoIP service providers, shall become effective 90 days after notification to Congress. 54. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *shall send* a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Attachment A—Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 55. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 75 the Commission prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in its *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2007.* 76 Written public comments were sought on the FY 2007 fees proposal, including comments on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) conforms to the RFA. 77 75 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847
(1996)(“CWAAA”). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”). 76 *See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2007,* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 7975
(2007)(“ *FY 2007 NPRM* ”). 77 5 U.S.C. 604. I. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 56. This rulemaking proceeding is initiated to amend the Schedule of Regulatory Fees in the amount of $290,295,160, the amount that Congress has required the Commission to recover. The Commission seeks to collect the necessary amount through its revised Schedule of Regulatory Fees in the most efficient manner possible and without undue public burden. II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 57. None. III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 58. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. 78 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 79 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 80 A “small business concern” is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 81 78 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 79 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 80 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “ small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the **Federal Register** .” 81 15 U.S.C. 632. 59. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. 82 82 *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at page 40 (July 2002). 60. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 83 83 Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference (2002). 61. Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” 84 Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. 85 We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” 86 Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. 84 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 85 U.S. Census Bureau, *Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006,* Section 8, page 272, Table 415. 86 We assume that the villages, school districts, and special districts are small, and total 48,558. *See* U.S. Census Bureau, *Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006,* section 8, page 273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was 38,967, of which 35,819 were small. *Id.* 62. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard ( *e.g.* , a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” 87 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. 88 We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 87 15 U.S. C. 632. 88 Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small-business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of “small business.” *See* 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. *See* 13 CFR 121.102(b). 63. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (“ILECs”). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 89 According to Commission data, 90 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by these rules. 89 13 CFR 121.201, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 517110. 90 FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ” at Table 5.3, Page 5-5 (June 2005) (hereinafter “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ”). This source uses data that are current as of October 1, 2004. 64. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (“CLECs”), Competitive Access Providers (“CAPs”), “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.” Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 91 According to Commission data, 92 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 94 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by these rules. 91 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 92 “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ” at Table 5.3. 65. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 93 According to Commission data, 94 143 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an estimated 141 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by these rules. 93 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310. 94 “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ” at Table 5.3. 66. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 95 According to Commission data, 96 770 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 747 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 23 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by these rules. 95 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310. 96 “ *Trends in Telepone Service* ” at Table 5.3. 67. Payphone Service Providers (“PSPs”). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 97 According to Commission data, 98 654 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated 652 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by these rules. 97 3 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 98 “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ” at Table 5.3. 68. Interexchange Carriers (“IXCs”). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 99 According to Commission data, 100 316 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 292 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by these rules. 99 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 100 “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ” at Table 5.3. 69. Operator Service Providers (“OSPs”). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 101 According to Commission data, 102 23 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 20 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by these rules. 101 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 102 “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ” at Table 5.3. 70. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 103 According to Commission data, 104 89 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, an estimated 88 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by these rules. 103 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310. 104 “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ” at Table 5.3. 71. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers. 105 Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 800 and 800-like service (“toll free”) subscribers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 106 The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data the Commission receives from Database Service Management on the 800, 866, 877, and 888 numbers in use. 107 According to our data, at the end of December 2004, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,540,453; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,947,789; the number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,805,568; and the number of 866 numbers assigned was 5,011,291. We do not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are independently owned and operated or have 1,500 or fewer employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA size standard. Consequently, we estimate that there are 7,540,453 or fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 5,947,789 or fewer small entity 888 subscribers; 4,805,568 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers, and 5,011,291 or fewer entity 866 subscribers. 105 We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category, including those for 888 numbers. 106 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310. 107 “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ” at Tables 18.4, 18.5, 18.6, and 18.7. 72. International Service Providers. There is no small business size standard developed specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under both categories, such a business is small if it has $13.5 million or less in average annual receipts. 108 108 13 CFR 121.201 , NAICS codes 517410 and 517910. 73. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” 109 For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year. 110 Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 111 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. 109 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications”; *http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.* 110 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005). 111 *Id.* An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more. 74. The second category of Other Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in
(1)providing specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or
(2)providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.” 112 For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year. 113 Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 114 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. 112 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517910 Other Telecommunications”; *http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.* 113 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005). 114 *Id.* An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more. 75. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” 115 and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” 116 Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 117 Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 118 Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 119 Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 120 Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. 115 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211. 116 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 117 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005). 118 *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” . 119 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005). 120 *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” 76. Internet Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Internet Service Providers. This category comprises establishments “primarily engaged in providing direct access through telecommunications networks to computer-held information compiled or published by others.” 121 Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual receipts of $21 million or less. 122 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,751 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 123 Of these, 2,659 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 67 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. 124 Thus, under this size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small entities. 121 Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry Classification System, page 515 (1997). NAICS code 518111, “On-Line Information Services.” . 122 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 518111. 123 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: “ Information,” Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 514191 (issued Oct. 2000). . 124 *Id.* 77. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” 125 and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” 126 Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 127 Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 128 Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 129 Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 130 Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. 125 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211. 126 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 127 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005). 128 *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” 129 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005). 130 *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” 78. Common Carrier Paging. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census categories of “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” 131 Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, U.S. Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. 132 Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 133 Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. 131 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 132 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: “ Information,” Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513321 (issued Oct. 2000). 133 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: “ Information,” Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513321 (issued Oct. 2000). The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is “Firms with 1000 employees or more.” 79. In addition, in the Paging Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a size standard for “small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. 134 A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. 135 The SBA has approved this definition. 136 An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area
(MEA)licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold. 137 Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won 440 licenses. 138 An auction of MEA and Economic Area
(EA)licenses commenced on October 30, 2001, and closed on December 5, 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold. 139 One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs commenced on May 13, 2003, and closed on May 28, 2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses. 140 Currently, there are approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the most recent *Trends in Telephone Service,* 408 private and common carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or “other mobile” services. 141 Of these, we estimate that 589 are small, under the SBA-approved small business size standard. 142 We estimate that the majority of common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. 134 *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems,* Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2811-2812, paras. 178-181 (“ *Paging Second Report and Order* ”); *see also Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems,* Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10085-10088, paras. 98-107 (1999). 135 *Paging Second Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 2811, para. 179. 136 *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated Dec. 2, 1998. 137 *See* “929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000). 138 *Id.* 139 *See* “Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002). 140 *See* “Lower and Upper Paging Bands Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11154 (WTB 2003). 141 “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ” at Table 5.3. 142 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211. 80. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless communications services (“WCS”) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. 143 The SBA has approved these definitions. 144 The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25, 1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that qualified as a small business entity. An auction for one license in the 1670-1674 MHz band commenced on April 30, 2003 and closed the same day. One license was awarded. The winning bidder was not a small entity. 143 *Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (WCS),* Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10879, para. 194 (1997). 144 *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998). 81. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. 145 Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 146 According to *Trends in Telephone Service* data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. 147 We have estimated that 260 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 145 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 146 *Id.* 147 “ *Trends in Telephone Service* ” at Table 5.3. 82. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications services (“PCS”) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission has created a small business size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. 148 For Block F, an additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. 149 These small business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. 150 No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 “small” and “very small” business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. 151 On March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 113 small business winning bidders. 152 148 *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules—Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap* , Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850-7852, paras. 57-60 (1996); *see also* 47 CFR 24.720(b). 149 *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules—Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap* , Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7852, para. 60. 150 *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998). 151 FCC News, “Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes,” No. 71744 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997). 152 *See* “C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes,” *Public Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999). 83. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very small” businesses. 153 Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 188 C block licenses and 21 F block licenses in Auction No. 58. There were 24 winning bidders for 217 licenses. 154 Of the 24 winning bidders, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 38 Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 71, of which 26 were C block licenses and 6 were F block licenses. There were 12 winning bidders for the 33 C and F block licenses. Of the 12 winning bidders, four claimed small business status and won 16 licenses. 153 *See* “C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” *Public Notice* , 16 FCC Rcd 2339 (2001). 154 *See* “Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 58,” *Public Notice* , 20 FCC Rcd 3703 (2005). 84. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. The Commission held an auction for Narrowband PCS licenses that commenced on July 25, 1994, and closed on July 29, 1994. A second auction commenced on October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994. For purposes of the first two Narrowband PCS auctions, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. 155 Through these auctions, the Commission awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small businesses. 156 To ensure meaningful participation by small business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. 157 A “small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. 158 A “very small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. 159 The SBA has approved these small business size standards. 160 A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and closed on October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses. 161 Three of these claimed status as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses. 155 *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding Narrowband PCS* , Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 175, 196, para. 46 (1994). 156 *See* “Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of Ten Nationwide Narrowband PCS Licenses, Winning Bids Total $617,006,674,” *Public Notice* , PNWL 94-004 (rel. Aug. 2, 1994); “Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of 30 Regional Narrowband PCS Licenses; Winning Bids Total $490,901,787,” *Public Notice* , PNWL 94-27 (rel. Nov. 9, 1994). 157 *Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Narrowband PCS* , Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 10456, 10476, para. 40 (2000). 158 *Id.* 159 *Id.* 160 *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated Dec. 2, 1998. 161 *See* “Narrowband PCS Auction Closes,” *Public Notice* , 16 FCC Rcd 18663 (WTB 2001). 85. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. We adopted criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. 162 We have defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 163 A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 164 Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service has a third category of small business status that may be claimed for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) licenses. The third category is “entrepreneur,” which is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. 165 The SBA has approved these small size standards. 166 An auction of 740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (“EAGs”)) commenced on August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. 167 A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, and closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area licenses. 168 Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. 169 On July 26, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band (Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. All three winning bidders claimed small business status. 162 *See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59)* , Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2002). 163 *See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59)* , Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1022, 1087-88, para. 172 (2002). 164 *Id.* 165 *See id.* at 1088, para. 173. 166 *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated Aug. 10, 1999. 167 *See* “Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,” *Public Notice,* 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002). 168 *See* “Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,” *Public Notice,* 18 FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003). 169 *See id.* 86. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission released a Report and Order, authorizing service in the upper 700 MHz band. 170 This auction, previously scheduled for January 13, 2003, has been postponed. 171 170 *See Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules* , Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 1239 (2001). 171 *See* “Auction of Licenses for 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands (Auction No. 31) Is Rescheduled,” *Public Notice* , 16 FCC Rcd 13079 (WTB 2003). 87. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, we adopted size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. 172 A small business in this service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 173 Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 174 SBA approval of these definitions is not required. 175 An auction of 52 Major Economic Area
(MEA)licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. 176 Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses. 177 172 *See Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules* , Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000). 173 *See Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules* , Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299, 5343, para. 108 (2000). 174 *See id.* 175 *See id.* at 5343, n.246 (for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, the Commission is exempt from 15 U.S.C. 632, which requires Federal agencies to obtain SBA approval before adopting small business size standards). 176 *See* “700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,” *Public Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd 18026 (2000). 177 *See* “700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,” *Public Notice* , 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (WTB 2001). 88. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission awards “small entity” bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (“SMR”) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years. 178 The Commission awards “very small entity” bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous calendar years. 179 The SBA has approved these small business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. 180 The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 1995, and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. 181 A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January 10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses. 182 178 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1). 179 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1). 180 *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated Aug. 10, 1999. We note that, although a request was also sent to the SBA requesting approval for the small business size standard for 800 MHz, approval is still pending. 181 *See* “Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 `FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading Areas,’ ” *Public Notice* , 18 FCC Rcd 18367 (WTB 1996). 182 *See* “Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,” *Public Notice* , 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002). 89. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. 183 In an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were sold. 184 Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small business. 183 *See* “800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR)Service General Category (851-854 MHz) and Upper Band (861-865 MHz) Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” *Public Notice* , 15 FCC Rcd 17162 (2000). 184 *See* “800 MHz SMR Service Lower 80 Channels Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” *Public Notice* , 16 FCC Rcd 1736 (2000). 90. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by the SBA. 91. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, we apply the small business size standard under the SBA rules applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies. This category provides that a small business is a wireless company employing no more than 1,500 persons. 185 The Commission estimates that most such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's small business standard. 185 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 92. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, we adopted a small business size standard for defining “small” and “very small” businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. 186 This small business standard indicates that a “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. 187 A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. 188 The SBA has approved these small size standards. 189 Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. 190 In the first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group (“EAG”) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (“EA”) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. 191 Thirty-nine small businesses won 373 licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. A second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158 licenses. 192 A third auction included four licenses: 2 BEA licenses and 2 EAG licenses in the 220 MHz service. No small or very small business won any of these licenses. 193 186 *Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide For the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio Service* , Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70, paras. 291-295 (1997). 187 *Id.* at 11068, para. 291. 188 *Id.* 189 *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, (Jan. 6, 1998). 190 *See generally* “220 MHz Service Auction Closes,” *Public Notice* , 14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998). 191 *See* “FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made,” *Public Notice* , 14 FCC Rcd 1085 (1999). 192 *See* “Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes,” *Public Notice* , 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (1999). 193 *See* “Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,” *Public Notice* , 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (2002). 93. Private Land Mobile Radio (“PLMR”). PLMR systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories, and are often used in support of the licensee's primary (non-telecommunications) business operations. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee of a PLMR system is a small business as defined by the SBA, we use the broad census category, “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” This definition provides that a small entity is any such entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. 194 The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of employees, so the Commission does not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this definition. We note that PLMR licensees generally use the licensed facilities in support of other business activities, and therefore, it would also be helpful to assess PLMR licensees under the standards applied to the particular industry subsector to which the licensee belongs. 195 194 *See* 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. . 195 *See generally* 13 CFR 121.201. 94. The Commission's 1994 Annual Report on PLMRs 196 indicates that at the end of fiscal year 1994, there were 1,087,267 licensees operating 12,481,989 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. We note that any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license, and that the revised rules in this context could therefore potentially impact small entities covering a great variety of industries. 196 Federal Communications Commission, 60th Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1994, at para. 116. 95. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include common carrier, 197 private operational-fixed, 198 and broadcast auxiliary radio services. 199 At present, there are approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not created a size standard for a small business specifically with respect to fixed microwave services. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. 200 The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have no more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 22,015 or fewer common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 or fewer private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein. We note, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities. 197 *See* 47 CFR 101 et seq. (formerly, Part 21 of the Commission's Rules) for common carrier fixed microwave services (except Multipoint Distribution Service). 198 Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission's Rules can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave services. *See* 47 C.F.R. Parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed station, and only for communications related to the licensee's commercial, industrial, or safety operations. 199 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission's Rules. *See* 47 CFR Part 74. This service is available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities. Broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile television pickups, which relay signals from a remote location back to the studio. 200 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 96. 39 GHz Service. The Commission created a special small business size standard for 39 GHz licenses—an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. 201 An additional size standard for “very small business” is: an entity that, together with affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. 202 The SBA has approved these small business size standards. 203 The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849 licenses. 201 *See* *Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands,* ET Docket No. 95-183, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 18600 (1997). 202 *Id.* 203 *See* Letter to Kathleen O'Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Feb. 4, 1998); *See* Letter to Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Hector Barreto, Administrator, SBA, (Jan. 18, 2002). ) 97. Local Multipoint Distribution Service. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (“LMDS”) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications. 204 The auction of the 986 LMDS licenses began on February 18, 1998 and closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission established a small business size standard for LMDS licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. 205 An additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. 206 The SBA has approved these small business size standards in the context of LMDS auctions. 207 There were 93 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On March 27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses; there were 32 small and very small businesses winning that won 119 licenses. 204 *See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, 25, of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, Reallocate the 29.5-30.5 Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services* , Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12689-90, para. 348 (1997). 205 *See id.* 206 *See id.* 207 *See* Letter to Dan Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Jan. 6, 1998). 98. 218-219 MHz Service. The first auction of 218-219 MHz (previously referred to as the Interactive and Video Data Service or IVDS) spectrum resulted in 178 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (“MSAs”). 208 Of the 594 licenses, 567 were won by 167 entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, we defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two years. 209 In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, we defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. 210 A very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. 211 The SBA has approved of these definitions. 212 A subsequent auction is not yet scheduled. Given the success of small businesses in the previous auction, and the prevalence of small businesses in the subscription television services and message communications industries, we assume for purposes of this analysis that in future auctions, many, and perhaps most, of the licenses may be awarded to small businesses. 208 *See* “Interactive Video and Data Service
(IVDS)Applications Accepted for Filing,” *Public Notice,* 9 FCC Rcd 6227 (1994). 209 *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding* , Fourth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2330 (1994). 210 *Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service* , Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1497 (1999). 211 *Id.* 212 *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, (Jan. 6, 1998). 99. Location and Monitoring Service (“LMS”). Multilateration LMS systems use non-voice radio techniques to determine the location and status of mobile radio units. For purposes of auctioning LMS licenses, the Commission has defined “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. 213 A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $3 million. 214 These definitions have been approved by the SBA. 215 An auction for LMS licenses commenced on February 23, 1999, and closed on March 5, 1999. Of the 528 licenses auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses. 213 *Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems* , Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15192, para. 20 (1998); *see also* 47 CFR 90.1103. 214 *Id.* 215 *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated Feb. 22, 1999. 100. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. 216 A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (“BETRS”). 217 In the present context, we will use the SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” *i.e.* , an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. 218 There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. 216 The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 22.99. 217 BETRS is defined in section 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 22.757 and 22.759. 218 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 101. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. 219 We have previously used the SBA's small business definition applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” *i.e.* , an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. 220 There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and under that definition, we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. For purposes of assigning Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission has defined “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million. 221 A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. 222 These definitions were approved by the SBA. 223 In May 2006, the Commission completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 MHz band (Auction No. 65). On June 2, 2006, the auction closed with two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground Radiotelephone Services licenses. Neither of the winning bidders claimed small business status. 219 The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 22.99. 220 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 517212. 221 *Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules to Benefit the Consumers of Air-Ground Telecommunications Services, Biennial Regulatory Review—Amendment of Parts 1, 22, and 90 of the Commission's Rules, Amendment of Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt Competitive Bidding Rules for Commercial and General Aviation Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service* , WT Docket Nos. 03-103 and 05-42, Order on Reconsideration and Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19663, paras. 28-42 (2005). 222 *Id.* 223 *See* Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated Sept. 19, 2005. 102. Aviation and Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (“VHF”) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, we will use the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. 224 Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that there are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million dollars. In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million dollars. 225 There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size standards. 224 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 225 *Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime Communications* , PR Docket No. 92-257, Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998). 103. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several ultra high frequencies (“UHF”) television broadcast channels that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. 226 There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service. We are unable to estimate at this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. 227 Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 228 226 This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 CFR 22.1001-22.1037. 227 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 228 *Id.* 104. Multiple Address Systems (“MAS”). Entities using MAS spectrum, in general, fall into two categories:
(1)Those using the spectrum for profit-based uses, and
(2)those using the spectrum for private internal uses. With respect to the first category, the Commission defines “small entity” for MAS licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $15 million in the three previous calendar years. 229 “Very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $3 million for the preceding three calendar years. 230 The SBA has approved of these definitions. 231 The majority of these entities will most likely be licensed in bands where the Commission has implemented a geographic area licensing approach that would require the use of competitive bidding procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications. The Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, there were a total of 8,670 MAS station authorizations. Of these, 260 authorizations were associated with common carrier service. In addition, an auction for 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs began November 14, 2001, and closed on November 27, 2001. 232 Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or very small businesses and won 611 licenses. On May 18, 2005, the Commission completed an auction (Auction No. 59) of 4,226 MAS licenses in the Fixed Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. Twenty-six winning bidders won a total of 2,323 licenses. Of the 26 winning bidders in this auction, five claimed small business status and won 1,891 licenses. 229 *See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems* , Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 12008, para. 123 (2000). 230 *Id.* 231 *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, (Jun. 4, 1999). 232 *See* “Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes,” *Public Notice* , 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001). 105. With respect to the second category, which consists of entities that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate internal communications needs, we note that MAS serves an essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land transportation activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all types of public safety entities. For the majority of private internal users, the small business size standard developed by the SBA would be more appropriate. The applicable size standard in this instance appears to be that of “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” This definition provides that a small entity is any such entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. 233 The Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, of the 8,670 total MAS station authorizations, 8,410 authorizations were for private radio service, and of these, 1,433 were for private land mobile radio service. 233 *See* 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 106. Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees. This analysis may affect incumbent licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band. The applicable SBA small business size standard is that of “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies. This category provides that such a company is small if it employs no more than 1,500 persons. 234 For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 235 Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 236 Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 237 Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 238 Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. These broader census data notwithstanding, we believe that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent 239 and TRW, Inc. It is our understanding that Teligent and its related companies have fewer than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity. 234 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 235 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005). 236 *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” 237 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005). 238 *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” 239 Teligent acquired the DEMS licenses of FirstMark, the only licensee other than TRW in the 24 GHz band whose license has been modified to require relocation to the 24 GHz band. 107. New 24 GHz Licensees. With respect to new applicants in the 24 GHz band, we have defined an “entrepreneur” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $40 million. “Small business” in the 24 GHz band is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $15 million. 240 “Very small business” in the 24 GHz band is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. 241 The SBA has approved these definitions. 242 On July 28, 2004, the Commission completed an auction of 880 licenses. There were three winning bidders that won seven licenses. Of the three winning bidders, two claimed small business status and won five licenses. 240 *Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules To License Fixed Services at 24 GHz,* Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967, para. 77
(2000)(“ *24 GHz Report and Order* ”); *see also* 47 CFR 101.538(a)(2). 241 *24 GHz Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 16967, para. 77; *see also* 47 CFR 101.538(a)(1). 242 *See* Letter to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA, (Jul. 28, 2000). 108. Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”) and Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”). Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (“MMDS”) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service (previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”). 243 In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the preceding three calendar years. 244 The SBA has approved of this standard. 245 The BRS auction resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (“BTAs”). 246 Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. 247 After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licenses that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. 243 *Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding,* Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7
(1995)(“ *MDS Auction R&O* ”). 244 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1). 245 *See* Letter to Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Gary Jackson, Assistant Administrator for Size Standards, SBA, (Mar. 20, 2003) (noting approval of $40 million size standard for MDS auction). 246 BTAs were designed by Rand McNally and are the geographic areas by which MDS was auctioned and authorized. *See MDS Auction R&O* , 10 FCC Rcd at 9608, para. 34. 247 For the incumbent BRS licensees who are granted licenses prior to implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 309(j), the applicable standard is SBA's small business size standard. 109. In addition, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, 248 which includes all such companies generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 249 According to the Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 250 Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more, but less than $25 million. 251 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. This SBA small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. 252 Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are small entities. EBS is a non-profit non-broadcast service. We do not collect, nor are we aware of other collections of, annual revenue data for EBS licensees. 248 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517510. 249 *Id.* 250 U.S. Census Bureau 202 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the Untied States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued Nov. 2005). 251 *Id.* An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more. 252 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of less than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. 601(4)-(6). We do not collect annual revenue data on EBS licensees. 110. Television Broadcasting. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.” 253 The SBA has created a small business size standard for Television Broadcasting entities, which is: such firms having $13 million or less in annual receipts. 254 According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer Database as of May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations in the United States had revenues of $12 (twelve) million or less. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations 255 must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. 253 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting” (partial definition); *http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF515.HTM* . 254 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120. 255 “Concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.” 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1). 111. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. 112. There are also 2,117 low power television stations (LPTV). 256 Given the nature of this service, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard. 256 *FCC News Release* , “Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 2005.” 113. Radio Broadcasting. The SBA defines a radio broadcast entity that has $6 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. 257 Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” 258 According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Radio Analyzer Database, as of May 16, 2003, about 10,427 of the 10,945 commercial radio stations in the United States have revenue of $6 million or less. We note, however, that many radio stations are affiliated with much larger corporations with much higher revenue, and that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, such business (control) affiliations 259 are included. 260 Our estimate, therefore likely overstates the number of small businesses that might be affected by the rules adopted herein. 257 *See* OMB, North American Industry Classification System: United States, 1997, at 509
(1997)(Radio Stations) NAICS code 515112. 258 *Id.* 259 “Concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” 13 CFR 121.103(a)(1). 260 “SBA counts the receipts or employees of the concern whose size is at issue and those of all its domestic and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the affiliates are organized for profit, in determining the concern's size.” 13 CFR 121(a)(4). 114. Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other Program Distribution Services. This service involves a variety of transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through translator and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news gathering unit back to the station). The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to broadcast auxiliary licensees. The applicable definitions of small entities are those, noted previously, under the SBA rules applicable to radio broadcasting stations and television broadcasting stations. 261 261 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 513111 and 513112. 115. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 3,868 FM translators and boosters. 262 The Commission does not collect financial information on any broadcast facility, and the Department of Commerce does not collect financial information on these auxiliary broadcast facilities. We believe that most, if not all, of these auxiliary facilities could be classified as small businesses by themselves. We also recognize that most commercial translators and boosters are owned by a parent station which, in some cases, would be covered by the revenue definition of small business entity discussed above. These stations would likely have annual revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as a small business ($6.5 million for a radio station or $13.0 million for a TV station). Furthermore, they do not meet the Small Business Act's definition of a “small business concern” because they are not independently owned and operated. 263 262 *FCC News Release,* “Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 2004.” 263 15 U.S.C. 632. 116. Cable and Other Program Distribution. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual, aural, or textual programming received from cable networks, local television stations, or radio networks to consumers via cable or direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis. These establishments do not generally originate programming material.” 264 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is: all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 265 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 266 Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. 267 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 264 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517510 Cable and Other Program Distribution;” *http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM* . 265 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517510. 266 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued Nov. 2005). 267 *Id.* An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more. 117. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. 268 Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard. 269 In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 270 Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have less than 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. 271 Thus, under this second size standard, most cable systems are small. 268 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues. *Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation,* Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995). 269 These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006* , “Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006* , “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages D-1805 to D-1857. 270 47 CFR 76.901(c). 271 Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006* , “U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size,” page F-2 (data current as of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which classifying data were not available. 118. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” 272 The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 645,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 273 Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. 274 We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, 275 and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard. 272 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); *see* 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3. 273 47 CFR 76.901(f); *see* Public Notice, *FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator* , DA 01-158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001). 274 These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006* , “Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006* , “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages D-1805 to D-1857. 275 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to section 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 CFR 76.909(b). 119. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (“OVS”) systems provide subscription services. 276 The SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution. 277 This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service. 278 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc.
(RCN)received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 276 *See* 47 U.S.C. 573. 277 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517510. 278 *See http://www.fcc.gov/csb/ovs/csovscer.html* (current as of March 2002). 120. Cable Television Relay Service. This service includes transmitters generally used to relay cable programming within cable television system distribution systems. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is: all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 279 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 280 Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. 281 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 279 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517510. 280 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued Nov. 2005). 281 *Id.* An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more. 121. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service. MVDDS is a terrestrial fixed microwave service operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The Commission adopted criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. It defined a very small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years; a small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years; and an entrepreneur as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 282 These definitions were approved by the SBA. 283 On January 27, 2004, the Commission completed an auction of 214 MVDDS licenses (Auction No. 53). In this auction, ten winning bidders won a total of 192 MVDDS licenses. 284 Eight of the ten winning bidders claimed small business status and won 144 of the licenses. The Commission also held an auction of MVDDS licenses on December 7, 2005 (Auction 63). Of the three winning bidders who won 22 licenses, two winning bidders, winning 21 of the licenses, claimed small business status. 285 282 *Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range; Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licenses and their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to provide A Fixed Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98-206,* Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614, 9711, para. 252 (2002). 283 *See* Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated Feb. 13, 2002. 284 *See* “Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Auction Closes,” *Public Notice* , 19 FCC Rcd 1834 (2004). 285 *See* “Auction of Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 63,” *Public Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd 19807 (2005). 122. Amateur Radio Service. These licensees are held by individuals in a noncommercial capacity; these licensees are not small entities. 123. Aviation and Marine Services. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (“VHF”) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. 286 Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that there are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million dollars. In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million dollars. 287 There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size standards. 286 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 287 *Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime Communications* , Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998). 124. Personal Radio Services. Personal radio services provide short-range, low power radio for personal communications, radio signaling, and business communications not provided for in other services. The Personal Radio Services include spectrum licensed under Part 95 of our rules. 288 These services include Citizen Band Radio Service (“CB”), General Mobile Radio Service (“GMRS”), Radio Control Radio Service (“R/C”), Family Radio Service (“FRS”), Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (“WMTS”), Medical Implant Communications Service (“MICS”), Low Power Radio Service (“LPRS”), and Multi-Use Radio Service (“MURS”). 289 There are a variety of methods used to license the spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning operation on successful completion of a required test, to site-based licensing, to geographic area licensing. Under the RFA, the Commission is required to make a determination of which small entities are directly affected by the rules being adopted. Since all such entities are wireless, we apply the definition of cellular and other wireless telecommunications, pursuant to which a small entity is defined as employing 1,500 or fewer persons. 290 Many of the licensees in these services are individuals, and thus are not small entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission lacks direct information upon which to base an estimation of the number of small entities under an SBA definition that might be directly affected by the rules adopted herein. 288 47 CFR part 90. 289 The Citizens Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service are governed by Subpart D, Subpart A, Subpart C, Subpart B, Subpart H, Subpart I, Subpart G, and Subpart J, respectively, of Part 95 of the Commission's rules. *See generally* 47 CFR part 95. 290 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517212. 125. Public Safety Radio Services. Public Safety radio services include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services. 291 There are a total of approximately 127,540 licensees in these services. Governmental entities 292 as well as private businesses comprise the licensees for these services. All governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity. 293 291 With the exception of the special emergency service, these services are governed by Subpart B of part 90 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 90.15-90.27. The police service includes approximately 27,000 licensees that serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy
(code)and teletype and facsimile (printed material). The fire radio service includes approximately 23,000 licensees comprised of private volunteer or professional fire companies as well as units under governmental control. The local government service that is presently comprised of approximately 41,000 licensees that are state, county, or municipal entities that use the radio for official purposes not covered by other public safety services. There are approximately 7,000 licensees within the forestry service which is comprised of licensees from state departments of conservation and private forest organizations who set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews. The approximately 9,000 state and local governments are licensed to highway maintenance service provide emergency and routine communications to aid other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic. The approximately 1,000 licensees in the Emergency Medical Radio Service (“EMRS”) use the 39 channels allocated to this service for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency medical treatment. 47 CFR 90.15-90.27. The approximately 20,000 licensees in the special emergency service include medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, handicapped persons, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and emergency repair of public communications facilities. 47 CFR 90.33-90.55. 292 47 CFR 1.1162. 293 5 U.S.C. 601(5). IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 126. With certain exceptions, the Commission's Schedule of Regulatory Fees applies to all Commission licensees and regulatees. Most licensees will be required to count the number of licenses or call signs authorized, complete and submit an FCC Form 159 Remittance Advice, and pay a regulatory fee based on the number of licenses or call signs. 294 Interstate telephone service providers must compute their annual regulatory fee based on their interstate and international end-user revenue using information they already supply to the Commission in compliance with the Form 499-A, Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, and they must complete and submit the FCC Form 159. Compliance with the fee schedule will require some licensees to tabulate the number of units (e.g., cellular telephones, pagers, cable TV subscribers) they have in service, and complete and submit an FCC Form 159. Licensees ordinarily will keep a list of the number of units they have in service as part of their normal business practices. No additional outside professional skills are required to complete the FCC Form 159, and it can be completed by the employees responsible for an entity's business records. 294 The following categories are exempt from the Commission's Schedule of Regulatory Fees: Amateur radio licensees (except applicants for vanity call signs) and operators in other non-licensed services ( *e.g.* , Personal Radio, part 15, ship and aircraft). Governments and non-profit (exempt under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code) entities are exempt from payment of regulatory fees and need not submit payment. Non-commercial educational broadcast licensees are exempt from regulatory fees as are licensees of auxiliary broadcast services such as low power auxiliary stations, television auxiliary service stations, remote pickup stations and aural broadcast auxiliary stations where such licenses are used in conjunction with commonly owned non-commercial educational stations. Emergency Alert System licenses for auxiliary service facilities are also exempt as are instructional television fixed service licensees. Regulatory fees are automatically waived for the licensee of any translator station that:
(1)Is not licensed to, in whole or in part, and does not have common ownership with, the licensee of a commercial broadcast station;
(2)does not derive income from advertising; and
(3)is dependent on subscriptions or contributions from members of the community served for support. Receive only earth station permittees are exempt from payment of regulatory fees. A regulatee will be relieved of its fee payment requirement if its total fee due, including all categories of fees for which payment is due by the entity, amounts to less than $10. 127. Each licensee must submit the FCC Form 159 to the Commission's lockbox bank after computing the number of units subject to the fee. Licensees may also file electronically to minimize the burden of submitting multiple copies of the FCC Form 159. Applicants who pay small fees in advance and provide fee information as part of their application must use FCC Form 159. 128. Licensees and regulatees are advised that failure to submit the required regulatory fee in a timely manner will subject the licensee or regulatee to a late payment penalty of 25 percent in addition to the required fee. 295 If payment is not received, new or pending applications may be dismissed, and existing authorizations may be subject to rescission. 296 Further, in accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Public Law 194-134, federal agencies may bar a person or entity from obtaining a federal loan or loan insurance guarantee if that person or entity fails to pay a delinquent debt owed to any federal agency. 297 Nonpayment of regulatory fees is a debt owed the United States pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711 *et seq.* , and the DCIA. Appropriate enforcement measures as well as administrative and judicial remedies, may be exercised by the Commission. Debts owed to the Commission may result in a person or entity being denied a federal loan or loan guarantee pending before another federal agency until such obligations are paid. 298 295 47 CFR 1.1164. 296 47 CFR 1.1164(c). 297 Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). 298 31 U.S.C. 7701(c)(2)(B). 129. The Commission's rules currently provide for relief in exceptional circumstances. Persons or entities may request a waiver, reduction or deferment of payment of the regulatory fee. 299 However, timely submission of the required regulatory fee must accompany requests for waivers or reductions. This will avoid any late payment penalty if the request is denied. The fee will be refunded if the request is granted. In exceptional and compelling instances (where payment of the regulatory fee along with the waiver or reduction request could result in reduction of service to a community or other financial hardship to the licensee), the Commission will defer payment in response to a request filed with the appropriate supporting documentation. 299 47 CFR 1.1166. V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 130. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives:
(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and
(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 300 In the *NPRM* , we sought comment on alternatives that might simplify our fee procedures or otherwise benefit filers, including small entities, while remaining consistent with our statutory responsibilities in this proceeding. 300 5 U.S.C. 603. 131. The Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 2007, Public Law 109-383, requires the Commission to revise its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in order to recover the amount of regulatory fees that Congress, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Communications Act, as amended, has required the Commission to collect for FY 2007. 301 As noted, we sought comment on the proposed methodology for implementing these statutory requirements and any other potential impact of these proposals on small entities. 301 47 U.S.C. 159(a). 132. Several categories of licensees and regulatees are exempt from payment of regulatory fees. *See, e.g.* , footnote 294, * supra.* Also, waiver procedures provide regulatees, including small entity regulatees, relief in exceptional circumstances. See Section IV, *supra.* 133. *Report to Small Business Administration:* The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, including a copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. The Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the **Federal Register** . 134. *Report to Congress:* The Commission will send a copy of this FRFA, along with this *Report and Order* , in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Attachment B—Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2007 In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2007, we adjusted FY 2006 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2007 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records and industry and trade association projections when available. The databases we consulted include our Universal Licensing System (ULS), International Bureau Filing System (IBFS), Consolidated Database System
(CDBS)and Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireline Competition Bureau's *Trends in Telephone Service* and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's *Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast* . We tried to obtain verification for these estimates from multiple sources and in all cases; we compared FY 2007 estimates with actual FY 2006 payment units to ensure that our revised estimates were reasonable. Where appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final estimates to take into consideration the fact that certain variables that impact on the number of payment units cannot yet be estimated exactly. These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions that may occur in FY 2007 and the fact that, in many services, the number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates from time to time due to economic, technical or other reasons. Therefore, when we note, for example, that our estimated FY 2007 payment units are based on FY 2006 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2007 projection is *exactly* the same number as FY 2006. It means that we have either rounded the FY 2007 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these variables. Fee category Sources of payment unit estimates Land Mobile (All), Microwave, 218-219 MHz, Marine (Ship & Coast), Aviation (Aircraft & Ground), GMRS, Amateur Vanity Call Signs, Domestic Public Fixed Based on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(WTB)projections of new applications and renewals taking into consideration existing Commission licensee data bases. Aviation (Aircraft) and Marine
(Ship)estimates have been adjusted to take into consideration the licensing of portions of these services on a voluntary basis. CMRS Mobile Services Based on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau reports. CMRS Messaging Services Based on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Competition Report findings. AM/FM Radio Stations Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2006 payment units. UHF/VHF Television Stations Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2006 payment units. AM/FM/TV Construction Permits Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2006 payment units. LPTV, Translators and Boosters, Class A Television Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2006 payment units. Broadcast Auxiliaries Based on actual FY 2006 payment units. BRS (formerly MDS/MMDS) Based on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau reports and actual FY 2006 payment units. Cable Television Relay Service
(CARS)Stations Based on data from Media Bureau's COALS database and actual FY 2006 payment units. Cable Television System Subscribers Based on publicly available data sources for estimated subscriber counts and actual FY 2006 payment units. Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers Based on actual FY 2006 interstate revenues reported on Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, adjusted for FY 2007 revenue growth/decline for industry, and projections by the Wireline Competition Bureau. Earth Stations Based on International Bureau reports and actual FY 2006 payment units. Space Stations (GSOs & NGSOs) Based on International Bureau reports and actual FY 2006 payment units. International Bearer Circuits Based on International Bureau reports and actual FY 2006 payment units. International HF Broadcast Stations, International Public Fixed Radio Service Based on International Bureau reports and actual FY 2006 payment units. Attachment C—Calculation of FY 2007 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted along with the application at the time the application is filed. Fee category FY 2007 payment units Years FY 2006 revenue estimate Pro-rated FY 2007 revenue requirement * Computed new FY 2007 regulatory fee Rounded new FY 2007 regulatory fee Expected FY 2007 revenue PLMRS (Exclusive Use) 1,250 10 440,000 426,300 34 35 437,500 PLMRS (Shared use) 15,500 10 2,500,000 2,422,162 16 15 2,325,000 Microwave 4,350 10 1,700,000 1,647,070 38 40 1,740,000 218-219 MHz (Formerly IVDS) 3 10 1,650 1,599 53 55 1,650 Marine
(Ship)8,000 10 800,000 775,092 10 10 800,000 GMRS 16,000 5 425,000 411,768 5 5 400,000 Aviation (Aircraft) 8,800 10 300,000 290,659 3 5 440,000 Marine (Coast) 360 10 120,000 116,264 32 30 108,000 Aviation (Ground) 1,650 10 150,000 145,330 9 10 165,000 Amateur Vanity Call Signs 14,700 10 177,116 171,601 1.17 1.17 171,990 AM Class A 68 1 217,350 210,428 3,095 3,100 210,800 AM Class B 1,567 1 2,619,500 2,534,141 1,617 1,625 2,546,375 AM Class C 937 1 921,500 890,541 950 950 890,150 AM Class D 1,705 1 3,095,750 2,994,982 1,757 1,750 2,983,750 FM Classes A, B1 & C3 3,027 1 6,519,500 6,311,615 2,085 2,075 6,281,025 FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 & C2 3,002 1 7,924,300 7,675,996 2,557 2,550 7,655,100 AM Construction Permits 65 1 37,525 26,003 400 400 26,000 FM Construction Permits 1 205 1 115,000 117,898 575 575 117,875 Satellite TV 125 1 141,450 137,046 1,096 1,100 137,500 Satellite TV Construction Permit 3 1 1,710 1,657 552 550 1,650 VHF Markets 1-10 43 1 2,850,100 2,765,285 64,309 64,300 2,764,900 VHF Markets 11-25 61 1 2,914,275 2,827,462 46,352 46,350 2,827,350 VHF Markets 26-50 77 1 2,465,625 2,392,781 31,075 31,075 2,392,775 VHF Markets 51-100 115 1 2,372,200 2,300,839 20,007 20,000 2,300,000 VHF Remaining Markets 198 1 1,045,200 1,012,657 5,114 5,125 1,014,750 VHF Construction Permits 3 1 30,600 15,377 5,126 5,125 15,375 UHF Markets 1-10 91 1 1,846,750 1,787,645 19,644 19,650 1,788,150 UHF Markets 11-25 76 1 1,528,000 1,478,819 19,458 19,450 1,478,200 UHF Markets 26-50 115 1 1,284,075 1,242,489 10,804 10,800 1,242,000 UHF Markets 51-100 168 1 1,092,000 1,056,977 6,292 6,300 1,058,400 UHF Remaining Markets 183 1 331,925 321,590 1,757 1,750 320,250 UHF Construction Permits 1 22 1 33,725 38,517 1,751 1,750 38,500 Broadcast Auxiliaries 27,000 1 240,000 232,528 9 10 270,000 LPTV/Translators/Boosters/Class A TV 3,400 1 1,218,000 1,180,077 347 345 1,173,000 CARS Stations 780 1 148,750 144,119 185 185 144,300 Cable TV Systems 64,500,000 1 49,770,000 48,220,399 0.74760 0.75 48,375,000 Interstate Tele-communication Service Providers 51,000,000,000 1 140,184,000 135,819,336 0.00266312 0.00266 135,660,000 CMRS Mobile Services (Cellular/Public Mobile) 229,000,000 1 42,000,000 40,596,052 0.177 0.18 41,220,000 CMRS Messag. Services 7,500,000 1 520,000 600,077 0.08 0.08 600,000 BRS 2 1,300 1 485,925 425,139 327 325 422,500 LMDS 410 1 90,750 134,077 327 325 133,250 International Bearer Circuits 7,200,000 1 7,791,000 7,548,425 1.05 1.05 7,560,000 International Public Fixed 1 1 1,925 1,865 1,865 1,875 1,875 Earth Stations 3,900 1 752,500 729,071 187 185 721,500 International HF Broadcast 5 1 4,100 3,972 794 795 3,975 Space Stations (Geostationary) 86 1 9,693,975 9,392,151 109,211 109,200 9,391,200 Space Stations (Non-Geostationary) 6 1 721,350 698,891 116,482 116,475 698,850 ****** Total Estimated Revenue to be Collected 299,624,101 290,274,768 291,055,465 ****** Total Revenue Requirement 298,771,000 290,295,160 290,295,160 Difference 853,101 (20,392) 760,305 *−0.028369018 factor applied based on the amount Congress designated for recovery through regulatory fees (Pub. L. 109-108 and 47 U.S.C. 159(a)(2)). 1 The AM and FM Construction Permit revenues and the VHF and UHF Construction Permit revenues were adjusted to set the regulatory fee to an amount no higher than the lowest licensed fee for that class of service. 2 MDS/MMDS category was renamed Broadband Radio Service (BRS). *See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands,* Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14169, para. 6
(2004)( *R&O and FNPRM* ). Attachment D—FY 2007 Schedule of Regulatory Fees Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted along with the application at the time the application is filed. Fee category Annual regulatory fee (U.S. $'s) PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90) 35 Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101) 40 218-219 MHz (Formerly Interactive Video Data Service) (per license) (47 CFR part 95) 55 Marine
(Ship)(per station) (47 CFR part 80) 10 Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80) 30 General Mobile Radio Service (per license) (47 CFR part 95) 5 Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category) 15 PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90) 15 Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87) 5 Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87) 10 Amateur Vanity Call Signs (per call sign) (47 CFR part 97) 1.17 CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and 90) .18 CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24 and 90) .08 Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/MDS) (per license) (47 CFR part 21) 325 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR part 101) 325 AM Radio Construction Permits 400 FM Radio Construction Permits 575 TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF Commercial: Markets 1-10 64,300 Markets 11-25 46,350 Markets 26-50 31,075 Markets 51-100 20,000 Remaining Markets 5,125 Construction Permits 5,125 TV (47 CFR part 73) UHF Commercial: Markets 1-10 19,650 Markets 11-25 19,450 Markets 26-50 10,800 Markets 51-100 6,300 Remaining Markets 1,750 Construction Permits 1,750 Satellite Television Stations (All Markets) 1,100 Construction Permits—Satellite Television Stations 550 Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & Boosters (47 CFR part 74) 345 Broadcast Auxiliaries (47 CFR part 74) 10 CARS (47 CFR part 78) 185 Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76) .75 Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar) .00266 Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25) 185 Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) also includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100) 109,200 Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) 116,475 International Bearer Circuits (per active 64KB circuit) 1.05 International Public Fixed (per call sign) (47 CFR part 23) 1,875 International
(HF)Broadcast (47 CFR part 73) 795 FY 2007 Schedule of Regulatory Fees (Continued) FY 2007 Radio Station Regulatory Fees Population served AM Class A AM Class B AM Class C AM Class D FM Classes A, B1 & C3 FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 & C2 <=25,000 625 475 400 475 575 725 25,001-75,000 1,225 925 600 725 1,150 1,250 75,001-150,000 1,825 1,150 800 1,200 1,600 2,300 150,001-500,000 2,750 1,950 1,200 1,425 2,475 3,000 500,001-1,200,000 3,950 2,975 2,000 2,375 3,900 4,400 1,200,001-3,000,000 6,075 4,575 3,000 3,800 6,350 7,025 >3,000,000 7,275 5,475 3,800 4,750 8,075 9,125 Attachment E—Factors, Measurements and Calculations That Go Into Determining Station Signal Contours and Associated Population Coverages AM Stations For stations with nondirectional daytime antennas, the theoretical radiation was used at all azimuths. For stations with directional daytime antennas, specific information on each day tower, including field ratio, phasing, spacing and orientation was retrieved, as well as the theoretical pattern root-mean-square of the radiation in all directions in the horizontal plane
(RMS)figure milliVolt per meter (mV/m) @ 1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or modified standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and methods specified in sections 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules. 302 Radiation values were calculated for each of 360 radials around the transmitter site. Next, estimated soil conductivity data was retrieved from a database representing the information in FCC Figure R3. 303 Using the calculated horizontal radiation values, and the retrieved soil conductivity data, the distance to the principal community (5 mV/m) contour was predicted for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2000 block centroids were contained in the polygon. (A block centroid is the center point of a small area containing population as computed by the U.S. Census Bureau.) The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area. 302 47 CFR 73.150 and 73.152. 303 *See Map of Estimated Effective Ground Conductivity in the United States* , 47 CFR 73.190 Figure R3. FM Stations The greater of the horizontal or vertical effective radiated power
(kW)and respective height above average terrain
(m)combination was used. Where the antenna height above mean sea level (HAMSL) was available, it was used in lieu of the average HAAT figure to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 360 radials under study. Any available directional pattern information was applied as well, to produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and ERP figures were used in conjunction with the Field Strength (50-50) propagation curves specified in 47 CFR 73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the distance to the principal community (70 dBu (decibel above 1 microVolt per meter) or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the 360 radials. 304 The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2000 block centroids were contained in the polygon. The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area. 304 47 CFR 73.313. Attachment F—FY 2006 Schedule of Regulatory Fees Fee category Annual regulatory fee (U.S. $'s) PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90) 20 Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101) 85 218-219 MHz (Formerly Interactive Video Data Service) (per license) (47 CFR part 95) 55 Marine
(Ship)(per station) (47 CFR part 80) 10 Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80) 20 General Mobile Radio Service (per license) (47 CFR part 95) 5 Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category) 10 PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90) 10 Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87) 5 Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87) 10 Amateur Vanity Call Signs (per call sign) (47 CFR part 97) 2.08 CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and 90) .20 CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24 and 90) .08 Multipoint Distribution Services (MMDS/MDS) (per license sign) (47 CFR part 21) 275 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR part 101) 275 AM Radio Construction Permits 395 FM Radio Construction Permits 575 TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF Commercial: Markets 1-10 64,775 Markets 11-25 47,775 Markets 26-50 32,875 Markets 51-100 20,450 Remaining Markets 5,025 Construction Permits 3,400 TV (47 CFR part 73) UHF Commercial: Markets 1-10 20,750 Markets 11-25 19,100 Markets 26-50 10,975 Markets 51-100 6,500 Remaining Markets 1,775 Construction Permits 1,775 Satellite Television Stations (All Markets) 1,150 Construction Permits—Satellite Television Stations 570 Low Power TV, TV/FM Translators & Boosters (47 CFR part 74) 420 Broadcast Auxiliary (47 CFR part 74) 10 CARS (47 CFR part 78) 175 Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76) .79 Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar) .00264 Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25) 215 Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) also includes Direct Broadcast Satellite Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100) 111,425 Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) 120,225 International Bearer Circuits (per active 64KB circuit) 1.47 International Public Fixed (per call sign) (47 CFR part 23) 1,925 International
(HF)Broadcast (47 CFR part 73) 820 FY 2006 Schedule of Regulatory Fees (Continued) FY 2006.—Radio Station Regulatory Fees Population served AM Class A AM Class B AM Class C AM Class D FM Classes A, B1 & C3 FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 & C2 <=25,000 625 500 400 475 575 750 25,001-75,000 1,225 950 600 725 1,150 1,325 75,001-150,000 1,850 1,200 800 1,200 1,575 2,450 150,001-500,000 2,775 2,025 1,200 1,425 2,450 3,200 500,001-1,200,000 4,000 3,100 2,000 2,375 3,875 4,700 1,200,001-3,000,00 6,150 4,750 3,000 3,800 6,325 7,500 >3,000,000 7,375 5,700 3,800 4,750 8,050 9,750 Attachment G Parties Filing Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking American Association of Paging Carriers (“AAPC”) ARCOS-1 USA, Inc., Brasil Telecom of American, Inc., Caribbean Crossing Ltd., Global Crossing Ltd., Hibernia Atlantic, Pacific Crossing Limited and PC Landing Corp. (“Joint Comments”) Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) Iowa Utilities Board (“IUB”) National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (“NTCA”) Nuvio Corporation (“Nuvio”) USA Mobility, Inc. (“USA Mobility”) Voice on the Net Coalition (“VON Coalition”) Dave Wilson Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (“WCA”) Parties Filing Reply Comments American Cable Association (“ACA”) Enterprise Wireless Alliance (“EWA”) National Cable & Telecommunication Association (“NCTA”) National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (“NECA”); the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (“NTCA”); the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (“OPASTCO”); and the Western Telecommunications Alliance (“WTA”) (“the Associations”) Voice on the Net Coalition (“VON Coalition”) Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (“WCA”) Attachment H—Rule Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 to read as follows: PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303, 309. 2. Section 1.1152 is revised to read as follows: § 1.1152 Schedule of annual regulatory fees and filing locations for wireless radio services. Exclusive use services (per license) Fee amount 1 Address 1. Land Mobile (Above 470 MHz and 220 MHz Local, Base Station & SMRS) (47 CFR Part 90)
(a)New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) $35.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 35.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(c)Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 35.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358245, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5245.
(d)Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 35.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. 220 MHz Nationwide
(a)New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 35.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 35.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(c)Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 35.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358245, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5245.
(d)Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 35.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. 2. Microwave (47 CFR Part 101) (Private)
(a)New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 40.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 40.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(c)Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 40.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358245, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5245.
(d)Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 40.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. 3. 218-219 MHz Service
(a)New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 55.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 55.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(c)Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 55.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358245, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5245.
(d)Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 55.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. 4. Shared Use Services Land Mobile (Frequencies Below 470 MHz—except 220 MHz)
(a)New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 15.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 15.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(c)Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 15.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358245, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5245.
(d)Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 15.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. General Mobile Radio Service
(a)New, Renew/Mod (FCC 605 & 159) 5.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 5.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(c)Renewal Only (FCC 605 & 159) 5.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358245, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5245.
(d)Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 5.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. Rural Radio (Part 22)
(a)New, Additional Facility, Major Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 15.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(b)Renewal, Minor Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 15.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. Marine Coast
(a)New Renewal/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 30.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)New, Renewal/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 30.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(c)Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 30.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358245, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5245.
(d)Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 30.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. Aviation Ground
(a)New, Renewal/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 10.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)New, Renewal/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 10.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(c)Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 10.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358245, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5245.
(d)Renewal Only (Electronic Only) (FCC 601 & 159) 10.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. Marine Ship
(a)New, Renewal/Mod (FCC 605 & 159) 10.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)New, Renewal/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 10.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(c)Renewal Only (FCC 605 & 159) 10.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358245, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5245.
(d)Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 10.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. Aviation Aircraft
(a)New, Renew/Mod (FCC 605 & 159) 5.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 5.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994.
(c)Renewal Only (FCC 605 & 159) 5.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358245, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5245.
(d)Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 5.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. 5. Amateur Vanity Call Signs
(a)Initial or Renew (FCC 605 & 159) 1.17 FCC, P.O. Box 358130, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5130.
(b)Initial or Renew (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 1.17 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. 6. CMRS Mobile Services (per unit) (FCC 159) 2 .18 FCC, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 7. CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (FCC 159) 2 .08 FCC, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 8. Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS and MDS) 325 FCC, Multipoint, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 9. Local Multipoint Distribution Service 325 FCC, Multipoint, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 1 Note that “small fees” are collected in advance for the entire license term. Therefore, the annual fee amount shown in this table that is a small fee (categories 1 through 5) must be multiplied by the 5- or 10-year license term, as appropriate, to arrive at the total amount of regulatory fees owed. It should be further noted that application fees may also apply as detailed in section 1.1102 of this chapter. 2 These are standard fees that are to be paid in accordance with § 1.1157(b) of this chapter. 3. Section 1.1153 is revised to read as follows: § 1.1153 Schedule of annual regulatory fees and filing locations for mass media services. Fee amount Address Radio [AM and FM] (47 CFR part 73) 1. AM Class A: <=25,000 population $625 FCC, Radio, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 25,001-75,000 population 1,225 75,001-150,000 population 1,825 150,001-500,000 population 2,750 500,001-1,200,000 population 3,950 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 6,075 >3,000,000 population 7,275 2. AM Class B: <=25,000 population 475 25,001-75,000 population 925 75,001-150,000 population 1,150 150,001-500,000 population 1,950 500,001-1,200,000 population 2,975 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 4,575 >3,000,000 population 5,475 3. AM Class C: <=25,000 population 400 25,001-75,000 population 600 75,001-150,000 population 800 150,001-500,000 population 1,200 500,001-1,200,000 population 2,000 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 3,000 >3,000,000 population 3,800 4. AM Class D: <=25,000 population 475 25,001-75,000 population 725 75,001-150,000 population 1,200 150,001-500,000 population 1,425 500,001-1,200,000 population 2,375 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 3,800 >3,000,000 population 4,750 5. AM Construction Permit 400 6. FM Classes A, B1 and C3: <=25,000 population 575 25,001-75,000 population 1,150 75,001-150,000 population 1,600 150,001-500,000 population 2,475 500,001-1,200,000 population 3,900 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 6,350 >3,000,000 population 8,075 7. FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 and C2: <=25,000 population 725 25,001-75,000 population 1,250 75,001-150,000 population 2,300 150,001-500,000 population 3,000 500,001-1,200,000 population 4,400 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 7,025 >3,000,000 population 9,125 8. FM Construction Permits 575 TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF Commercial: 1. Markets 1 thru 10 64,300 FCC, TV Branch, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 2. Markets 11 thru 25 46,350 3. Markets 26 thru 50 31,075 4. Markets 51 thru 100 20,000 5. Remaining Markets 5,125 6. Construction Permits 5,125 UHF Commercial: 1. Markets 1 thru 10 19,650 FCC, UHF Commercial, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 2. Markets 11 thru 25 19,450 3. Markets 26 thru 50 10,800 4. Markets 51 thru 100 6,300 5. Remaining Markets 1,750 6. Construction Permits 1,750 Satellite UHF/VHF Commercial: 1. All Markets 1,100 FCC Satellite TV, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 2. Construction Permits 550 Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translator, & TV/FM Booster (47 CFR part 74) 345 FCC, Low Power, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. Broadcast Auxiliary 10 FCC, Auxiliary, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 4. Section 1.1154 is revised to read as follows: § 1.1154 Schedule of annual regulatory charges and filing locations for common carrier services. Fee amount Address Radio Facilities: 1. Microwave (Domestic Public Fixed) (Electronic Filing) (FCC Form 601 & 159) $40.00 FCC, P.O. Box 358994, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5994. Carriers: 1. Interstate Telephone Service Providers (per interstate and international end-user revenues (see FCC Form 499-A) .00266 FCC, Carriers, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 5. Section 1.1155 is revised to read as follows: § 1.1155 Schedule of regulatory fees and filing locations for cable television services. Fee amount Address 1. Cable Television Relay Service $185 FCC, Cable, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 2. Cable TV System (per subscriber) .75 6. Section 1.1156 is revised to read as follows: § 1.1156 Schedule of regulatory fees and filing locations for international services. Fee amount Address Radio Facilities: 1. International
(HF)Broadcast $795 FCC, International, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. 2. International Public Fixed 1,875 FCC, International, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit) 109,200 FCC, Space Stations, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) 116,475 FCC, Space Stations, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. Earth Stations: Transmit/Receive & Transmit Only (per authorization or registration) 185 FCC, Earth Station, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. Carriers: International Bearer Circuits (per active 64KB circuit or equivalent) 1.05 FCC, International, P.O. Box 358835, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5835. Note: The following statements will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps, Approving in Part, Concurring in Part Re: Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2007, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MD Docket 07-81 I concur in today's item to emphasize my long-held and oft-repeated belief that the Commission should consider opening a formal rulemaking to address the adjustment of regulatory fees pursuant to section 9(b)(3) of the Act. In a rapidly-evolving communications marketplace, we need to look for ways to ensure that our regulatory fee methodologies continue to reflect the industries we regulate. In the absence of a separate rulemaking, I would have preferred to address the submarine cable issue in the *Further Notice* adopted herein. I hope that we act on the pending petition for rulemaking quickly. Concurring Statement of Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein Re: Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2007, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MD Docket No. 07-81 (Aug. 2, 2007) As in years past, I must concur to our Regulatory Fee Order because I remain troubled with the Commission's inability and reluctance to consider changes that occur from time to time in the costs of regulatory fees for individual services. It is particularly disappointing that the Commission misses an opportunity to address in this Further Notice the regulatory fees paid by submarine cable operators, who have argued that the current fee structure results in certain operators paying fees that can approach the wholesale prices they receive from their consumers. Given that these operators have pending a petition for rulemaking before the Commission, it is high time for the Commission to seek comment on these issues and is regrettable that we do not do so here. I encourage the Commission to continue to improve its regulatory fee assessment processes so that in the future we are more able to make adjustments as appropriate. [FR Doc. E7-15607 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 02-386; FCC 06-134] Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved, for a period of three years, the revised information collection(s) associated with the Commission's 2006 Order on Reconsideration concerning *Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers* , CG Docket No. 02-386, FCC 06-134. This notice is consistent with the Order on Reconsideration, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date of the revised rules. DATES: The rules published at 71 FR 74819, December 13, 2006, are effective August 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Marks, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0347. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document announces that, on June 25, 2007, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the revised information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 64.4002, published at 71 FR 74819, December 13, 2006. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1084. The Commission publishes this notice of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please write to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1084, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice),
(202)418-0432 (TTY). Synopsis As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on June 25, 2007, for the revised information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 64.4002. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1084. The total annual reporting burden for respondents for these collections of information, including the time for gathering and maintaining the collection of information, is estimated to be: 1,778 respondents, a total annual hourly burden of 39,840 hours, and $0 in total annual costs. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16159 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 14 RIN 1018-AT69 Regulations To Implement the Captive Wildlife Safety Act AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are implementing the Captive Wildlife Safety Act
(CWSA)in a new subpart K of part 14, Importation, Exportation, and Transportation of Wildlife, in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The CWSA amends the Lacey Act by making it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, live lions, tigers, leopards, snow leopards, clouded leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, or cougars, or any hybrid combination of any of these species, unless certain exceptions are met. DATES: This final rule is effective September 17, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Garlick, Special Agent in Charge, Branch of Investigations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
(703)358-1949. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The CWSA was signed into law on December 19, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-191). The purpose of the CWSA is to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to further the conservation of certain wildlife species and to protect the public from dangerous animals. In the early 1900s, Congress recognized the need to support States in protecting their game animals and birds by prohibiting the interstate shipment of wildlife killed in violation of State or territorial laws. Today this legislation is known as the Lacey Act, named for its principal sponsor, U.S. Representative John Fletcher Lacey. Most significantly amended in 1981, the Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife, or plants taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any Federal, State, foreign, or Native American tribal law, treaty, or regulation. The Lacey Act applies to all fish and wildlife (including their parts or products), and to wild plants (including plant parts) that are indigenous to the United States and are included in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) or are listed under a State conservation law. According to the U.S. Senate report, the Lacey Act did not explicitly address the problem of the increasing trade in certain big cat species. The big cat species addressed in this rule are the lion, tiger, leopard, snow leopard, clouded leopard, cheetah, jaguar, cougar, and any hybrid combination of any of these species. They are extremely effective predators, capable in the wild of taking down prey twice their own size. Severe damage to the prey's nervous system caused by damage to the vertebral column, along with massive blood loss and nearly instant suffocation, all contribute to the prey's certain and nearly immediate death. Regardless of whether they were raised in captivity, big cats are hunters by nature: it is impossible to predict when they will revert to instinct. Contemporary experts on big cat behavior and physiology note that humans are not part of the big cats' natural diet, largely because big cats have learned to treat humans as another predator and to be wary of the dangers of human activity (for example, hunting and habitat encroachment). When big cats and humans do share territory or interact, usually because of human activity, any number of reasons, including hunger, can cause big cats to attack and inflict serious injuries. They are wild creatures that are never completely tamed, nor are they totally predictable, even if they have lived their entire lives with humans. According to the U.S. Senate report, the ownership of big cats has dramatically increased in popularity. It is estimated that thousands of individual big cats are kept as pets in the United States. This increase is due, in part, to internet sales and auctions. This increase in popularity has raised concerns for public safety as well as for the welfare of the big cats. As big cats are often purchased when young, many owners are unable to cope with the high maintenance needs of mature big cats. Too often, the owners lack the resources and veterinary knowledge these grown cats require. In the hands of untrained exotic-pet fanciers, big cats are not only a potential danger to people, but are often victims themselves. Additionally, the burden of care often lands on already financially strained sanctuaries or humane societies after the big cats are abandoned because they are too dangerous to keep or too expensive to care for properly. According to the U.S. Senate report, over the past 10 years, there have been thousands of incidents of human injury and death documented, involving many different species of wild animals, many of which were big cats. According to the Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition, in the past 5 years there have been 123 incidents involving big cats, including 87 injuries or deaths to adults and children and 38 animal escapes. Nineteen States (Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming) prohibit the private possession of big cats. Sixteen States (Arizona, Delaware, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia) have a partial ban on possession of big cats or require permits for their possession. Fifteen States (Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) do not address the issue of private ownership of big cats. In consideration of the above information, Congress has recognized the need to address the issue of ownership of big cats on a nationwide basis. Therefore, with the passage of the CWSA, Congress amended the Lacey Act to address this issue. The CWSA amends the Lacey Act by adding prohibitions that make it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, live lions, tigers, leopards, snow leopards, clouded leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, or cougars, or any hybrid combination of any of these species, unless certain listed exceptions apply. In this final rule, we are implementing the CWSA in a new subpart K of part 14, Importation, Exportation, and Transportation of Wildlife, in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Previous Federal Action On January 31, 2006, we published a proposed rule to establish the new subpart K, including the definitions, for the CWSA (71 FR 5041). The public comment period remained open until March 2, 2006. Summary of Comments Received From the Proposed Rule We received 1,485 comments, including 1,466 form letters, in support of the proposed rule. We received 14 comments opposed to the proposed rule. Issues Raised in the Public Comments Issue #1: Private Ownership of Big Cats We received 11 comments addressing the ownership of big cats including 7 stating that the regulations to implement the CWSA should not ban private ownership, 1 stating that the regulations to implement the CWSA should ban private ownership, 2 stating that private ownership was not impacting public safety, and 1 stating that denying private ownership will have an adverse effect on productivity and innovation. Our Response: Regulations must be consistent with Congress' intent for the statute. The CWSA prohibits the importation, exportation, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, of the prohibited wildlife species. However, the CWSA does not prohibit the ownership or possession of the prohibited wildlife species. The CWSA does not address all safety issues with privately owned big cats, although the statute does provide improved safety for the public by limiting the exception for accredited wildlife sanctuaries to those that prohibit direct contact with the prohibited wildlife species. The CWSA should not have a major impact on productivity or innovation, since it does not prohibit the acquisition or possession of the prohibited wildlife species within a given State. Issue #2: Transportation of Pets Across State Lines We received 25 comments stating that the CWSA should not regulate the transportation of personal property across State lines. Comments specified that:
(1)The CWSA should allow interstate household moves;
(2)Animals will be placed at risk when they are in need of veterinary care for those owners that have providers across State lines;
(3)The feline community will be prevented from moving displaced big cats;
(4)Interstate transport is vital to propagation; and
(5)Private owners should be able to transport big cats across State lines for donation to U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) facilities or accredited sanctuaries. Our Response: Congress set the prohibitions under the CWSA, which include the import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, of any of the prohibited wildlife species. The prohibitions and exemptions contained in the CWSA are clearly stated, and we cannot develop regulations that alter these prohibitions or create exemptions for additional activities such as household moves, without the authority from Congress. It is important to note that the transport prohibition contained in the CWSA applies to any transportation of the prohibited wildlife species in interstate or foreign commerce, not only to transportation that involves commercial activity. This prohibition is based upon the accepted legal definition of interstate commerce, which includes the transportation of property between any U.S. State, territory or jurisdiction. That means that any person who owns a live specimen of a prohibited wildlife species and who wants to transport the animal in interstate commerce as a pet, for veterinary care or even as part of a household move, is not allowed to do so under the prohibitions contained in the CWSA unless they qualify under one of the exemptions. If need be, APHIS-licensed organizations, accredited wildlife sanctuaries, or other entities exempted under the CWSA could make arrangements for the transportation across State lines of displaced big cats or for the transportation of big cats that are being donated to exempted entities by private individuals. Though we recognize that there may be reasons to transport the prohibited wildlife species across State lines for the purposes of propagation, the large number of big cats within the United States suggests that there are likely to be opportunities for propagation within a given State, which would not be prohibited under the CWSA. Issue #3: Public Safety We received eight comments regarding public safety and big cats, including five comments stating that the CWSA is falsely based on the need for public safety and three comments stating that the CWSA does not provide increased public safety. Our Response: Statistics show a considerable number of injuries or deaths attributable to big cats. This number is likely to increase as the ownership of big cats increases in popularity, with many of the specimens ultimately being placed in sanctuaries that are accessible to the general public. The CWSA does not address all safety issues with privately owned big cats, although the statute does provide improved safety for the public by limiting the exception for accredited wildlife sanctuaries to those that prohibit direct contact with the prohibited wildlife species. Issue #4: Influence of the Animal-Rights Movement or Animal Sanctuaries We received 11 comments questioning the influence of the animal-rights movement or animal sanctuary operators on the development of the regulations to implement the CWSA, including the prominent role of the Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition. These comments stated that these organizations might attempt to influence us in the development of these regulations. Our Response: Neither the animal-rights movement nor any animal sanctuary operators improperly influenced us in the development of the regulations to implement the CWSA. One particular organization, the Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition, did provide data for a U.S. Senate Report that was drafted during the development of the CWSA, and we referenced that data in the proposed rule (71 FR 5041). We impartially considered all relevant information, including information received from the public, during the development of the final rule. Issue # 5: Validity of Statistics on Incidents of Human Injury or Death Attributed to Big Cats We received five comments questioning the validity of statistics on incidents of human injury or death attributed to big cats. Our Response: As we have clarified in the preamble of this final rule, the statistics on incidents of human injury or death attributed to big cats were included in a U.S. Senate Report that was drafted during the development of the CWSA. These statistics thus served as part of Congress' basis for enacting the CWSA and were referenced for informational purposes in the proposed rule (71 FR 5041) and this final rule, but were not used in the development of our regulations to implement the CWSA. Issue # 6: Accuracy of Big Cat Ownership Statistics We received two comments questioning the accuracy of big cat ownership statistics in the preamble of the proposed rule. Our Response: As we have clarified in the preamble of this final rule, the discussion on ownership statistics in the preamble of the proposed rule was included in a U.S. Senate Report that was drafted during the development of the CWSA. The report was referenced for informational purposes in the proposed rule and this final rule to illustrate the Congressional intent behind the CWSA, but the statistics were not used in the development of the regulations to implement the CWSA. Issue # 7: Accuracy of the Nature of Big Cats We received four comments questioning the nature of big cats and the inability of owners to cope with big cats detailed in the preamble of the proposed rule. Our Response: As we have clarified in the preamble of this final rule, the supporting information on the nature of big cats and the inability of owners to cope with big cats in the preamble of the proposed rule was included in a U.S. Senate Report that was drafted during the development of the CWSA. This information served as part of Congress' basis for enacting the CWSA and was referenced for informational purposes in the proposed rule and this final rule, but was not used in the development of the regulations to implement the CWSA. Issue # 8: Protection of Wild Populations We received eight comments that the CWSA does not promote the conservation of wild populations of the prohibited wildlife species. Our Response: The CWSA primarily addresses public safety. Most captive big cats now in the United States were bred here, and the demand for these animals continues to be met without any impact on wild populations. In fact, even the endangered big cats moving in the domestic exotic pet trade are considered of little value to the ultimate survival of the species. We have no evidence to suggest that the popularity of these prohibited wildlife species in the U.S. pet trade has prompted removal of these animals from the wild, or that this trend represents a threat in any way to the conservation of the big cats. Issue # 9: Species Covered in the Proposed Rule We received five comments suggesting that the list of prohibited species includes species not authorized by Congress and suggesting changes to the list of prohibited wildlife species. These suggested changes include expanding the definition to include all wild and exotic cat species or reducing the definition to include only the lion, tiger, and jaguar, and not including the cougar as a prohibited species and not making hybrids subject to the CWSA. Our Response: We have reviewed the intent of Congress with regard to the actual species to be included in the definition of “prohibited wildlife species” under the CWSA, since scientific names were not included in the CWSA. However, scientific names for “prohibited wildlife species,” and any hybrids resulting from breeding of any combination of any of the prohibited wildlife species, were included in the report accompanying S. 269, the Senate version of the CWSA. Based upon this report, we conclude that Congress intended to include the lion ( *Panthera leo* ), tiger ( *Panthera tigris* ), leopard ( *Panthera pardus* ), snow leopard ( *Uncia uncia* ), clouded leopard ( *Neofelis nebulosa* ), jaguar ( *Panthera onca* ), cheetah ( *Acinonyx jubatus* ), and cougar ( *Puma concolor* ), including all subspecies of each of these species, or any hybrid combination of any of these species. Therefore, we are making no changes to the list of prohibited species under the CWSA. Issue # 10: Accreditation of Wildlife Sanctuaries We received 20 comments suggesting changes to the accreditation of wildlife sanctuaries in the proposed rule. Comments recommended that: • We clarify the breeding prohibitions in these sanctuaries; • We better explain how we will monitor these sanctuaries; • Sanctuaries should not be self-accredited, but rather accredited by an outside accrediting organization; • One organization's resource might be of assistance in helping us develop the criteria for accredited sanctuaries; • Proof of sterilization should remove the restriction of having male and female specimens in the same cage; • Legitimate sanctuaries should not be denied the right to possess the prohibited wildlife species; • Breeding should be allowed in wildlife sanctuaries; • The determination of whether an accredited wildlife sanctuary can breed should be made by an accrediting organization; • The requirement to keep opposite sexes housed separately may be costly or impractical; • Wildlife sanctuaries should not have to be tax-exempt; • Commercial trade should not be considered when evaluating wildlife sanctuaries; • Recordkeeping requirements on wildlife sanctuaries will create serious financial and resource burdens on those sanctuaries; • The $15,000 annual burden estimate for recordkeeping may cripple a small sanctuary; and • We specify what happens if a sanctuary does not meet the criteria to be accredited. Our Response: The CWSA specifically states that an accredited sanctuary must be tax-exempt, it must not commercially trade in the prohibited wildlife species, and it must not breed the prohibited wildlife species. Our definition of “propagate” clearly addresses that restriction. Our monitoring of these sanctuaries is accomplished through the requirement that accredited wildlife sanctuaries must maintain complete and accurate records of any possession, transportation, acquisition, disposition, importation, or exportation of the prohibited wildlife species and that these records must be accessible to Service officials for inspection upon request, at reasonable hours. We considered options for developing some type of formal accreditation mechanism for wildlife sanctuaries, but concluded for a number of reasons that such a step was not practical. The CWSA itself sets specific criteria that must be met for a sanctuary to qualify as “accredited.” We have decided that if a sanctuary meets these four criteria, it will qualify as accredited and be exempt from CWSA prohibitions. Other sanctuaries that do not meet these criteria will continue to be able to possess big cats but will not be able to import, export or transport them in interstate or foreign commerce. In the proposed rule (71 FR 5041), January 31, 2006, we stated that placing male and female big cats in the same cage for any period of time may result in breeding and is considered propagation; however, we recognize that sterilization will prevent propagation and that proof of that sterilization should assist a sanctuary in qualifying as “accredited.” We will only consider a wildlife sanctuary to be exempt from the prohibitions of the CWSA if it meets the four criteria for accredited wildlife sanctuaries provided in the CWSA. We are requiring accredited wildlife sanctuaries to maintain complete and accurate records of any possession, transportation, sale, acquisition, purchase, barter, disposition, importation, or exportation of the prohibited wildlife species. However, we do not anticipate that this recordkeeping requirement will impose any significant burden, because the maintenance of these records is typically a normal business practice. Most wildlife sanctuaries will likely only have custody of a limited number of specimens of the prohibited wildlife species. Therefore, complying with the requirement to make records available can likely be met by making available and copying, if needed, a small number of documents pertaining to the possession, transportation, acquisition, disposition, importation, or exportation of the prohibited wildlife species, which we estimate can be completed in an hour or less. We estimate that there are no more than 750 wildlife sanctuaries that could qualify for the “accredited wildlife sanctuary” exemption. The total estimated annual burden for complying with this recordkeeping requirement for all of these wildlife sanctuaries combined should be 750 hours or less. We estimate that the average wage of individuals likely to be providing these documents is $20.00 per hour. Therefore, the total estimated cost of this recordkeeping requirement for all of these wildlife sanctuaries would be $15,000.00, if we requested that all wildlife sanctuaries copy their records. The estimated annual cost of this recordkeeping requirement for each wildlife sanctuary is $20.00. Issue #11: Other Exemptions Under the CWSA We received 15 comments on certain other exemptions under the CWSA. These comments included the following: • The definition of a “licensed” person is too broad; • Only wildlife sanctuaries should be allowed to possess the prohibited species; • The exemption for State-licensed veterinarians or registered persons is invalid; • The registered person exemption needs to be clarified; • The proposed criteria and recordkeeping requirements for accredited wildlife sanctuaries should be extended to all of the exempted entities; • All exempted entities should prohibit direct contact, breeding, and selling; • Specific facility and caging requirements should be established; • Legitimate organizations should not have to justify their existence; • Nonlicensed entities should be allowed to transport live big cats through the use of registered persons; • A hobbyist or fancier's exemption should be created in the regulations to implement the CWSA; • A blanket exemption should be created for public charities that are not regulated by any government agency other than the Internal Revenue Service; and • Careless or incompetent owners should be prevented from obtaining APHIS permits. Our Response: The exemptions provided in the CWSA are clearly stated, and we cannot develop regulations that are contrary to Congress' intent for those exemptions, remove any of those exemptions, or create additional exemptions. The CWSA and these regulations do not address who can possess big cats. The CWSA does provide an exemption for registered persons transporting these prohibited wildlife species. Specific facility and caging requirements for APHIS-licensed organizations are not addressed in the CWSA and are not included in our regulations to implement the CWSA. Specific facility and caging requirements are governed by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), so any person licensed or registered under the AWA will be subject to those requirements. Also, States may have requirements for contact between people and animals, breeding, selling, and care, and State-licensed universities, wildlife rehabilitators, and veterinarians would be subject to those requirements. The CWSA itself sets specific conditions that must be met for an “accredited sanctuary” to be exempted. If a sanctuary meets these four criteria, even without meeting specific facility and caging requirements, we will recognize it as accredited and exempt it from CWSA prohibitions. We will consider an organization to be covered by an exemption only if it's qualified for one of the exemptions provided in the CWSA. The CWSA does not require legitimate organizations to justify their existence. If an organization does not qualify, it does not necessarily mean that it is not legitimate. It simply means that it cannot move big cats under the exemptions provided in the CWSA. In order for a hobbyist, fancier, or a public charity to be exempted from the prohibitions of the CWSA, it would have to qualify for one of the existing exemptions provided in the CWSA. APHIS standards are not addressed in the CWSA and are not included in the regulations to implement the CWSA. Persons licensed or registered by APHIS under the AWA must comply with AWA requirements and will be held accountable under those standards by APHIS. Issue # 12: Licensing of Entities by APHIS We received six comments suggesting that APHIS should not license any of the entities exempted under the CWSA, or that APHIS should license exempted wildlife sanctuaries, or that the standards APHIS uses in licensing entities should be strengthened because they currently don't ensure public safety or animal welfare. Our Response: The role that APHIS plays in the implementation of the CWSA is clearly defined in the CWSA itself, and includes the licensing or registration of certain entities that meet APHIS standards. APHIS standards are not addressed in the CWSA and are not included in our regulations to implement the CWSA. Persons licensed or registered by APHIS under the AWA must comply with AWA requirements and will be held accountable under those standards by APHIS. Issue # 13: State or Local Regulation We received seven comments addressing the State or local regulation of these prohibited wildlife species and public safety. These commenters asserted that:
(1)This issue was most effectively addressed at the State or local level;
(2)If needed, these regulations should clearly indicate that they take precedence over State law;
(3)Enforcement of the CWSA should be proactive and coordinated at all levels of government;
(4)The information on State prohibitions in the preamble of the proposed rule was inaccurate;
(5)The CWSA should not support State restrictions; and
(6)The compartmentalization of these prohibited wildlife species within States will lead to additional State restrictions. Our Response: Regulating the prohibited wildlife species and public safety at the State or local level is not the purpose of the CWSA. In fact, Congress specifically provided that nothing in the CWSA preempts or supercedes the authority of a State to regulate those species within the State. Rather, the CWSA makes it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, any prohibited wildlife species. We will welcome the coordination of the enforcement of the CWSA at all levels of government when there are opportunities for State or local government involvement. Information on the State prohibitions in the preamble of the proposed rule was included in a U.S. Senate Report that was drafted during the development of the CWSA. This information was included for informational purposes in the proposed rule and this final rule, but was not used in the development of our regulations to implement the CWSA. Issue # 14: Direct Contact With the Prohibited Wildlife Species We received three comments suggesting that the direct contact prohibition for accredited wildlife sanctuaries should be extended to keepers and caregivers and that these keepers and caregivers should be properly trained professionals and that the direct contact prohibition in the CWSA is already prohibited or heavily regulated by APHIS under the AWA. Our Response: It was Congress' intent that the direct contact restriction in the CWSA apply only to accredited wildlife sanctuaries. The extent to which direct contact is already regulated under the AWA must be determined by APHIS. If an entity becomes licensed or registered by APHIS, it would be entitled to the APHIS exemption contained in the CWSA, regardless of whether it qualifies for the accredited wildlife sanctuary exemption. Issue # 15: Captive-Bred Wildlife
(CBW)Regulations We received one comment stating that there needs to be clarification of the method to obtain a CBW registration in order to prevent a CBW registration from becoming a loophole to obtain the prohibited wildlife species under the CWSA. Our Response: Under our CBW regulations (50 CFR 17.21), individuals may export; re-import; deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce certain endangered wildlife species as long as specific requirements are met. Prohibited wildlife species under the CWSA that are eligible for CBW regulation are the tiger, leopard, snow leopard, clouded leopard, jaguar, and cheetah. The new CWSA restrictions are in addition to the CBW regulations. Any person who wishes to engage in the specified activities authorized by the CWSA who is also regulated under the CBW regulations must comply with both, unless they qualify under one of the CWSA exemptions. Issue # 16: Freedom of Religion and the Human Environment We received two comments stating that the CWSA violates the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and will have a negative impact on the human environment regarding, for example, the spiritual bond between an owner and a big cat. Our Response: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The law is clear, however, that religious beliefs do not allow people to engage in unlawful activities that could potentially endanger public safety. This regulation is based on the CWSA, the purpose of which is to amend the Lacey Act amendments of 1981 to further the conservation of certain wildlife species and to protect the public from dangerous animals. The Government has a clear and compelling interest in regulating activities that have been shown to be harmful to public health or safety. These regulations and the CWSA are neutral. Any person may seek to qualify for one of the exemptions under the CWSA; they need only meet the requirements for the exemption. In addition, nothing in the CWSA or these regulations prohibits possession of these species or limits use or movement of these species within a State. The CWSA limits only the ability to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, the prohibited wildlife species. Issue # 17: Native American Use of the Cougar We received one comment stating that Native Americans should be exempt from the prohibitions for cougars. Our Response: Congress did not provide an exemption for Native American use of cougars. Therefore, Native Americans must meet the same regulatory requirements as other individuals who import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, the prohibited wildlife species. Issue # 18: Providing Financial Assistance To Help Carry Out the CWSA We received two comments stating that financial assistance should be provided to assist organizations that are developing new techniques for the care and maintenance of the prohibited wildlife species and to establish sanctuaries that will be needed for the placement of these prohibited wildlife species resulting from CWSA prohibitions. Our Response: This rulemaking establishes regulations that will enable us to enforce the CWSA. Providing financial assistance from funds allocated under the CWSA or funds from other sources is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Issue # 19: The CWSA Subverts the Original Intent of the Lacey Act We received one comment stating that the CWSA subverts the original intent of the Lacey Act. Our Response: Congress chose to regulate certain activities with wildlife under the Lacey Act. Congress has now determined that it is appropriate to regulate similar activities with the listed species, and chose to adopt these measures through amendment of the Lacey Act. Issue # 20: The CWSA Is Raising a Novel Issue We received one comment stating that the CWSA is raising a novel issue, under Executive Order 12866, by making illegal an activity that is currently legal. Our Response: Laws often make formerly legal activities illegal. These regulations, as required under the CWSA, implement that law. Issue # 21: Takings We received one comment stating that the CWSA may result in takings, under Executive Order 12630, when an individual is moving a big cat across State lines. Our Response: We have analyzed this regulation under Executive Order 12630 and have determined that it does not result in takings. This rule only prohibits importing, exporting, transporting, selling, receiving, acquiring, or purchasing, in interstate or foreign commerce, of the prohibited wildlife species. This rule does not directly result in physical occupancy or acquisition of property or physical invasion of property by the Government without compensation. Furthermore, this rule also does not result in a regulatory taking. The CWSA serves a legitimate public interest by promoting public safety and preventing interstate exploitation of the prohibited wildlife species. The rule does not so severely restrict the owner's use of his or her property as to deprive the owner of all economically beneficial use of the property. The owner may still possess big cat species or buy or sell them within the owner's State. Also, an owner who is relocating to another State may move his or her big cat if exempted under 50 CFR 14.255. Conclusion In 2003, Congress enacted the CWSA to prohibit the import, export, sale, receipt, acquisition or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, of certain live wildlife species except by persons who meet the criteria of specific, listed exemptions. The new prohibitions become applicable on the effective date of final regulations that implement the statutory provisions. Thus, with this final rule, it will be unlawful for any person to engage in the prohibited activities unless they qualify under one of the exemptions. Required Determinations Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) This rule has been reviewed by OMB under Executive Order 12866. Under the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule is not a significant regulatory action. a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required. The purpose of this rule is to regulate the movement of the prohibited wildlife species and to provide improved safety for the public by limiting the exception for accredited wildlife sanctuaries to those that prohibit direct contact with the prohibited wildlife species. The ESA already regulates the interstate sale or movement of tigers, leopards, snow leopards, clouded leopards, jaguars, and cheetahs. The CWSA would, therefore, have no substantial additional impact on commerce. Our records indicate that in the period from 2001 through 2003: 164 tigers were imported, and 123 were exported; 53 leopards were imported, and 39 were exported; 2 snow leopards were imported, and 4 were exported; 9 jaguars were imported, and 5 were exported; and 43 cheetahs were imported. These specimens were imported or exported by organizations who qualified for authorizations under the ESA and who would likely qualify for one of the exemptions contained in the CWSA. Therefore, the CWSA would not have any substantial economic effect by restricting importations or exportations of these species. Under our CBW regulations (50 CFR 17.21), individuals may export; re-import; deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce certain endangered wildlife species as long as specific requirements are met. Prohibited wildlife species under the CWSA that are eligible for CBW regulation include tigers, leopards, snow leopards, clouded leopards, jaguars, and cheetahs. There are approximately 350 approved CBW registrations, of which approximately 100 authorize activities with the prohibited wildlife species in the CWSA. However, it must be noted that most, if not all, CBW registration holders are APHIS licensed and are therefore exempted from the provisions of the CWSA. Therefore, the CWSA would not have any substantial economic effect on this segment of the live animal industry by restricting activities currently authorized under CBW regulation. CITES prohibits most trade in tigers, leopards, snow leopards, clouded leopards, jaguars, and cheetahs. However, CITES regulates, though does not necessarily prohibit, the international trade of African lions and cougars. The CWSA could, therefore, have some impact on limiting imports or exports of African lions and cougars. Our records indicate that, in the period from 2001 through 2003, 22 African lions were imported and 15 were exported, and 14 cougars were imported and 19 were exported. Some of these importations or exportations may have been for commercial purposes; however, most, if not all, of the individuals who would be importing or exporting live African lions and cougars would probably qualify for one of the exemptions contained in the CWSA. Therefore, the CWSA would not have any substantial economic effect by restricting importations or exportations of these species. The CWSA will prohibit the import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce, of African lions and cougars by individuals or businesses that would not qualify for one of the exemptions contained in the CWSA, even if those by individuals or businesses would qualify under CITES. Because we believe that there are very few people in this category, these restrictions are not expected to have a substantial economic effect on this segment of the live animal industry. The CWSA will have its greatest potential impact on the import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, of hybrids produced from the breeding of any combination of any of the prohibited wildlife species, by individuals who would not qualify for one of the exemptions contained in the CWSA. Hybrids produced from the breeding of any combination of tigers, leopards, snow leopards, clouded leopards, jaguars, or cheetahs would be exempt from the provisions of the ESA but not from the provisions of the CWSA. Generally speaking, the most common hybrids resulting from the breeding of any combination of any of the prohibited wildlife species would the liger (a male lion and a female tiger) or the tiglon (a male tiger and a female lion). Numerous Web sites promote the existence of these hybrids, suggesting that there may be some demand for these animals for use as pets or for display purposes. We do not maintain domestic trade data on these hybrids; therefore, it is difficult to estimate the impact the CWSA will have on this segment of the live animal industry. In addition to amending the Lacey Act by adding prohibitions that make it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, the prohibited wildlife species, the CWSA provides exemptions to these prohibitions for certain persons. Becoming eligible for these exemptions should not have any substantial economic effect on this segment of the live animal industry. The only direct costs to be assumed by individuals who seek an exemption to the prohibitions of the CWSA would be the costs associated with the application process and with meeting APHIS compliance requirements to become licensed or registered under the AWA and the costs associated with meeting compliance requirements in order to become a State-licensed wildlife rehabilitator. The costs for meeting APHIS compliance requirements under the AWA are difficult to quantify because these costs are extremely variable, depending on the nature of the business of the individual who seeks to become licensed or registered. Application costs will vary, depending on the nature of the business of the individual. Licenses issued by APHIS under the AWA must be renewed every year with a standard application fee of $10.00. Additional application costs are based upon the nature of the business of the individual and the size of that business. Additional application costs for animal exhibitors can range from $30.00 to $300.00 per year, depending on the number of animals on exhibit. Additional application costs for animal dealers can range from $30.00 to $500.00 per year, depending on the anticipated annual income of the business. In addition to application fees, the costs for meeting APHIS compliance requirements can vary, depending on the current facilities maintained by the individual and to what degree those facilities meet those requirements. Construction costs for new facilities may also need to be increased in order to achieve compliance. The costs for meeting compliance requirements in order to become a State-licensed wildlife rehabilitator are difficult to quantify because these costs are extremely variable, depending on the State where the applicant resides and the current facilities maintained by the individual and to what degree those facilities meet those requirements. Each wildlife sanctuary that intends to qualify under the exemption to the prohibitions of the CWSA is prohibited from commercially trading in the prohibited wildlife species or the species' offspring, parts, or byproducts, and from propagating any of the prohibited wildlife species. Though this requirement may result in lost revenue for the sanctuary, it is not expected to result in a substantial negative economic effect for sanctuaries as a whole. In addition, if the owner of a sanctuary chooses to commercially trade in the prohibited wildlife species, he or she should become licensed or registered with APHIS under the AWA, and would thus qualify for that exemption in the CWSA. The CWSA provides an exemption for individuals transporting live specimens of the prohibited wildlife species between individuals who qualify for one of the other exemptions provided in the CWSA. This rule requires that the transporting individuals produce evidence to prove that they are transporting specimens between other exempted individuals. However, these requirements would not increase costs for the transporting individuals because APHIS already requires these individuals to be registered by meeting similar requirements. In addition to amending the Lacey Act by adding prohibitions that make it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, the prohibited wildlife species, the CWSA provides improved safety for the public by limiting the exception for accredited wildlife sanctuaries to those that prohibit direct contact with the prohibited wildlife species. Activities that might result in direct contact between the prohibited wildlife species and any member of the public, such as photography, play sessions, or offsite programs, would prevent an otherwise accredited wildlife sanctuary from qualifying for the exemption. Though this requirement may result in lost revenue for sanctuaries, it is not expected to result in a substantial negative economic effect for wildlife sanctuaries as a whole. b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. We are the lead Federal agency regulating international wildlife trade, the issuance of permits to conduct activities affecting federally protected wildlife and their habitats, and carrying out the United States' obligations under CITES. Therefore, this rule has no effect on other agencies' responsibilities and will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. In addition, 19 States prohibit the private possession of big cats, and 16 States have a partial ban on possession of big cats or require permits for their possession. Therefore, the CWSA does not create inconsistencies with these States'restrictions, but rather supports them. c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This rule will not change the fee schedule for any permits issued by us or any licenses or registrations issued by APHIS. d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues because it is based upon Congress's passage of the CWSA, which reflects a heightened concern for public safety resulting from the increased trade in the prohibited wildlife species for use as pets and the increased risk of danger to members of the public when given opportunities for direct contact with the prohibited wildlife species. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). An initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. In addition, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. This rule regulates businesses that commercially trade in the prohibited wildlife species in interstate or foreign commerce. The purpose of this rule is to regulate the movement of these prohibited wildlife species and to provide improved safety for the public by limiting the exception for accredited wildlife sanctuaries to those that prohibit direct contact with the prohibited wildlife species. Most of the businesses that commercially trade in the prohibited wildlife species in interstate or foreign commerce, would be considered small businesses as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. These businesses are most logically placed in three primary industries: Zoos and Botanical Gardens; Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions; and All Other Animal Production. The SBA size standard for the first two industries is $6 million in average annual receipts, and the SBA size standard for the third industry is $750,000 in average annual receipts. However, it should be noted that the nature of these businesses would require that most, if not all, of them must be licensed or registered under the AWA by APHIS, making them eligible for one of the exemptions provided in the CWSA. However, we recognize that there may be a small number of small businesses that do not fit into any of the above categories and are not eligible for one of the exemptions provided in the CWSA. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)) This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. a. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. For the reasons described above, we have determined that this rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It is not anticipated that the restrictions imposed by the CWSA and the costs to become eligible for the exemptions contained in the CWSA will amount to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The CWSA provides exemptions to its prohibitions for certain persons. Becoming eligible for these exemptions will increase costs for the live animal industry; however, as described above, we do not expect these increased costs to be major. The only direct costs to be assumed by individuals who seek an exemption to the prohibitions of the CWSA would be the costs associated with the application process and meeting compliance requirements in order to become licensed or registered under the AWA with APHIS, and the costs associated with meeting compliance requirements in order to become a State-licensed wildlife rehabilitator. c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The CWSA will not have significant adverse effects on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises because foreign-based enterprises that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction must comply with the same regulatory requirements as U.S.-based enterprises who buy or sell the prohibited wildlife species in interstate or foreign commerce. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), this rule will have no effects. a. This rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. We are the lead Federal agency regulating international wildlife trade, the issuance of permits to conduct activities affecting federally protected wildlife and their habitats, and carrying out the United States' obligations under CITES. No small government assistance or impact is expected as a result of this rule. b. This rule will not produce a Federal requirement that may result in the combined expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments of $100 million or greater in any year, so it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This rule will not result in any combined expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments. Executive Order 12630 (Takings) Under Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. Under Executive Order 12630, this rule does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. We have analyzed this regulation under Executive Order 12630 and have determined that it does not result in takings. This rule only prohibits importing, exporting, transporting, selling, receiving, acquiring, or purchasing, in interstate or foreign commerce, of the prohibited wildlife species. This rule does not result in physical occupancy of property or physical invasion of property by the Government. Furthermore, this rule also does not result in a regulatory taking. The CWSA serves a legitimate public interest by promoting public safety and preventing interstate exploitation of the prohibited wildlife species. The rule does not so severely restrict the owner's use of his or her property as to deprive the owner of all economically beneficial use of the property. The owner may still possess big cat species or buy or sell them within the owner's State. Also, an owner who is relocating to another State may move his or her big cat if exempted under 50 CFR 14.255. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Addressing the prohibited wildlife species and public safety at the State or local level is not the purpose of the CWSA. The CWSA does not take precedence over State law. The CWSA makes it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, the prohibited wildlife species. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not overly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ensure clarity, has been written to minimize lawsuits, provides a clear legal standard for affected actions, and specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule contains new information collection requirements for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The information collection associated with this rule has been approved under OMB control number 1018-0129, which expires on June 30, 2010. We are requiring wildlife sanctuaries that seek to qualify as an “accredited wildlife sanctuary” under the CWSA to maintain complete and accurate records of any possession, transportation, acquisition, disposition, importation, or exportation of the prohibited wildlife species. These records must be up to date, and include:
(1)The names and addresses of persons to or from whom any prohibited wildlife species has been acquired, imported, exported, purchased, sold, or otherwise transferred; and
(2)the dates of these transactions. Accredited wildlife sanctuaries must maintain these records for 5 years, must make these records accessible to Service officials for inspection at reasonable hours, and must copy these records for Service officials, if requested. This rule does not contain any requirement that wildlife sanctuaries must submit an application to qualify as an “accredited wildlife sanctuary.” The requirement to make records available will be initiated on an as-needed basis. We estimate that there are no more than 750 wildlife sanctuaries that could qualify for the “accredited wildlife sanctuary” exemption. We do not anticipate that this recordkeeping requirement will impose any significant burden, because the maintenance of these records is typically a normal business practice. Most wildlife sanctuaries will likely only have custody of a limited number of specimens of the prohibited wildlife species. Therefore, complying with the requirement to make records available can likely be met by making available and copying, if needed, a small number of documents pertaining to the possession, transportation, acquisition, disposition, importation, or exportation of the prohibited wildlife species, which we estimate can be completed in an hour or less. The total estimated annual burden for complying with this recordkeeping requirement for all of these wildlife sanctuaries combined should be 750 hours or less. We estimate that the average wage of individuals likely to be providing these documents is $20.00 per hour. Therefore, the total estimated cost of this recordkeeping requirement for all of these wildlife sanctuaries would be $15,000.00, if we requested that all wildlife sanctuaries copy their records. The estimated annual cost of this recordkeeping requirement for each wildlife sanctuary is $20.00. National Environmental Policy Act This rule has been analyzed under the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and 318 DM 2.2
(g)and 6.3 (D). This rule does not amount to a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact statement/evaluation is not required. This rule is categorically excluded from further National Environmental Policy Act requirements, under part 516 of the Departmental Manual, Chapter 2, Appendix 1.10. This rule is a regulation that is of an administrative, legal, technical, or procedural nature and its environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis under NEPA. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) and 512 DM 2 (Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes) Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no adverse effects. Individual tribal members must meet the same regulatory requirements as other individuals who import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, the prohibited wildlife species. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. The purpose of this rule is to regulate the movement of the prohibited wildlife species and to provide improved safety for the public by limiting the exception for accredited wildlife sanctuaries to those that prohibit direct contact with the prohibited wildlife species. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and it is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Author The originator of this final rule is Mark Phillips, OLE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 14 Animal welfare, Exports, Fish, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife. Regulation Promulgation For the reasons described above, we amend part 14, subchapter B of Chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below. PART 14—IMPORTATION, EXPORTATION, AND TRANSPORTATION OF WILDLIFE 1. The authority citation for part 14 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 668, 704, 712, 1382, 1538(d)-(f), 1540(f), 3371-3378, 4223-4244, and 4901-4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 31 U.S.C. 9701. 2. Revise § 14.3 to read as follows: § 14.3 Information collection requirements. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part 14 under 44 U.S.C. 3507 and assigned OMB Control Numbers 1018-0012, 1018-0092, and 1018-0129. The Service may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. You can direct comments regarding these information collection requirements to the Service's Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203
(mail)or
(703)358-2269 (fax). 3. Add a new subpart K to read as follows: Subpart K—Captive Wildlife Safety Act Sec. 14.250 What is the purpose of these regulations? 14.251 What other regulations may apply? 14.252 What definitions do I need to know? 14.253 What are the restrictions contained in these regulations? 14.254 What are the requirements contained in these regulations? 14.255 Are there any exemptions to the restrictions contained in these regulations? Subpart K—Captive Wildlife Safety Act § 14.250 What is the purpose of these regulations? The regulations in this subpart implement the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (CWSA), 117 Stat. 2871, which amended the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378, by adding paragraphs 2(g), 3(a)(2)(C), and 3(e) (16 U.S.C. 3371, 3372). § 14.251 What other regulations may apply? The provisions of this subpart are in addition to, and are not in place of, other regulations of this subchapter B that may require a permit or describe additional restrictions or conditions for the importation, exportation, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase of wildlife in interstate or foreign commerce. § 14.252 What definitions do I need to know? In addition to the definitions contained in part 10 of this subchapter, and unless the context otherwise requires, in this subpart: *Accredited wildlife sanctuary* means a facility that cares for live specimens of one or more of the prohibited wildlife species and:
(1)Is approved by the United States Internal Revenue Service as a corporation that is exempt from taxation under § 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which is described in §§ 501(c)(3) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of that code;
(2)Does not commercially trade in prohibited wildlife species, including offspring, parts, and products;
(3)Does not propagate any of the prohibited wildlife species; and
(4)Does not allow any direct contact between the public and the prohibited wildlife species. *Direct contact* means any situation in which any individual other than an authorized keeper or caregiver may potentially touch or otherwise come into physical contact with any live specimen of the prohibited wildlife species. *Licensed person* means any individual, facility, agency, or other entity that holds a valid license from and is inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA)(7 U.S.C. 2131 *et seq.* ) (See definition of “licensee” in 9 CFR 1.1.). *Prohibited wildlife species* means a specimen of any of the following eight species: Lion ( *Panthera leo* ), tiger ( *Panthera tigris* ), leopard ( *Panthera pardus* ), snow leopard ( *Uncia uncia* ), clouded leopard ( *Neofelis nebulosa* ), jaguar ( *Panthera onca* ), cheetah ( *Acinonyx jubatus* ), and cougar ( *Puma concolor* ) or any hybrids resulting from the breeding of any combination of any of these species, for example, a liger (a male lion and a female tiger) or a tiglon (a male tiger and a female lion), whether naturally or artificially produced. *Propagate* means to allow or facilitate the production of offspring of any of the prohibited wildlife species, by any means. *Registered person* means any individual, facility, agency, or other entity that is registered with and inspected by APHIS under the AWA (See definition of “registrant” in 9 CFR 1.1.). § 14.253 What are the restrictions contained in these regulations? Except as provided in § 14.255, it is unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase, in interstate or foreign commerce, any live prohibited wildlife species. § 14.254 What are the requirements contained in these regulations? In order to qualify for the exemption in § 14.255, an accredited wildlife sanctuary must maintain complete and accurate records of any possession, transportation, acquisition, disposition, importation, or exportation of the prohibited wildlife species covered by the CWSA. These records must be up to date, and must include the names and addresses of persons to or from whom any prohibited wildlife species has been acquired, imported, exported, purchased, sold, or otherwise transferred; and the dates of these transactions. The accredited wildlife sanctuary must maintain these records for 5 years, must make these records available to Service officials for inspection at reasonable hours, and must copy these records for Service officials, if requested. In addition, by declaring itself to be accredited under this subpart, a wildlife sanctuary agrees to allow access to its facilities and its prohibited wildlife specimens by Service officials at reasonable hours. § 14.255 Are there any exemptions to the restrictions contained in these regulations? The prohibitions of § 14.253 do not apply to:
(a)A licensed person or registered person;
(b)A State college, university, or agency;
(c)A State-licensed wildlife rehabilitator;
(d)A State-licensed veterinarian;
(e)An accredited wildlife sanctuary; or
(f)A person who:
(1)Can produce documentation showing that he or she is transporting live prohibited wildlife species between persons who are exempt from the prohibitions in § 14.253; and
(2)Has no financial interest in the prohibited wildlife species other than payment received for transporting them. Dated: April 26, 2007. Todd Willens, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on August 10, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-16085 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 72 158 Thursday, August 16, 2007 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AI21 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN-68 Revision 1 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage cask regulations by revising the Transnuclear, Inc. TN-68 dry storage cask system listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance
(CoC)Number 1027. Amendment No. 1 would modify the CoC by revising several fuel parameters that include increasing fuel burnup to 60 gigawatts-day/metric ton of uranium, increasing total cask decay heat to 30 kilowatts, increasing maximum average fuel enrichment to 4.7 weight percent uranium-235, and decreasing minimum fuel assembly cooling time to 7 years. Amendment No. 1 would also add up to eight damaged fuel assemblies as authorized contents of the cask and reduce the cask spacing on the storage pad. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AI21) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. *Mail comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. *E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov.* If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at
(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://rulemaking.llnl.gov* . Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov* . Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . *Hand deliver comments to:* 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays [telephone
(301)415-1966]. *Fax comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . An electronic copy of the proposed CoC No. 1027, the proposed Technical Specifications (TS), and the preliminary safety evaluation report
(SER)for Amendment No. 1 can be found in a package under ADAMS Accession No. ML071170621. The proposed CoC No. 1027, the proposed TS, the preliminary SER for Amendment No. 1, and the environmental assessment, are available for inspection at the NRC PDR, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville MD. Single copies of these documents may be obtained from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional supplementary information, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1027 and does not include other aspects of the TN-68 design. Because NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently as a direct final rule elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on October 30, 2007. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on the direct final rule by September 17, 2007, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments received in response to the proposed revisions in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1)The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a)The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b)The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c)The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2)The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3)The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TS. For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . List of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72. PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended; sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242; as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951, as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241; sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1027 is revised to read as follows: § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. Certificate Number: 1027. Initial Certificate Effective Date: May 30, 2000. Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: October 30, 2007. SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the TN-68 Dry Storage Cask. Docket Number: 72-1027. Certificate Expiration Date: May 28, 2020. Model Number: TN-68. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of July, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Martin J. Virgilio, Acting Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E7-16135 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28942; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-093-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed and high-frequency eddy current inspections for cracking around the heads of the fasteners on the forward fastener row of certain areas of the station
(STA)259.5 circumferential butt splice, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also require a preventive modification, which would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD results from a report that an operator found multiple cracks in the fuselage skin of a Model 737-200 airplane, at the forward fastener row of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice between stringers 19 and 24. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the fuselage skin and possible loss of cabin pressure. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6447; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-28942; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-093-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that an operator found multiple cracks in the fuselage skin of a Model 737-200 airplane that had accumulated 69,350 total flight cycles. The cracking was found at the forward fastener row of the station
(STA)259.5 circumferential butt splice between stringers 19 and 24, and some cracks had joined into one large crack. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of structural integrity of the fuselage skin and possible loss of cabin pressure. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1267, dated November 28, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing repetitive detailed and high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC)surface inspections for cracking around the heads of the fasteners on the forward fastener row of certain areas of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice, and applicable repair if necessary. Certain areas of the circumferential butt splice are those described in the Accomplishment Instructions of Service Bulletin 737-53-1267 as areas that have not had a preventive modification installed in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1076, or have not had a Boeing, FAA-approved repair accomplished. The service bulletin also describes procedures for doing a preventive modification of certain areas of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice, including removing the existing fasteners, doing an HFEC rotary probe inspection of the fastener holes, and, if no crack is found, oversizing the holes and installing new protruding head fasteners. The preventive modification eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections. The service bulletin specifies compliance times that depend upon the number of total flight cycles accumulated by the airplane. Compliance times for doing the initial inspections begin at or before the accumulation of 50,000 total flight cycles, with grace periods ranging between 500 and 4,500 flight cycles after the release date of the service bulletin. The service bulletin specifies that repetitive inspections shall be done thereafter at intervals of 9,000 flight cycles, until the preventive modification is done. The service bulletin specifies that all repairs are to be done before further flight and that the preventive modification is to be done before the accumulation of 75,000 total flight cycles or within 6,000 flight cycles after the release date of the service bulletin, whichever comes later. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 2,150 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would be supplied by the operator. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection 5 $400, per inspection cycle 654 $261,600, per inspection cycle. Preventive modification 24 $1,920 654 $1,255,680. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28942; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-093-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 1, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)Accomplishing repairs and modifications described in paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this AD is considered acceptable for compliance with repair requirements of paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of AD 92-25-09, amendment 39-8424, for the areas of the station
(STA)259.5 circumferential butt splice only. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1267, dated November 28, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that an operator found multiple cracks in the fuselage skin of a Model 737-200 airplane, at the forward fastener row of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice between stringers 19 and 24. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the fuselage skin and possible loss of cabin pressure. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections
(f)At the applicable initial compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E. “Compliance” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1267, dated November 28, 2006, except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD: Do detailed and high-frequency eddy current inspections for cracking around the heads of the fasteners on the forward fastener row of certain areas of the station
(STA)259.5 circumferential butt splice, by doing all of the actions specified in Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph
(i)of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E. of the service bulletin. Doing the preventive modification specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph. Repair
(g)If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, before further flight, repair in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1267, dated November 28, 2006. Preventive Modification
(h)At the compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1267, dated November 28, 2006, except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD: Do the preventive modification in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1267, dated November 28, 2006. Doing the preventive modification terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph
(f)of this AD. Modification or Repair Done in Accordance with AD 92-25-09
(i)Inspections described by paragraph
(f)of this AD are not required for areas of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice that have been modified in accordance with the service information specified in Table 1 of this AD. (Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1076, Revision 4, dated September 26, 1991, is cited as an appropriate source of service information for doing certain requirements of AD 92-25-09.) Table 1.—Service Information Boeing Service Bulletin Revision level Date 737-53-1076 4 September 26, 1991. 737-53-1076 3 September 20, 1990. 737-53-1076 2 February 8, 1990. 737-53-1076 1 November 23, 1988. 737-53-1076 Original Issue October 30, 1986. Compliance Times
(j)Where the service bulletin specifies compliance times relative to the release date of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1267, dated November 28, 2006, this AD requires compliance at compliance times relative to the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16104 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28996; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-217-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals. This proposed AD results from issuance of new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28996; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-217-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The EASA advises that Airbus has issued new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals to detect and correct fatigue cracking. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued A310 Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)Document, AI/SE-M2/95A.0263/06, Issue 6, dated April 2006 (approved by the EASA on May 31, 2006) (hereafter referred to as “Issue 6 of the ALI”). That ALI document describes fatigue-related structural inspections arising from the evaluation of damage tolerance and widespread fatigue damage. Airbus has also issued Temporary Revision
(TR)6.1, dated November 2006 (approved by the EASA on December 12, 2006), to Issue 6 of the ALI. Airbus TR 6.1 provides new and revised inspections to address certification of the new Model A310-300 weight variant airplanes (Airbus Modification 13302). The applicability, limit of validity, program rules, program notes, and definitions stated in Issue 6 of the ALI remain valid. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0260, dated August 25, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICA)to incorporate new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals. The proposed AD would also require sending certain inspection results to Airbus. Differences Between the Proposed AD and the EASA Airworthiness Directive Paragraph 1 of EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0260 specifies to adhere to the requirements defined in Issue 4, 5, or 6 of the A310 ALI Document, prior to the effective date of EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0260. This proposed AD, instead, would require revising the ALS of the ICA by incorporating Issue 6 of the ALI within 3 months after the effective date. Although paragraph 2 of EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0260 mandates only Issue 6 of the ALI, this proposed AD would require incorporating both Issue 6 of the ALI and Airbus TR 6.1 into the FAA-approved maintenance program. Airbus issued TR 6.1 after issuance of EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0260. We have coordinated this difference with the EASA. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 69 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $11,040, or $160 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28996; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-217-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 17, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections 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, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC)25.1529-1. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from issuance of new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Revision of Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(f)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.
(1)Revise the ALS of the ICA to incorporate the structural inspections and inspection intervals defined in Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Items
(ALI)Document, AI/SE-M2/95A.0263/06, Issue 6, dated April 2006 (approved by the EASA on May 31, 2006) (hereafter referred to as “Issue 6 of the ALI”). Accomplish the actions specified in Issue 6 of the ALI at the times specified in that ALI, except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Thereafter, except as provided by paragraphs (f)(2) and
(j)of this AD, no alternative structural inspection intervals may be approved. The actions specified in Issue 6 of the ALI must be accomplished in accordance with Issue 6 of the ALI.
(2)Revise the ALS of the ICA to incorporate the new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals defined in Airbus Temporary Revision
(TR)6.1, dated November 2006 (approved by the EASA on December 12, 2006), to Issue 6 of the ALI. Thereafter, except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD, no alternative structural inspection intervals may be approved. Exception to Issue 6 of the ALI
(g)The tolerance (grace period) for compliance with Issue 6 of the ALI is within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD provided that none of the following is exceeded:
(1)Thresholds or intervals in the operator's current approved maintenance schedule that are taken from a previous ALI issue, if existing, and are higher than or equal to those given in Issue 6 of the ALI.
(2)18 months after the effective date of this AD.
(3)50 percent of the intervals given in Issue 6 of the ALI.
(4)Any application tolerance specified in Section D of Issue 6 of the ALI. Corrective Actions
(h)Damaged, cracked, or corroded structure detected during any inspection done in accordance with Issue 6 of the ALI must be repaired, before further flight, in accordance with Issue 6 of the ALI; or in accordance with other data meeting the certification basis of the airplane that has been approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Where Issue 6 of the ALI specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the damaged, cracked, or corroded structure using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Reporting Requirement
(i)If any damage that exceeds the allowable limits specified in Issue 6 of the ALI is detected during any inspection required by this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, submit a report of the finding to Sebastien Aveilla, Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33
(0)5 61-93-28-72; e-mail *sebastien.aveilla@airbus.com.* The report must include the ALI task reference, airplane serial number, the number of flight cycles and flight hours on the airplane, identification of the affected structure, location and description of the finding including its size and orientation, and the circumstance of detection and inspection method used. 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 contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)If the inspection was done after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2)If the inspection was accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(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
(k)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0260, dated August 25, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 2, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16118 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28924; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-051-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200C and -200F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-200C and -200F series airplanes. This proposed AD would require, among other actions, installing mounting brackets, support angles, and moisture curtains in the main equipment center. This proposed AD results from reports of water contamination in the electrical/electronic units in the main equipment center. We are proposing this AD to prevent water contamination of the electrical/electronic units, which could cause the electrical/electronic units to malfunction, and as a consequence, could adversely affect the airplane's continued safe flight. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6484; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28924; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-051-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received reports of water contamination in the electrical/electronic units in the main equipment center, on Boeing Model 747-200C and -200F series airplanes. The water contamination resulted in malfunctions and the replacement of multiple electrical/electronic units in the main equipment center. In one case, these malfunctions resulted in an air turn back, high pilot workload, and minimal cockpit indication. Water contamination of the electrical/electronic units, if not corrected, could cause the electrical/electronic units to malfunction, and as a consequence, could adversely affect the airplane's continued safe flight. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3430, dated February 15, 2007. This service information describes procedures for installing mounting brackets, support angles, and moisture curtains in the main equipment center. We also have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-38A2073, Revision 3, dated May 22, 2003. This service information describes procedures for installing drip shields (including a drip pan assembly, drain tubing, and attaching hardware) over the forward, outboard halves of the E1-1 and E3-1 shelves in the main equipment bay. For certain airplanes, the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-38A2073, Revision 3, dated May 22, 2003; Revision 2, dated April 26, 2001; Revision 1, dated June 21, 1990; or Original Release, dated November 30, 1989; must be done prior to or concurrently with the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3430. (AD 2001-24-30, amendment 39-12547 (66 FR 64104, December 12, 2001) requires installing drip shields in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-38A2073, Revision 2, or in accordance with Revision 1 or Original Release if done before the effective date of that AD.) FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Interim Action This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has advised that it currently is developing another modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking. Costs of Compliance There are about 79 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Installation 3 $80 $8,960 $9,200 25 $230,000 Prior to or concurrent requirements of AD 2001-24-30 32 80 4,497 7,057 25 176,425 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28924; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-051-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 1, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-200C and -200F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3430, dated February 15, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of water contamination in the electrical/electronic units in the main equipment center. We are issuing this AD to prevent water contamination of the electrical/electronic units, which could cause the electrical/electronic units to malfunction, and as a consequence, could adversely affect the airplane's continued safe flight. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Installations
(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, install mounting brackets, support angles, and moisture curtains in the main equipment center, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3430, dated February 15, 2007. Prior or Concurrent Requirements
(g)For airplanes identified as Group 1 and Group 3 airplanes in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3430, dated February 15, 2007: Prior to or concurrently with the requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD, install drip shields (including a drip pan assembly, drain tubing, and attaching hardware) over the forward, outboard halves of the E1-1 and E3-1 shelves in the main equipment bay, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-38A2073, Revision 3, dated May 22, 2003.
(h)Installation of drip shields before the effective date of this AD in accordance with paragraph
(a)and Note 2 of AD 2001-24-30, amendment 39-12547, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16117 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28923; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-133-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Over the years, several Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operators reported that a MLG (main landing gear) wheel fell off during regular operation of the aircraft. These incidents occurred due to a missing spacer, which had inadvertently not been installed during a previous wheel change. Omitting the installation of the wheel spacer allows the wheel to move sideways along the axle, which subsequently leads to bearing failure, followed by loss of the wheel. * * * This condition, if not corrected, * * * could conceivably result in loss of control of the aircraft during the take-off run, landing rollout or taxiing operations. * * * The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28923; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-133-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands (CAA-NL), which is the aviation authority for the Netherlands, has issued Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2005-008, dated June 30, 2005 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Over the years, several Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operators reported that a MLG (main landing gear) wheel fell off during regular operation of the aircraft. These incidents occurred due to a missing spacer, which had inadvertently not been installed during a previous wheel change. Omitting the installation of the wheel spacer allows the wheel to move sideways along the axle, which subsequently leads to bearing failure, followed by loss of the wheel. Investigation by Fokker and Messier-Dowty has shown that two separate items, the spacer and the axle nut, can be replaced by a single axle-nut/spacer assembly, to prevent the possibility of omitting the spacer. In 1995, Messier-Dowty issued Service Bulletin
(SB)F100-32-72 to make sure that the operator does not assemble the axle nut without the spacer. Fokker subsequently issued SB F100-32-096 to notify Fokker 100 operators of the (optional) Messier-Dowty SB's existence. At a later stage, Fokker revised the SB to the status of “recommended”. In spite of all this attention to the spacer problem, wheel losses are still being reported due to missing wheel nut spacers. This condition, if not corrected, may lead to further wheel loss incidents, each of which could conceivably result in loss of control of the aircraft during the take-off run, landing rollout or taxiing operations. Since a potentially unsafe condition has been identified that may exist or develop on aircraft of the same type design, this Airworthiness Directive requires the replacement of the axle-nut and spacer with an integrated axle-nut/spacer assembly. In addition, the Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM)and Illustrated Parts Catalogue
(IPC)must be amended to prevent reversal to a separate axle-nut and spacer installation during a subsequent wheel change. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Messier-Dowty has issued Service Bulletin F100-32-72, Revision 1, dated March 5, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,750 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $52,910, or $4,070 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Fokker Services B.V.:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28923; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-133-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by September 17, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers, if equipped with Messier-Dowty main landing gear
(MLG)units. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 32: Landing gear. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Over the years, several Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operators reported that a MLG (main landing gear) wheel fell off during regular operation of the aircraft. These incidents occurred due to a missing spacer, which had inadvertently not been installed during a previous wheel change. Omitting the installation of the wheel spacer allows the wheel to move sideways along the axle, which subsequently leads to bearing failure, followed by loss of the wheel. Investigation by Fokker and Messier-Dowty has shown that two separate items, the spacer and the axle nut, can be replaced by a single axle-nut/spacer assembly, to prevent the possibility of omitting the spacer. In 1995, Messier-Dowty issued Service Bulletin
(SB)F100-32-72 to make sure that the operator does not assemble the axle nut without the spacer. Fokker subsequently issued SB F100-32-096 to notify Fokker 100 operators of the (optional) Messier-Dowty SB's existence. At a later stage, Fokker revised the SB to the status of “recommended”. In spite of all this attention to the spacer problem, wheel losses are still being reported due to missing wheel nut spacers. This condition, if not corrected, may lead to further wheel loss incidents, each of which could conceivably result in loss of control of the aircraft during the take-off run, landing rollout or taxiing operations. Since a potentially unsafe condition has been identified that may exist or develop on aircraft of the same type design, this Airworthiness Directive requires the replacement of the axle-nut and spacer with an integrated axle-nut/spacer assembly. In addition, the Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM)and Illustrated Parts Catalogue
(IPC)must be amended to prevent reversal to a separate axle-nut and spacer installation during a subsequent wheel change. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace each MLG wheel axle-nut and spacer with an integrated axle-nut/spacer assembly in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-72, Revision 1, dated March 5, 2007. Note 1: Fokker 70/100 Service Letter 102, Revision 1, dated February 12, 1998; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-096, Revision 2, dated April 29, 2005, also pertain to this subject.
(2)As of 12 months after the effective date of this AD, no person may install an axle nut having part number (P/N) 201072670 or alternate P/N 201072765, or any spacer having P/N 201072699, on any airplane. Only axle nut subassemblies having P/N 201251273 or P/N 201650216 may be installed.
(3)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-72, dated January 25, 1995, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
(1)The MCAI requires revising the AMM and IPC. As these documents are not FAA-approved, we do not require these revisions. Therefore, this AD requires compliance with paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, which accomplishes the intent of revising the AMM and IPC. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2005-008, dated June 30, 2005, Fokker 70/100 Service Letter 102, Revision 1, dated February 12, 1998, and Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-72, Revision 1, dated March 5, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16123 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28941; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-276-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000, Falcon 2000EX, Mystere-Falcon 900, Falcon 900EX, Fan Jet Falcon, Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 20, Mystere-Falcon 200, and Falcon 10 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to all Dassault Model Falcon 2000, Mystere-Falcon 900, Falcon 900EX, Fan Jet Falcon, Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 20, Mystere-Falcon 200, and Falcon 10 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive tests and inspections to detect discrepancies of the overwing emergency exit, and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD would expand the applicability of the existing AD and extend the repetitive test and inspection interval for all airplanes. This proposed AD results from reports of incorrect operation of the overwing emergency exit due to interference between the emergency exit and the interior accommodation. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the overwing emergency exits to open, and consequent injury to passengers or crew members during an emergency evacuation. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-28941; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-276-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket 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 level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On June 9, 2000, we issued AD 2000-12-15, amendment 39-11793 (65 FR 37480, June 15, 2000), for all Dassault Model Falcon 2000, Mystere-Falcon 900, Falcon 900EX, Fan Jet Falcon, Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 20, Mystere-Falcon 200, and Falcon 10 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive tests and inspections to detect discrepancies of the overwing emergency exit, and corrective action if necessary. That AD resulted from issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. We issued that AD to prevent failure of the overwing emergency exits to open, and consequent injury to passengers or crew members during an emergency evacuation. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2000-12-15, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued the following EASA airworthiness directives, all dated June 7, 2006: • 2006-0147 (for Model Falcon 10 airplanes); • 2006-0148 (for Model Falcon 2000 and Falcon 2000EX airplanes); • 2006-0149 (for Model Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 900, and Falcon 900EX airplanes); and • 2006-0156 (for Model Fan Jet Falcon, Mystere-Falcon 20, and Mystere-Falcon 200 airplanes). The EASA airworthiness directives supersede the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC)airworthiness directives referenced in the existing AD for accomplishing the required actions. The DGAC airworthiness directives require repeating the operational test and inspection at intervals not to exceed 13 months; the EASA airworthiness directives extend that interval to 24 months, and EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0148 adds Model Falcon 2000EX to the applicability specified in the existing AD. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplanes are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2000-12-15 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would expand the applicability of the existing AD and extend the repetitive test and inspection interval for all airplanes. Explanation of Changes Made to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2000-12-15. Since that AD was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2000-12-15 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph
(a)Paragraph (f). Paragraph
(b)Paragraph (h). Paragraph
(c)Paragraph (i). On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. However, for clarity and consistency in this proposed AD, we have retained the language of the existing AD regarding that material. We have clarified the inspection requirement contained in the proposed AD. Whereas the existing AD specifies a detailed visual inspection, we have revised this proposed AD to clarify that our intent is to require a detailed inspection. Additionally, a note has been added to the proposed AD to define that inspection. We have revised the existing AD to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. After the existing AD was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 870 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions that are required by AD 2000-12-15 and retained in this proposed AD take 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 currently required actions is $80 per airplane, per test and inspection cycle. The new proposed actions would take 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 new actions specified in this proposed AD for U.S. operators is $69,600, or $80 per airplane, per test and inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-11793 (65 FR 37480, June 15, 2000) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Dassault Aviation (Formerly Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation (AMD/BA)):** Docket No. FAA-2007-28941; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-276-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 17, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2000-12-15. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Dassault Model Falcon 2000, Falcon 2000EX, Mystere-Falcon 900, Falcon 900EX, Fan Jet Falcon, Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 20, Mystere-Falcon 200, and Falcon 10 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of incorrect operation of the overwing emergency exit. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the overwing emergency exits to open, and consequent injury to passengers or crew members during an emergency evacuation. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2000-12-15 With Revised Repetitive Interval Operational Test and Inspection
(f)For Dassault Model Falcon 2000, Mystere-Falcon 900, Falcon 900EX, Fan Jet Falcon, Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 20, Mystere-Falcon 200, and Falcon 10 airplanes: Within 30 days after July 20, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-12-15), perform an operational test and detailed inspection of the overwing emergency exit from inside the cabin to detect discrepancies (including separation, tearing, wearing, arcing, cracking) in the areas and components listed in Chapter 5 (ATA Code 52) of the applicable airplane maintenance manual (AMM). Accomplish the actions in accordance with the applicable AMM. If any discrepancy is detected during any test or inspection required by this paragraph, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with Chapter 5 (ATA Code 52) of the applicable AMM. Repeat the operational test and inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.” New Requirements of This AD Operational Test and Inspection
(g)For Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, perform the operational test and detailed inspection of the overwing emergency exit required by paragraph
(f)of this AD. If any discrepancy is detected during any test or inspection required by this paragraph, prior to further flight, repair as required by paragraph (f). Repeat the operational test and inspection at intervals not to exceed 24 months. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 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. Special Flight Permits
(i)Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished. Related Information
(j)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directives 2006-0147, 2006-0148, 2006-0149, and 2006-0156, all dated June 7, 2006, also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16124 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28990; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-033-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracks of the intercostal tee clips and attachment fasteners at the number 3 and number 4 doorstops of the passenger door cutouts, or repetitive inspections for cracks of the intercostal tee clips; and related investigative/ corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD results from reports of cracked intercostal tee clips at the number 3 and number 4 doorstops of the passenger door cutouts. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the tee clips, which could result in additional stress on the adjacent tee clips, surrounding intercostals, edge frame, door structure and doorstops. This additional stress could cause further cracking or breaking of the tee clips, which could result in failure of the door to seal and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)917-6450; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28990; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-033-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received eight reports indicating that cracked intercostal tee clips were found at the number 3 and number 4 doorstops of the passenger door cutouts on certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. These cracks were found during normal maintenance checks on passenger doorway number 4, at the aft edge frame of body station 1681.8 on the left and right sides. On two airplanes, cracks were found on the intercostal tee clips at both the number 3 and number 4 doorstops. The cracks occurred in the radius area of the tee clip, between the horizontal and vertical flange. The number of flight cycles for these airplanes was between 22,700 and 25,000. The cracks in the tee clips are attributed to a preload of the tee clip; continued flight with cracks in the tee clips can place additional stress on the adjacent tee clips, surrounding intercostals, edge frame, door structure and doorstops. This additional stress, if not corrected, could cause further cracking or breaking of the tee clips, which could result in failure of the door to seal and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0093, dated November 8, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections with a borescope for cracks of the intercostal tee clips; or repetitive detailed inspections for cracks of the intercostal tee clips and attachment fasteners at the number 3 and number 4 doorstops of the passenger door cutouts after the galley/lavatory has been removed; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The related investigative and corrective actions include the following: • Condition 1: For airplanes on which any tee clip for only door stop intercostal number 3 is cracked or broken; the procedures specify replacing any cracked tee clip with a new tee clip and contacting Boeing before further flight. In addition, the procedures describe inspections of the door stop fittings on the forward side of body station 1681.8 edge frame; the inner chord, web, and outer chord; the number 4 door structure including the door stop fittings and stop beams above and below the cracked tee clips; and the number 4 aft door frame. • Condition 2: For airplanes on which any tee clip for only door stop intercostal number 4 is cracked or broken; the procedures specify replacing any cracked tee clip with a new tee clip and contacting Boeing before further flight. In addition, the procedures describe inspections of the tee clip and intercostal for cracking at door stop intercostal number 5; and from door stop number 3 through number 5: Inspecting the door stop fittings on the forward side of the body station 1681.8 edge frame; the inner chord, web, and outer chord; the number 4 door structure including the door stop fittings and stop beams above and below the cracked tee clips; and the number 4 aft door frame. • Condition 3: For airplanes on which both tee clips for only door stop intercostal numbers 3 and 4 are cracked or broken; the procedures specify replacing the cracked tee clip with a new tee clip and contacting Boeing before further flight. In addition, the procedures describe inspections of the fasteners; the door stop fittings on the forward side of the body station 1681.8 edge frame; the inner chord, web, and outer chord; the number 4 door structure including the door stop fittings and stop beams above and below the cracked tee clips; for airplanes with greater than 28,000 flight cycles, the fasteners and the fillet radius of the stop fittings; and the number 4 aft door frame. If cracked or broken tee clips are found during any inspection, the procedures describe inspecting the tee clip and intercostal for cracks of the door stop intercostal number 2 and doing inspections from door stop numbers 2 through 5. The additional inspections are for cracks of the door stop fittings; the inner chord, web, and outer chord; and the body station 1681.8 edge frame. Replacing both tee clips on the left and right sides with new tee clips would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance There are about 912 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 324 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed detailed inspection, if accomplished, would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspections proposed by this AD is $51,840, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle. The proposed borescope inspection, if accomplished, would take about 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspections proposed by this AD is $77,760, or $240 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28990; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-033-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 1, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0093, dated November 8, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of cracked intercostal tee clips at the number 3 and number 4 doorstops of the passenger door cutouts. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the tee clips, which could result in additional stress on the adjacent tee clips, surrounding intercostals, edge frame, door structure and doorstops. This additional stress could cause further cracking or breaking of the tee clips, which could result in failure of the door to seal and consequent rapid decompression 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. Repetitive Inspections/Investigative and Corrective Actions
(f)Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later: Do the applicable inspection specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD by doing all the actions including all applicable related investigative (additional detailed inspections if necessary) and corrective actions; except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0093, dated November 8, 2006. All related investigative and corrective actions must be done before further flight.
(1)Do a detailed inspection for cracks of the intercostal tee clips and attachment fasteners at the number 3 and number 4 doorstops of the passenger door cutouts. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until accomplishment of the terminating action specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD.
(2)Do a detailed inspection with a borescope for cracks of the intercostal tee clips. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until accomplishment of the terminating action specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD.
(g)If any cracked structure is found during any inspection required by this AD, and the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0093, dated November 8, 2006, specify to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair any cracked structure using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Optional Terminating Action
(h)Replacing both intercostal tee clips on the left and right sides with new tee clips in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0093, dated November 8, 2006, terminates the repetitive inspections required by this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(3)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 2, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16103 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28987; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-127-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR Airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found the development of cracks in the forward fuselage right hand
(RH)side skin during full-scale fatigue tests. Those cracks may quickly reach their critical length, reducing the aircraft structural integrity, with possible rapid decompression of the aircraft. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28987; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-127-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Agência Nacional de Aviac a o Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-05-01R1, effective July 4, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found the development of cracks in the forward fuselage right hand
(RH)side skin during full-scale fatigue tests. Those cracks may quickly reach their critical length, reducing the aircraft structural integrity, with possible rapid decompression of the aircraft. The corrective action includes rework of the aircraft structure on the forward fuselage LH (left-hand) and RH sides. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145-53-0067, Revision 01, dated February 27, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 624 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 60 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,210 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,750,240, or $6,010 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE AERONAUTICA S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2007-28987; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-127-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by September 17, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 53: Fuselage. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been found the development of cracks in the forward fuselage right hand
(RH)side skin during full-scale fatigue tests. Those cracks may quickly reach their critical length, reducing the aircraft structural integrity, with possible rapid decompression of the aircraft. The corrective action includes rework of the aircraft structure on the forward fuselage LH (left-hand) and RH sides. Actions and Compliance
(f)Prior to the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)Add two reinforcements to the forward fuselage skin on the LH and RH sides between frames 9 to 10 and 10 to 11, and stringers 12 to 15. Install supports to the reinforcements and stringers as well as new fasteners to the reinforcements and supports, and reroute the electrical wiring on the affected area. Do all actions in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0067, Revision 01, dated February 27, 2007.
(2)Accomplishing the detailed instructions and procedures described in the EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0051, dated July 15, 2004; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0051, Revision 01, dated February 7, 2006; is considered acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-05-01R1, effective July 4, 2007, and the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Table 1.—Service Bulletins EMBRAER Service Bulletin Revision level Date 145-53-0051 Original July 15, 2004. 145-53-0051 01 February 7, 2006. 145-53-0067 01 February 27, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16116 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27715; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-140-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 and A340 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that currently requires operators to revise the Airworthiness Limitations section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICA)to incorporate new information. This information includes, for all affected airplanes, decreased life limit values for certain components; and for Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, new inspections, compliance times, and new repetitive intervals to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain structures. The original NPRM proposed to revise the ALS, for all affected airplanes, by adding new Airworthiness Limitations Items
(ALIs)to incorporate service life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage or corrosion in certain structures, in accordance with the revised ALS of the ICA. The original NPRM resulted from the issuance of new and more restrictive service life limits and structural inspections based on fatigue testing and in-service findings. This new action revises the original NPRM by adding airplanes, adding new requirements, and including more restrictive compliance thresholds and intervals. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and to prevent failure of certain life-limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by September 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-2797; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27715; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-140-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket 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 level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)(the “original NPRM”) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-09-07, amendment 39-14577 (71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006). The existing AD applies to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 28, 2007 (72 FR 14497). The original NPRM proposed to revise the ALS, for all affected airplanes, by adding new Airworthiness Limitations Items
(ALIs)to incorporate service life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain structures, in accordance with the revised ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, notified us that an unsafe condition might exist on all Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes. The EASA advises that Airbus has revised its service life limits and structural inspections based upon certification requirements. Fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements and failure of certain life limited parts, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The EASA also advises that Airbus has revised Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0051/97, “A340 Airworthiness Limitations Items,” from Issue 9, dated January 17, 2006, to Issue 10, dated February 1, 2007, to revise the applicability, threshold, and intervals of certain inspection tasks and to introduce new weight variant configurations. In addition, Airbus has issued A330 and A340 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, dated March 30, 2007, Sub-part 1-2, “Life Limits,” and Sub-part 1-3, “Demonstrated Fatigue Lives,” of both ALS Part 1 documents to reduce certain limitations and add limitations corresponding to new weight variant configurations. Incorporating these revisions into the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness is intended to ensure the continued structural integrity of these airplanes. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued EASA airworthiness directives 2007-0133, dated May 11, 2007, and 2007-0158, dated June 4, 2007, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0133 supersedes airworthiness directives 2006-0129 and 2006-0130, both dated May 22, 2006; and EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0158 supersedes airworthiness directive 2006-0308, dated October 10, 2006. (EASA airworthiness directives 2006-0129 and 2006-0130, both dated May 22, 2006; and 2006-0308, dated October 10, 2006; were identified in the original NPRM.) Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance
(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM The changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 37 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hour Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost Revise the ALS, required by AD 2006-09-07 1 $80 None $80 20 $1,600 Revise the ALS, new proposed action 1 80 None 80 37 2,960 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14577 (71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **AIRBUS:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27715; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-140-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 17, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-09-07. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections 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, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC)25-1529-1. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from the issuance of new and more restrictive service life limits and structural inspections based on fatigue testing and in-service findings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-09-07 Airworthiness Limitations Revision
(f)Within 3 months after June 7, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-09-07): Revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating into the ALS the documents in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1)Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitations Items,” Issue 12, dated November 1, 2003, as specified in Section 9-2 of the Airbus A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD).
(2)Section 9-1, “Life limits/Monitored parts,” Revision 05, dated April 7, 2005, of the Airbus A330 and A340 MPDs.
(g)Except as provided by paragraph
(h)or
(j)of this AD: After the actions in paragraph
(f)of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved for the structural elements specified in the documents listed in paragraph
(f)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD ALS Revision
(h)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the documents specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishing the revision in this paragraph terminates the requirements in paragraph
(f)of this AD.
(1)Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI),” Issue 14, dated October 10, 2005; or Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0051/97, “A340 Airworthiness Limitations Items,” Issue 10, dated February 1, 2007.
(2)Sub-part 1-2 “Life Limits,” and Sub-part 1-3 “Demonstrated Fatigue Lives,” of Airbus A330 or A340 ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” dated March 30, 2007, as applicable.
(i)Except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD: After the actions in paragraph
(h)of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved for the structural elements specified in the documents listed in paragraph
(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(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
(k)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directives 2007-0133, dated May 11, 2007, and 2007-0158, dated June 4, 2007; also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 2, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16112 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28988; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-047-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400 and -400D Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-400 and -400D series airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing new relays to allow the flightcrew to turn off electrical power to the in-flight entertainment
(IFE)system and other non-essential passenger cabin systems through the left and right utility bus switches, and other specified actions. This proposed AD results from an IFE systems review. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew is able to turn off electrical power to the IFE system and other non-essential passenger cabin systems through utility bus switches in the flight compartment, in the event of smoke or fumes. The flightcrew's inability to turn off electrical power to the IFE system and other non-essential passenger cabin systems could result in the inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or passenger cabin during a non-normal or emergency situation. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shohreh Safarian, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6418; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28988; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-047-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)completed a review of in-flight entertainment
(IFE)systems installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays, either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (i.e., power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems (e.g., one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that have only a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats. Items considered during the review include the following: • Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be de-energized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing? • Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power? • If the IFE system requires changes to flightcrew procedures, has the airplane flight manual
(AFM)been properly amended? • If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended? • Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance? In all, we reviewed approximately 180 IFE systems. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as: • Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be de-energized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing. • Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (i.e., there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power). • Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flightcrew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised. Boeing has received numerous reports of smoke or flames in the passenger cabin of Model 747-400 series airplanes. Investigation of several of these reports revealed that the source of the smoke and flames was the wiring for the passenger cabin IFE system, cabin lighting, or passenger seats. Currently, the flightcrew is not able to turn off power to the IFE system and other non-essential passenger cabin systems through utility bus switches in the flight compartment, in the event of smoke or fumes. The flightcrew's inability to turn off electrical power to the IFE system and other non-essential passenger cabin systems, if not corrected, could result in the inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or passenger cabin during a non-normal or emergency situation. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-24-2246, dated October 6, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing new relays to allow the flightcrew to turn off electrical power to the IFE system and other non-essential passenger cabin systems through the left and right utility bus switches, and doing other specified actions. The other specified actions include installing new wiring, rerouting existing wiring, removing certain wiring, and testing the cabin lighting, passenger IFE systems, and certain circuit breakers. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 490 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 62 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 123 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost between $9,412 and $11,936 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is up to $1,350,112, or up to $21,776 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **BOEING:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28988; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-047-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 1, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400 and -400D series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-24-2246, dated October 6, 2005. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from an in-flight entertainment
(IFE)systems review. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew is able to turn off electrical power to the IFE system and other non-essential passenger cabin systems through utility bus switches in the flight compartment, in the event of smoke or fumes. The flightcrew's inability to turn off electrical power to the IFE system and other non-essential passenger cabin systems could result in the inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or passenger cabin during a non-normal or emergency situation. 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. Install New Relays
(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install new relays to allow the flightcrew to turn off electrical power to the IFE system and other non-essential passenger cabin systems through the left and right utility bus switches and do all other specified actions as applicable, by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-24-2246, dated October 6, 2005. The other specified actions must be done before further flight after installing the new relays. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16115 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28925; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-123-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus A330-200 and -300 Series Airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During ground inspection of an A340-311 aircraft, it has been discovered that 5 fasteners were missing between Frame
(FR)18 and FR19 on longitudinal joint at stringer 28RH (right hand). Further investigations have revealed that the missing fasteners have not been installed in production due to incorrect production instructions. If not corrected, this situation could affect the structural integrity of the aircraft in the area of stringer 28 between FR18 and FR19 at longitudinal joint. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2797; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28925; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-123-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0125, dated May 4, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: During ground inspection of an A340-311 aircraft, it has been discovered that 5 fasteners were missing between Frame
(FR)18 and FR19 on longitudinal joint at stringer 28RH (right hand). Further investigations have revealed that the missing fasteners have not been installed in production due to incorrect production instructions. If not corrected, this situation could affect the structural integrity of the aircraft in the area of stringer 28 between FR18 and FR19 at longitudinal joint. In order to re-establish the structural strength of the aircraft, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)renders mandatory the inspection of the longitudinal joint at stringer 28 RH between FR18 and FR19 [for missing fasteners]. For airplanes on which any fastener is missing, the corrective actions include doing a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the adjacent fastener area from the outside, without removing the fasteners; and if no crack is found, doing a rotating probe inspection for cracks of the adjacent fastener holes after removing the fasteners, and replacing any missing fastener. The corrective actions also include contacting Airbus for repair instructions and repair if fasteners are not at nominal diameter or if any crack is found. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A330-53-3170 and A340-53-4175, both dated March 27, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,880, or $320 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General Requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **AIRBUS:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28925; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-123-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by September 17, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers
(MSN)up to MSN 0402 included, except MSN 051. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 53: Fuselage. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: During ground inspection of an A340-311 aircraft, it has been discovered that 5 fasteners were missing between Frame
(FR)18 and FR19 on longitudinal joint at stringer 28RH (right hand). Further investigations have revealed that the missing fasteners have not been installed in production due to incorrect production instructions. If not corrected, this situation could affect the structural integrity of the aircraft in the area of stringer 28 between FR18 and FR19 at longitudinal joint. In order to re-establish the structural strength of the aircraft, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)renders mandatory the inspection of the longitudinal joint at stringer 28 RH between FR18 and FR19 [for missing fasteners]. For airplanes on which any fastener is missing, the corrective actions include doing a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the adjacent fastener area from the outside, without removing the fasteners; and if no crack is found, doing a rotating probe inspection for cracks of the adjacent fastener holes after removing the fasteners, and replacing any missing fastener. The corrective actions also include contacting Airbus for repair instructions and repair if fasteners are not at nominal diameter or if any crack is found. Actions and Compliance
(f)Before the accumulation of 14,000 flight cycles from the first flight of the aircraft, or within 1,500 flight cycles following the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless already done, do the following actions: Perform a detailed visual inspection of the longitudinal joint at stringer 28 RH between FR18 and FR19 for missing fasteners, and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3170 or A340-53-4175, both dated March 27, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim 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. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2007-0125, dated May 4, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletins A330-53-3170 and A340-53-4175, both dated March 27, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16111 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28921; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-091-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require, among other actions, modifying the door-mounted escape system of the forward right side door slide compartment. This proposed AD results from reports indicating that the forward right escape slide inflated 90 degrees out of alignment after deployment from the forward right side slide compartment. We are proposing this AD to prevent the escape slide from being unusable during an emergency evacuation and consequent injury to passengers or crewmembers. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hettman, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin & Environmental Systems Safety Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6457; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28921; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-091-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received reports indicating that the forward door escape slide inflated 90 degrees out of alignment after deployment from the forward right side slide compartment, on Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes. During deployment of the escape slide, the escape slide may be temporarily restricted within the slide compartment. This added restriction can delay the escape slide from aligning to a proper orientation before inflation. If inflation begins before the escape slide extends from the door, it can result in a sideways slide deployment. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the escape slide being unusable during an emergency evacuation and consequent injury to passengers or crewmembers. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1567, dated March 21, 2007. The service information describes procedures for modifying the door-mounted escape system of the forward right side door slide compartment. The modification includes: • Removing the bottle retainer, rubber pad, and window; and cleaning the pan assembly. • Modifying the window cutout and applying a primer coating and enamel finish. • Installing a new window. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1430, Revision 1, dated April 10, 2003, which is required by AD 2004-02-08, amendment 39-13443 (69 FR 4452, January 30, 2004), is necessary to be done prior to or concurrently with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1567. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-24-1430 describes procedures for replacing the hinge assembly of the escape slide compartment with a new assembly. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,949 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 660 airplanes of U.S. registry. The modification and installation actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $207 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $242,220, or $367 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **BOEING:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28921; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-091-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 1, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1567, dated March 21, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports indicating that the forward door escape slide inflated 90 degrees out of alignment after deployment from the forward right side slide compartment. We are issuing this AD to prevent the escape slide from being unusable during an emergency evacuation and consequent injury to passengers or crewmembers. 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. Modification and Installation
(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the door-mounted escape system of the forward right side door slide compartment, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1567, dated March 21, 2007. Prior to or Concurrent Requirement
(g)Prior to or concurrently with the requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD, accomplish the requirements of AD 2004-02-08, amendment 39-13443. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16110 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28989; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-070-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, and 747SP series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires doing a detailed inspection of the left and right longeron extension fittings, and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability of the existing AD. This proposed AD results from reports that accidental drilling damage to the longeron extension fittings was found on airplanes not subject to the existing AD. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct accidental drilling damage of the longeron extension fittings, which could lead to cracking of the longeron extension fittings and result in rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6437; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-28989; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-070-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or may can visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On April 28, 2006, we issued AD 2006-10-04, amendment 39-14588 (71 FR 27592, May 12, 2006), for certain Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, and 747SP series airplanes. That AD requires doing a detailed inspection of the left and right longeron extension fittings, and corrective action if necessary. That AD resulted from cracking found in the longeron extension fitting at body station 1480 due to accidental damage during production. We issued that AD to detect and correct cracking in the longeron extension fitting, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2006-10-04, we received reports that accidental drill damage was discovered during inspections of the longeron extension fittings of five airplanes not subject to that AD, including one airplane manufactured before the airplanes specified in the effectivity of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2515, dated October 20, 2005 (cited in AD 2006-10-04 as the appropriate source of service information). Boeing therefore concluded that additional airplanes which might be subject to the unsafe condition should be added to the effectivity of a revision of that service bulletin. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2515, Revision 1, dated March 1, 2007. Revision 1 of the alert service bulletin is essentially the same as the original issue, except that airplanes have been added to its effectivity. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2006-10-04 and would retain certain requirements of the existing AD. The proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability of the existing AD. The proposed AD would remove the reporting requirement of the existing AD. The proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Interim Action We consider this proposed AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we may consider further rulemaking then. Costs of Compliance There are about 876 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 156 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions specified by this proposed AD were previously required by AD 2006-10-04, which was applicable to approximately 25 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions required by that AD take about 1 work hour per airplane. We estimated the cost of the current requirements of that AD on U.S. operators to be $2,000, or $80 per airplane. Some operators of the 25 airplanes subject to AD 2006-10-04 may have already initiated the required actions. This proposed AD would add no new costs associated with those airplanes. This proposed AD would be applicable to approximately 131 additional airplanes of U.S. registry. New actions required by this proposed AD would take about 1 work hour per airplane. Based on the current labor rate of $80 per work hour, we estimate the new costs imposed by this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $10,480, or $80 per airplane. This figure is based on assumptions that no operator of these additional airplanes has yet done any of the proposed requirements of this AD, and that no operator would do those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14588 (71 FR 27592, May 12, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **BOEING:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28989; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-070-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 1, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-10-04. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2515, Revision 1, dated March 1, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports that accidental drilling damage to the longeron extension fittings was found on airplanes not subject to the existing AD. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct accidental drilling damage of the longeron extension fittings, which could lead to cracking of the longeron extension fittings and result in rapid decompression of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2006-10-04 Detailed Inspection
(f)For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2515, Revision 1, dated March 1, 2007: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the left and right longeron extension fittings for damage, and, before further flight, do the corrective action if applicable, by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2515, dated October 20, 2005; or Revision 1, dated March 1, 2007. Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2515, dated October 20, 2005; and Revision 1, dated March 1, 2007; refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2390, Revision 1, dated July 6, 2000, as an additional source of service information for replacing a damaged longeron fitting with a new longeron extension fitting.
(1)For airplanes that have accomplished the inspection of the splice area for cracking as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2390, dated July 31, 1997; or Revision 1, dated July 6, 2000: Inspect in accordance with paragraph
(f)of this AD before the airplane has accumulated 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after June 16, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-10-04), whichever is later.
(2)For airplanes that have not accomplished the inspection of the splice area for cracking as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2390, dated July 31, 1997; or Revision 1, dated July 6, 2000: Inspect in accordance with paragraph
(f)of this AD before the airplane has accumulated 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after June 16, 2006, whichever is later. New Requirements of This AD Detailed Inspection of Additional Airplanes
(g)For Group 2 and Group 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2515, Revision 1, dated March 1, 2007: Except as provided by paragraphs
(h)and
(i)of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2515, Revision 1, dated March 1, 2007, do a detailed inspection of the left and right longeron extension fittings for damage and, before further flight, do the corrective action, as applicable; by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin. Compliance Times
(h)Where the alert service bulletin specifies compliance times relative to the release date of the alert service bulletin, this AD requires compliance at compliance times relative to the effective date of this AD. Repair of Certain Conditions
(i)If any damage is found during any inspection required by this AD and the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the damage using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information
(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2515, dated October 20, 2005, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-10-04, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(3)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.
(4)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16121 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28922; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-132-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: An incident occurred on one A300-600 aircraft at parking brake application. Both engines were running, the aircraft started moving again despite parking brake application. Captain tried to stop the aircraft via the pedals but, as the parking brake selector valve was selected, the aircraft could not be stopped (as per design, activation of the parking brake inhibits the other braking modes, and consequently prevents the recovery of the normal braking through the pedals). As part of the investigation, the pressure limiter was removed and examined. The expertise revealed a metallic wire aimed at reducing the section of one port of this equipment was found broken. A part of this wire partially obstructed the hole receiving this wire, thus delaying the build up of parking brake pressure. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28922; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-132-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0151, dated May 22, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: An incident occurred on one A300-600 aircraft at parking brake application. Both engines were running, the aircraft started moving again despite parking brake application. Captain tried to stop the aircraft via the pedals but, as the parking brake selector valve was selected, the aircraft could not be stopped (as per design, activation of the parking brake inhibits the other braking modes, and consequently prevents the recovery of the normal braking through the pedals). As part of the investigation, the pressure limiter was removed and examined. The expertise revealed a metallic wire aimed at reducing the section of one port of this equipment was found broken. A part of this wire partially obstructed the hole receiving this wire, thus delaying the build up of parking brake pressure. In order to avoid recurrence of the failure mode described above, EASA issued Airworthiness Directive
(AD)2006-0178 to require the replacement of the parking brake pressure limiter (FIN 323292). During embodiment of SB (Service Bulletin) 32-2133 on an A310 as per AD 2006-0178 (EASA AD 2006-0178 corresponds to FAA AD 2007-02-21, amendment 39-14908), an operator reported that the modified pressure limiter could not be fitted. Subsequent investigation concluded that A310 installation being slightly different from A300-600 aircraft, the approved solution was not directly adaptable to A310 aircraft. * * * This new AD, dealing with the same subject, requires the replacement of the brake pressure limiter by accomplishment of Airbus SB A310-32-2133, which has been revised to include the adaptation kit for A310 aircraft. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-32-2133, Revision 02, dated February 26, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 68 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Labor costs may be covered under warranty as described in the service information. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $32,640, or $480 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **AIRBUS:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28922; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-132-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by September 17, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A310 series airplanes, certificated in any category, except airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-32-2133, Revision 02, dated February 26, 2007, has been embodied in service. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 32: Landing gear. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: An incident occurred on one A300-600 aircraft at parking brake application. Both engines were running, the aircraft started moving again despite parking brake application. Captain tried to stop the aircraft via the pedals but, as the parking brake selector valve was selected, the aircraft could not be stopped (as per design, activation of the parking brake inhibits the other braking modes, and consequently prevents the recovery of the normal braking through the pedals). As part of the investigation, the pressure limiter was removed and examined. The expertise revealed a metallic wire aimed at reducing the section of one port of this equipment was found broken. A part of this wire partially obstructed the hole receiving this wire, thus delaying the build up of parking brake pressure. In order to avoid recurrence of the failure mode described above, EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency), issued Airworthiness Directive
(AD)2006-0178 to require the replacement of the parking brake pressure limiter (FIN 323292). During embodiment of SB (Service Bulletin) 32-2133 on an A310 as per AD 2006-0178 [EASA AD 2006-0178 corresponds to FAA AD 2007-02-21, amendment 39-14908], an operator reported that the modified pressure limiter could not be fitted. Subsequent investigation concluded that A310 installation being slightly different from A300-600 aircraft, the approved solution was not directly adaptable to A310 aircraft. * * * This new AD, dealing with the same subject, requires the replacement of the brake pressure limiter by accomplishment of Airbus SB A310-32-2133, which has been revised to include the adaptation kit for A310 aircraft. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 10 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the parking brake pressure limiter (FIN 323292), in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-32-2133, Revision 02, dated February 26, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No difference. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0151, dated May 22, 2007; Airbus Service Bulletin A310-32-2133, Revision 02, dated February 26, 2007; and Messier-Bugatti Service Bulletin C24264-32-848, dated February 15, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16109 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28944; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-239-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes and Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: [T]he detection of cracks on multiple aircraft in lower skin panel No. 2 forward of access panel 575FB/675FB held on the rear dummy spar, inboard of rib 9, fuselage side, aft of the rear spar. This area of structure has been subjected to several repairs and modifications in previous years. The AIRBUS Service Bulletins
(SB)A300-57-0177 at Revision 3 and A300-57-6029 at Revision 4 define the various configurations for the mandatory inspections to be conducted in order to control or correct the development of cracks which could affect the structural integrity of the aircraft. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28944; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-239-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0282, dated September 12, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is published subsequent to the detection of cracks on multiple aircraft in lower skin panel No. 2 forward of access panel 575FB/675FB held on the rear dummy spar, inboard of rib 9, fuselage side, aft of the rear spar. This area of structure has been subjected to several repairs and modifications in previous years. The AIRBUS Service Bulletins
(SB)A300-57-0177 at Revision 3 and A300-57-6029 at Revision 4 define the various configurations for the mandatory inspections to be conducted in order to control or correct the development of cracks which could affect the structural integrity of the aircraft. The MCAI requires various repetitive inspections (detailed visual, high frequency eddy current, x-ray) of the wing lower skin panel and associated internal support structure for cracking and, if necessary, corrective measures (modifying the lower panel inboard of rib 9 aft of the rear spar and repairing cracks). You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A300-57-0177, Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007; and A300-57-6029, Revision 06, dated March 23, 2007. The compliance times for the initial inspections range approximately from 200 flight cycles or 320 flight hours, whichever occurs first, to 46,700 flight cycles or 63,900 flight hours, whichever occurs first, depending on the model and configuration. The compliance times for the repetitive inspections range from 50 flight cycles or 50 flight hours, whichever occurs first, to 3,600 flight cycles or 8,170 flight hours, whichever occurs first, depending on the model and configuration. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 162 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $25,920, or $160 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **AIRBUS:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28944; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-239-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by September 17, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and Model A300-600 series airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models, all serial numbers. Subject
(d)Wings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is published subsequent to the detection of cracks on multiple aircraft in lower skin panel No. 2 forward of access panel 575FB/675FB held on the rear dummy spar, inboard of rib 9, fuselage side, aft of the rear spar. This area of structure has been subjected to several repairs and modifications in previous years. The AIRBUS Service Bulletins
(SB)A300-57-0177 at Revision 3 and A300-57-6029 at Revision 4 define the various configurations for the mandatory inspections to be conducted in order to control or correct the development of cracks which could affect the structural integrity of the aircraft. The MCAI requires doing repetitive inspections (detailed visual, high frequency eddy current, x-ray) of the wing lower skin panel and associated internal support structure for cracking and, if necessary, doing corrective measures (modifying the lower panel inboard of rib 9 aft of the rear spar and repairing cracks). Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Except as provided by paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(iii), and (f)(1)(iv) of this AD: At the threshold specified in paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007; or A300-57-6029, Revision 06, dated March 23, 2007; as applicable; perform the inspection of the wing lower skin panel and associated internal support structure aft of the rear spar and inboard of rib 9 and apply applicable corrective measures in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007; or A300-57-6029, Revision 06, dated March 23, 2007; as applicable. All applicable corrective measures must be done at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.(2) and the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.
(i)Where the tables in paragraph 1.(E).(2), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of the service bulletins specify a grace period for doing the actions, this AD requires that the action be done within the specified grace period relative to the effective date of this AD.
(ii)Where the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2)(e), “config 04,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05, specify an inspection interval but not an initial threshold, this AD requires that the actions be done within the specified interval after inspecting in accordance with Table 1A or 1B, as applicable, for configuration 01 of the service bulletin and thereafter at the inspection interval specified in the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2)(e), “config 04,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05.
(iii)Where the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2)(f), “config 05,” of A300-57-6029, Revision 06, specify an inspection interval but not an initial threshold, this AD requires that the actions be done within the specified interval after inspecting in accordance with Table 1A or 1B, as applicable, for configuration 01 of the service bulletin and thereafter at the inspection interval specified in the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2)(f), “config 05,” of A300-57-6029, Revision 06.
(iv)All crack lengths specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05, and A300-57-6029, Revision 06, are considered “not to exceed” lengths.
(2)Repeat the inspection at the intervals in, and according to the instructions defined in, Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007; or A300-57-6029, Revision 06, dated March 23, 2007; as applicable.
(3)Report to Airbus the first inspection results, whatever they may be, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (e)(3)(i) or (e)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i)If the inspection was done after the effective date of this AD, submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(ii)If the inspection was accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD, submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(4)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 03, dated May 29, 2006; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 04, dated January 5, 2007; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 04, dated May 29, 2006; or A300-57-6029, Revision 05, dated October 23, 2006; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0282, dated September 12, 2006; and the service information in Table 1 of this AD; for related information. Table 1.—Service Information Airbus Service Bulletin Revision level Date A300-57-0177 05 March 23, 2007. A300-57-0222 01 March 13, 2006. A300-57-6029 06 March 23, 2007. A300-57-6064 04 March 9, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 31, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16097 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28943; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-011-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-300F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 767-300F series airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the rotomolded duct(s) of the mix manifold system with new duct(s). This proposed AD results from a report of failures of the duct joint seal of the mix manifold system. We are proposing this AD to prevent air conditioning leakage into the mix manifold bay. Such leakage could decrease the air flow to the flight compartment and main cabin or could allow smoke into the flight compartment in the event of a fire in the main cabin or forward cargo compartment. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey S. Palmer, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6481; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28943; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-011-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report of more than ten failures of the duct joint seal of the mix manifold system on Boeing Model 767-300F series airplanes. The seal failures resulted in air conditioning leakage into the mix manifold bay, which consequently decreased the air flow to the flight compartment and main cabin. The failed ducts were made from rotomolded nylon and were between 7 and 9 inches in diameter. Service history has shown that the ducts made from rotomolded nylon material that are larger than 6.5 inches in diameter can fail as a result of joint seal failures, loose clamps, and duct deformation due to insufficient rigidity. This condition, if not corrected, could result in air conditioning leakage into the mix manifold bay. Such leakage could decrease the air flow to the flight compartment and main cabin or could allow smoke into the flight compartment in the event of a fire in the main cabin or forward cargo compartment. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-21-0192, dated March 23, 2006. The service information describes procedures for replacing the rotomolded duct(s) of the mix manifold system with new duct(s). Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 40 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 32 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 or 8 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $4,123 or $42,825 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $4,283 or $43,465 per airplane. (The estimated work hours and costs depend on the airplane configuration). Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **BOEING:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28943; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-011-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 1, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-300F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-21-0192, dated March 23, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of failures of the duct joint seal of the mix manifold system. We are issuing this AD to prevent air conditioning leakage into the mix manifold bay. Such leakage could decrease the air flow to the flight compartment and main cabin or could allow smoke into the flight compartment in the event of a fire in the main cabin or forward cargo compartment. 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. Replacement
(f)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable action specified in Table 1 of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-21-0192, dated March 23, 2006. Table 1.—Replacement For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as— Do the following action—
(1)Group 1 airplanes Replace the rotomolded duct between the transition duct of the right cooling pack and the mix manifold with a new duct made of aluminum.
(2)Group 2 airplanes Replace the rotomolded ducts of the mix manifold system with new ducts made from Kevlar® and aluminum. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16095 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25658; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-054-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier supplemental NPRM for an airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The first supplemental NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that currently requires repetitive detailed inspections of the inboard flap trunnions for any wear marks and of the sliding panels for any cracking at the long edges, and corrective actions if necessary. These actions resulted from reports of wear damage to the inboard flap trunnions after incorporation of the terminating modification, and certain airplanes were inadvertently excluded from the applicability in the original NPRM. This new action revises the first supplemental NPRM by adding airplanes that were recently added to the type certificate data sheet. We are proposing this second supplemental NPRM to detect and correct wear of the inboard flap trunnions, which could lead to loss of flap surface control and consequently result in the flap detaching from the airplane. A detached flap could result in damage to the tail of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by September 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this second supplemental NPRM. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-25658; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-054-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this second supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this second supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)(“the first supplemental NPRM”) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-04-06, amendment 39-14487 (71 FR 8439, February 17, 2006). The existing AD applies to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The first supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 6, 2007 (72 FR 9880). The first supplemental NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive detailed inspections of the inboard flap trunnions for any wear marks and of the sliding panels for any cracking at the long edges, and corrective actions if necessary. The first supplemental NPRM also proposed to revise the original NPRM by including airplanes that were inadvertently excluded from the applicability. Actions Since First Supplemental NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the first supplemental NPRM, Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1133, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated December 12, 2006. (We referred to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1133, Revision 01, dated August 7, 2006, in the first supplemental NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain proposed actions.) The changes in Revision 02 are minor, and no additional work is necessary for airplanes modified by the previous issues; Revision 02 adds airplanes and recommends contacting Airbus for certain corrective actions. We have changed the applicable sections in the second supplemental NPRM to refer to Revision 02 as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain proposed actions. In addition, we have changed paragraph
(j)of the second supplemental NPRM to provide credit for accomplishing applicable actions before the effective date of the AD in accordance with Revision 01 of that service bulletin. Comments We have considered the following comments on the first supplemental NPRM. Request to Expand Applicability Airbus asks that we add Model A321-212, -213, and -232 airplanes to the applicability specified in paragraph
(c)of the first supplemental NPRM. Airbus states that the AD should be applicable to all Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes that have received Airbus Modification 26495 in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1117 in service. We agree with Airbus for the reasons provided, and because those airplanes were added to Revision 9 of the U.S. type certificate data sheet
(TCDS)on March 23, 2007. In addition, Airbus Model 318-121 and -122 airplanes were added to Revision 10 of the TCDS on May 31, 2007; therefore, we have also added those airplanes to the applicability in the second supplemental NPRM. We have changed paragraph
(c)of the second supplemental NPRM accordingly. Request To Remove Certain Requirements Airbus asks that we remove the new requirement specified in paragraph
(h)of the first supplemental NPRM. Airbus states that it does not concur with the new requirement to apply Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1117, Revision 04, dated November 6, 2001, on Model A321-211 and -231 airplanes, except those on which Airbus Modification 26495 has been accomplished in production. Airbus notes that “* * * the modification introduced by Service Bulletin A320-27-1117 has not been confirmed satisfactory; this is the reason why additional inspections have been defined in Service Bulletin A320-57-1133 and a final fix to this last inspection under definition.” Airbus adds that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1117 was issued to provide terminating action of another inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1108, Revision 04, dated November 22, 1999, for Model A321 airplanes. Airbus notes that if there are still Model A321-211 and -231 airplanes that are pre-modification 26495 on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1117 has not been done, the inspections specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1108, Revision 04, should continue to be performed until the final fix is available. We agree with Airbus, we have determined that the subject modification is not adequate to address the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, for that reason, and the reasons provided by Airbus, we have removed paragraphs
(h)and
(i)from the second supplemental NPRM and reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly. Difference Between Proposed Rule and Service Bulletin Service Bulletin A320-57-1133, Revision 02, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method approved by the FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)(or its delegated agent), or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC)(or its delegated agent). In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair approved by the FAA, the EASA, or the DGAC would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance
(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Second Supplemental NPRM Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the first supplemental NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on the second supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with the second supplemental NPRM. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Modification in AD 2006-04-06 14 $80 The manufacturer states that it will supply required parts to operators at no cost $1,120 768 $860,160. Detailed inspection in AD 2006-04-06 2 80 None $160, per inspection cycle 768 $122,880, per inspection cycle. General visual inspection (new proposed action) 1 80 None $80, per inspection cycle 754 $60,320, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14487 (71 FR 8439, February 17, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **AIRBUS:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25658; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-054-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 10, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-04-06. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1)Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 26495 has been incorporated in production.
(2)All Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a determination that certain airplanes must be included in the applicability of the AD, and that the inspection type must be revised. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear of the inboard flap trunnions, which could lead to loss of flap surface control and consequently result in the flap detaching from the airplane. A detached flap could result in damage to the tail of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-04-06 Modification
(f)For Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, and -131 airplanes; except those on which Airbus Modification 26495 has been accomplished in production: Within 18 months after January 8, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2000-24-02, amendment 39-12009), modify the sliding panel driving mechanism of the flap drive trunnions, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1117, Revision 02, dated January 18, 2000; or Revision 04, dated November 6, 2001. As of the effective date of this AD, only Revision 04 may be used. Note 1: Accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph
(f)of this AD before January 8, 2001, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1117, dated July 31, 1997; or Revision 01, dated June 25, 1999; is acceptable for compliance with that paragraph. Detailed Inspections
(g)For Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, and -131 airplanes: At the latest of the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the inboard flap trunnions for any wear marks and of the sliding panels for any cracking at the long edges, and do any corrective actions, as applicable, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1133, dated July 28, 2005; Revision 01, dated August 7, 2006; or Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; except as provided by paragraph
(n)of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Revision 02 may be used. Any corrective actions must be done at the compliance times specified in Figures 5 and 6, as applicable, of the service bulletin; except as provided by paragraphs (k), (l), and
(m)of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,000 flight hours until the inspection required by paragraph
(h)of this AD is done. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
(1)Before accumulating 4,000 total flight hours on the inboard flap trunnion since new.
(2)Within 4,000 flight hours after accomplishing paragraph
(f)of this AD.
(3)Within 600 flight hours after March 24, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-04-06). New Requirements of This AD General Visual Inspections
(h)For all airplanes: At the time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable, do a general visual inspection of the inboard flap trunnions for any wear marks and of the sliding panels for any cracking at the long edges, and do all applicable corrective actions by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1133, Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; except as provided by paragraphs
(i)and
(o)of this AD. All corrective actions must be done at the compliance times specified in Figures 5 and 6, as applicable, of the service bulletin; except as provided by paragraphs (l), (m), and
(n)of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,000 flight hours. Accomplishing the general visual inspection required by this paragraph terminates the detailed inspection requirement of paragraph
(g)of this AD. Note 3: 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.”
(1)For airplanes on which the detailed inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD has been done before the effective date of this AD: Inspect before accumulating 4,000 total flight hours on the inboard flap trunnion since new, or within 4,000 flight hours after accomplishing the most recent inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2)For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Inspect at the latest of the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii), and (h)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(i)Before accumulating 4,000 total flight hours on the inboard flap trunnion since new.
(ii)Within 4,000 flight hours after accomplishing paragraph
(f)of this AD.
(iii)Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
(i)Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1133, Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)(or its delegated agent), or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC)(or its delegated agent). Actions Done Using Previous Issues of Service Information
(j)Accomplishing the modification required by paragraph
(f)of this AD before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1117, Revision 03, dated August 24, 2001, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of that paragraph.
(k)Accomplishing the inspections and corrective actions required by paragraph
(h)of this AD before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1133, dated July 28, 2005; or Revision 01, dated August 7, 2006; is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of that paragraph. Compliance Times
(l)Where Airbus Service Bulletins A320-57-1133, dated July 28, 2005; Revision 01, dated August 7, 2006; and Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; specify replacing the sliding panel at the next opportunity if damaged, replace it within 600 flight hours after the inspection required by paragraph
(g)or
(h)of this AD, as applicable.
(m)If any damage to the trunnion is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(g)or
(h)of this AD, before further flight, do the corrective actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1133, Revision 01, dated August 7, 2006; or Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006. Grace Period Assessment
(n)Where Airbus Service Bulletins A320-57-1133, dated July 28, 2005; Revision 01, dated August 7, 2006; and Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; specify contacting the manufacturer for a grace period assessment after replacing the trunnion or flap, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent for the grace period assessment. No Reporting Requirement
(o)Although Airbus Service Bulletins A320-57-1133, dated July 28, 2005; Revision 01, dated August 7, 2006; and Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(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
(q)French airworthiness directive F-2005-139, dated August 3, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 31, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16094 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28973; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-118-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F Series Airplanes; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes; and Boeing Model 767 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing airplanes listed above. This proposed AD would require an inspection of certain lighted pushbutton switches in the flight compartment for configuration `D' master modules and part numbers and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD also provides an option to inspect panel assemblies for part numbers. This proposed AD results from a report indicating that the integrated drive generator failed in flight due to a possible switch malfunction. We are proposing this AD to ensure that certain lighted pushbutton switches in the flight compartment do not malfunction and cause the flightcrew to be unable to control critical airplane systems and continue safe airplane operation. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *By fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6482; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28973; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-118-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments submitted by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that the integrated drive generator
(IDG)failed in flight on a Boeing Model 757 airplane. The failure caused considerable oil staining of the fan case, and fire damage to the inner skin of the fan cowl and to the engine wiring in the immediate area. The flightcrew had used a lighted pushbutton switch to disconnect the IDG before flight, but investigators concluded that the switch failed and did not disconnect the IDG. The IDG disconnect switch had a master module that was a configuration prior to configuration ‘D.’ Switches with master modules prior to configuration ‘D’ can malfunction due to “cap pop-up” (the switch releases from ON to OFF without detection or warning) or “jamming” (the switch gets stuck in one position and cannot be activated or deactivated). These switches are used to control critical systems in the flight compartment. These critical systems include: • Fuel management; • Engine ignition and start control; • Auxiliary power unit and cargo fire control; • Ice and rain protection; • Emergency lights/passenger oxygen; • Electrical system; • Battery/standby power; • Air conditioning-temperature control; • Autoflight-yaw damper; • Engine electronic control; • Pneumatic-bleed air control; and • Landing gear actuator control. Cap pop-up or jamming, if not corrected, could cause the flightcrew to be unable to control critical airplane systems and continue safe airplane operation. The lighted pushbutton switches used to control critical systems in the flight compartment on Boeing Model 757 airplanes are identical to those installed on Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes, and Model 767 airplanes. Therefore, all of these models might be subject to the identified unsafe condition. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed the Boeing service bulletins in the following table. Boeing Alert Service Bulletins Boeing alert service bulletin Revision Date Model 747-33A2280 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. 757-33A0044 1 September 25, 2003 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes. 757-33A0045 1 September 25, 2003 757-300 series airplanes. 767-33A0087 1 September 25, 2003 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. 767-33A0088, including Appendix A Original December 19, 2001 767-400ER series airplanes. These service bulletins describe procedures for examining certain lighted pushbutton switches in the flight compartment for configuration ‘D' master modules and performing corrective action if a switch does not have a configuration ‘D' master module. The corrective action if a switch does not have a configuration ‘D' master module includes doing one of the replacements specified below and other actions: • Replacing the switch without a configuration ‘D' master module with a switch having a configuration ‘D' master module. • Replacing the switch master module with a new configuration ‘D' master module. • Replacing the panel assembly with a new panel assembly. • Changing the part number of the panel assembly. • Doing operational tests of the critical systems if components are replaced. If a switch does have a configuration ‘D' master module but does not have a correct part number of the panel assembly, the service bulletin specifies a corrective action of changing the part number of the panel assembly. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The Boeing service bulletins refer to Korry Service Bulletin 433-33-05, dated July 23, 2001, as an additional source of service information for finding configuration ‘D' switches, for replacing the switch master module with a configuration ‘D' master module, and for doing various operational tests after the replacement. Korry Service Bulletin 433-33-06, dated November 7, 2001, is an appropriate source of service information for finding the one-to-one switch correlation between the existing switches and the new part number switches. The Boeing service bulletins refer to the Boeing component service bulletins that are described below. The component service bulletins specify procedures for replacing the switch or switch master module at applicable critical locations in the flight compartment and for doing one-time operational tests after the replacement. Boeing Component Service Bulletins Component service bulletin— Date— Model— Critical location— 233N3203-21-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes Equipment Cooling Panel. 233N3204-30-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes Anti-ice Panel. 233N3206-28-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes Fuel Control Panel. 233N3209-24-03, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes, and 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes Electrical Systems Panel. 233N3211-24-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes and 767 airplanes Battery/Standby Power Panel. 233N3215-36-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes Bleed Air Panel Assembly. 233N3216-22-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes and 767 airplanes Yaw Damper Panel Assembly. 233N3219-33-01, including Appendix A December 19, 2001 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes Emergency Lights/Passenger Oxygen Panel. 233N3223-31-03, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes Engine Start/Ram Air Turbine Panel Assembly. 233N3224-73-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes Electronic Engine Control Power Panel Assembly. 233N6203-26-10, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes, and 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes Auxiliary Power Unit/Cargo Fire Control Panel Assembly. 233T3210-33-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes and 767 airplanes Emergency Lights Panel. 233T3215-24-01, including Appendix A December 19, 2001 767-400ER series airplanes Electrical Control Module Assembly. 233T3235-28-05, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes Fuel Management Panel Assembly. 233T3236-21-05, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 767 airplanes Temperature Control Panel. 233T3237-36-04, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 767 airplanes Bleed Air Control Panel. 233T3241-30-03, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes, and 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes Wing and Engine Anti-ice Control Panel. 233T3242-73-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes, and 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes Electronic Engine Control Panel. 233T3244-74-03, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 767 airplanes Engine Ignition and Start Control Panel. 233T6211-26-01, including Appendix A December 19, 2001 767-400ER series airplanes Auxiliary Power Unit and Cargo Fire Control Module Assembly. 233U3201-30-04, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Rain Removal/Anti-ice Module. 233U3202-24-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Electrical and Standby Power/Auxiliary Power Unit Start Module. 233U3203-36-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Bleed Air Control Module. 233U3206-28-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Engine Ignition Control/Fuel Jettison Module. 233U3208-22-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Passenger Oxygen and Yaw Damper Module. 233U3214-26-06, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Fire Control Module. 257U0002-32-04, including Appendix A December 19, 2001 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Landing Gear Actuator Control Lever Module Assembly. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletins.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletins Although the Boeing service bulletins recommend a compliance time for accomplishing the inspection at the earliest opportunity when labor and facilities are available, subsequent to issuing the service bulletins, Boeing has recommended the actions be done within 60 months. The FAA concurs. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD, we considered the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the inspection (8 work hours). In light of all of these factors, we find that a 60-month compliance time represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. Where the Boeing service bulletins specify to “examine” certain parts, this proposed AD refers to a “general visual inspection.” We have included the definition for a general visual inspection in a note in the proposed AD. The Boeing service bulletins specify inspecting the switch master module to determine if the master module is configuration ‘D' and replacing the switch with a switch having a configuration ‘D' master module if necessary. However, for the operators' convenience and to reduce workload, this proposed AD would include inspections for certain part numbers (an inspection of panel assemblies for part numbers and an inspection of the switches to determine if the switches have a new part number) that would result in no further action or fewer actions being required. In contrast to the service bulletins, this proposed AD would allow an inspection of panel assemblies for part numbers. If the panel assemblies have certain part numbers, no further action would be required. If the panel assemblies have certain other part numbers, then this proposed AD would require inspecting to determine whether a configuration ‘D' master module is installed or whether the switch has a new part number. If a configuration ‘D' master module is installed or the switch has a new part number, then this proposed AD would require changing the part number of the panel assembly. If no new switch part number is found and the master module is not configuration ‘D,' the corrective action includes replacing the switch with a new part number switch, replacing the switch with a switch having a configuration ‘D' master module, or replacing the switch master module with a new configuration ‘D' master module. The new switch must have one of the following part numbers (P/Ns): Boeing P/N S231T290-4201 through -4325 inclusive or Korry P/N 4336731004-4201 through -4325 inclusive. One-to-one correlation between the existing part number switches and the new part number switches is detailed in Korry Service Bulletin 433-33-06, dated November 7, 2001. We have coordinated this inspection and replacement with Boeing. The Boeing service bulletins also specify doing a replacement of certain panel assemblies with new panel assemblies that have switches with configuration ‘D' master modules. However, this proposed AD would require only doing a general visual inspection of the applicable switches of the panel assemblies to identify configuration ‘D' master modules and the P/N of the switch; the inspection is specified as an option in the Boeing service bulletins. We have determined that since only a few switches on a given panel might need to be replaced, doing the inspection of the applicable switches or panel assemblies is sufficient and cost-effective. The Boeing service bulletins do not refer to any service information for the removal and/or installation of certain panels. This proposed AD would require operators to remove or install those parts according to a method approved by the FAA, or in accordance with the actions specified in paragraph
(l)of this proposed AD. We have coordinated this difference with Boeing. Boeing issued Information Notice 747-33A2280 IN 01, dated July 1, 2004, to clarify instructions specified in paragraph 3.B.14.b.(3) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-33A2280, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2003. We have included this information in paragraph
(n)of this proposed AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 2,511 airplanes of the affected designs in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 934 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection of switches would take about 8 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed inspection for U.S. operators is $597,760, or $640 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **BOEING:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28973; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-118-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)must receive comments on this AD action by October 1, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing airplanes listed in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category. Table 1.—Applicability Model— As identified in Boeing alert service bulletin— 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes 747-33A2280, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2003. 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes 757-33A0044, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2003. 757-300 series airplanes 757-33A0045, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2003. 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes 767-33A0087, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2003. 767-400ER series airplanes 767-33A0088, including Appendix A, dated December 19, 2001. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report indicating that the integrated drive generator
(IDG)failed in flight due to possible switch malfunction. We are issuing this AD to ensure that certain lighted pushbutton switches in the flight compartment do not malfunction and cause the flightcrew to be unable to control critical airplane systems and continue safe airplane operation. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Bulletin References
(f)The term “the service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable. Note 1: The Boeing alert service bulletins refer to Korry Service Bulletin 433-33-05, dated July 23, 2001, as an additional source of service information for finding configuration ‘D' switches, for replacing the switch master module with a configuration ‘D' master module, and for doing various operational tests after the replacement. Component Service Bulletin References
(g)The Boeing service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD refer to the Boeing component service bulletins specified in Table 2 of this AD as additional sources of service information for replacing the switch or switch master module at critical locations, for doing operational tests after the replacement, and for identifying new panel part numbers. Table 2.—Boeing Component Service Bulletins: Secondary Sources of Service Information Boeing component service bulletin— Date— Model— Critical location— 233N3203-21-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes Equipment Cooling Panel. 233N3204-30-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes Anti-ice Panel. 233N3206-28-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes Fuel Control Panel. 233N3209-24-03, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes, and 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes Electrical Systems Panel. 233N3211-24-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes and 767 airplanes Battery/Standby Power Panel. 233N3215-36-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes Bleed Air Panel Assembly. 233N3216-22-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes and 767 airplanes Yaw Damper Panel Assembly. 233N3219-33-01, including Appendix A December 19, 2001 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes Emergency Lights/Passenger Oxygen Panel. 233N3223-31-03, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes Engine Start/Ram Air Turbine Panel Assembly. 233N3224-73-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes Electronic Engine Control Power Panel Assembly. 233N6203-26-10, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes, and 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes Auxiliary Power Unit/Cargo Fire Control Panel Assembly. 233T3210-33-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes and 767 airplanes Emergency Lights Panel. 233T3215-24-01, including Appendix A December 19, 2001 767-400ER series airplanes Electrical Control Module Assembly. 233T3235-28-05, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes Fuel Management Panel Assembly. 233T3236-21-05, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 767 airplanes Temperature Control Panel. 233T3237-36-04, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 767 airplanes Bleed Air Control Panel. 233T3241-30-03, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes, and 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes Wing and Engine Anti-ice Control Panel. 233T3242-73-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 757 airplanes, and 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes Electronic Engine Control Panel. 233T3244-74-03, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 767 airplanes Engine Ignition and Start Control Panel. 233T6211-26-01, including Appendix A December 19, 2001 767-400ER series airplanes Auxiliary Power Unit and Cargo Fire Control Module Assembly. 233U3201-30-04, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Rain Removal/ Anti-ice Module. 233U3202-24-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Electrical and Standby Power/Auxiliary Power Unit Start Module. 233U3203-36-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Bleed Air Control Module. 233U3206-28-01, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Engine Ignition Control/Fuel Jettison Module. 233U3208-22-02, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Passenger Oxygen and Yaw Damper Module. 233U3214-26-06, Revision 1 September 25, 2003 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Fire Control Module. 257U0002-32-04, including Appendix A December 19, 2001 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes Landing Gear Actuator Control Lever Module Assembly. Inspection
(h)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the switches specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), (h)(4), and (h)(5) of this AD, as applicable, to identify configuration ‘D’ master modules and the part number (P/N) of the switch, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph
(i)of this AD. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is “A visual examination of a 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 normal available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight or drop-light 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.”
(1)For Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes: Switches identified in step 1 and step 3 of Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-33A0044, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2003.
(2)For Model 757-300 series airplanes: Switches identified in step 1 of Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-33A0045, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2003.
(3)For Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes: Switches identified in step 1 of Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-33A0087, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2003.
(4)For Model 767-400ER series airplanes: Switches identified in step 1 of Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-33A0088, dated December 19, 2001.
(5)For all airplanes: Switches identified for the panel assemblies specified in the applicable service bulletin. Optional Inspection
(i)Instead of doing the inspection required by paragraph
(h)of this AD, operators may inspect the part number of the panel assemblies specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable, at the time specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD. If the part number is identified as a new part number in paragraph 2.E. Existing Parts Accountability or Appendix B of the applicable service bulletin, no further action is required. If the part number is not identified as a new part number, the inspection required by paragraph
(h)of this AD must be done at the specified time.
(1)For switches identified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD: P3-1 and P10 panel assemblies, as applicable.
(2)For switches identified in paragraphs (h)(5) of this AD: The panel assemblies identified in the applicable service bulletin. Corrective Action
(j)If during any inspection required by paragraph
(h)of this AD, any switch is found that does not have a configuration `D' switch master module and no switch part number specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD is found: Before further flight, do the actions specified in either paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD and do the part number revision, as applicable, specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD.
(1)Replace the switch with a switch specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), or (j)(1)(iii) of this AD, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph
(k)of this AD.
(i)Switches having Boeing P/N S231T290-4201 through -4325 inclusive.
(ii)Switches having Korry P/N 4336731004-4201 through -4325 inclusive. Note 3: One-to-one switch correlation between the existing switches and the new part number switches can be found in Korry Service Bulletin 433-33-06, dated November 7, 2001.
(iii)Switches that have a configuration ‘D’ master module.
(2)Replace the switch master module with a new configuration ‘D’ master module in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(3)If all switches on a panel assembly have a configuration ‘D’ master module or have a switch part number specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD: Revise the part number of the panel assembly; in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(k)If during any inspection required by paragraph
(h)of this AD, a configuration 'D' switch master module is found or the switch part number is specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD on all switches for a panel assembly: Before further flight, revise the part number of the panel assembly, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Contact the FAA/Removal and Installation Procedures
(l)If the applicable service bulletin specifies removal or installation of certain parts and does not specify removal or installation instructions: Before further flight, remove or install those parts according to a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or by doing the actions specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD for removal or paragraph (l)(2) of this AD for installation, as applicable.
(1)Remove the module/panel assembly by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i), (l)(1)(ii), and (l)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i)Hold the module/panel assembly in position and loosen the quick-release screws.
(ii)Carefully lower the module/panel assembly from the overhead panel.
(iii)Remove the electrical connectors attached to the rear of the module/panel assembly.
(2)Install the module/panel assembly by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (l)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Make sure that the module/panel assembly is correctly aligned, and connect the electrical connectors to the rear of the unit.
(ii)Carefully lift the module/panel assembly into position and install it with the quick-release screws. Operational Tests
(m)If any panel assemblies, switches, or master modules are replaced during any action required by this AD: Before further flight, do all applicable operational tests in accordance with the applicable service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph
(n)of this AD.
(n)Where paragraph 3.B.14.b.(3) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-33A2280, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2003, specifies procedures to do a test of the engine ignition control/fuel jettison module assembly, this AD requires that operators dry-motor the engine to remove the fuel from the tail pipe before doing the procedures in paragraph 3.B.14.b.(3). All fuel must be removed from the engine tail pipe before performing the test, because during the test the engine igniter will be energized. Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletins
(o)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 747-33A2280, 757-33A0044, 757-33A0045, or 767-33A0087, all dated December 19, 2001, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD, provided that the actions specified in this AD are done on the switches for the additional panel assemblies specified in Revision 1 of the service bulletins. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 2, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16100 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Part 422 [Docket No. SSA-2007-0009] RIN 0960-AG36 Private Printing of Prescribed Applications, Forms, and Other Publications AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The current regulation at 20 CFR 422.527 requires a person, institution, or organization (person) to obtain approval from the Social Security Administration
(SSA)prior to reproducing, duplicating, or privately printing any application or other form prescribed by the Administration. Such approval has been required whether or not the person intended to charge a fee for SSA's application(s) or other form(s). Section 1140(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) prohibits a person from charging a fee to reproduce, reprint, or distribute any SSA application, form, or publication unless he/she obtains the authorization of the Commissioner of Social Security in accordance with such regulations as he may prescribe. (42 U.S.C. 1320b-10(a)(2)(A)). This proposed rule would implement section 1140(a)(2)(A) of the Act by adding SSA's publications to the pre-authorization requirement identified in 20 CFR 422.527 and by establishing that SSA's authorization is required only when the person intends to charge a fee. The proposed rule also would prescribe the procedures a person who intends to charge a fee must follow to obtain SSA's written authorization prior to reproducing, reprinting, and/or distributing SSA's applications, forms, or publications. DATES: To be sure your comments are considered, we must receive the comments on or before October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may give us your comments by: Internet through the Federal eRulemaking portal at *http://www.regulations.gov;* sending a telefax to
(410)966-2830; or mailing a letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-7703. You may also deliver your comments to the Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. Comments are posted on the Federal eRulemaking portal, or you may inspect them on a regular business days by making arrangements with the contact person shown in this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact Renee Williams, Forms Management Team, Office of Publications and Logistics Management, 1325 Annex Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401
(410)965-4163, for information about this regulation. For information on eligibility or claiming benefits, please call our national toll-free numbers, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, SSA Online, at *http://www.socialsecurity.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The electronic file of this document is available on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Background The current regulation at 20 CFR 422.527 requires any person who wishes to reproduce, duplicate, or privately print any application or other form prescribed by SSA to obtain prior approval of such use from SSA. Consistent with the requirements of 20 CFR 422.527, in 1992, SSA began approving requests from the public to duplicate or privately print the Administration's applications or other forms. The requirement to obtain SSA approval applied whether or not the person intended to charge a fee. Section 312(a) of the Social Security Independence and Program Improvement Act (SSIPA) amended the Social Security Act (the Act) and, among other things, added section 1140(a)(2)(A) to the Act. Pub. L. 103-296, Sec. 312(a) (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-10(a)(2)(A)). This section prohibits any person from charging a fee to reproduce, reprint, or distribute SSA's official applications, forms, or publications unless the Commissioner grants the person specific written authorization in accordance with regulations which the Commissioner shall prescribe. This proposed rule would implement section 312(a) of the SSIPA by adding SSA publications to the current regulation and by providing for SSA's prior approval of requests to reproduce, reprint, and/or distribute its applications, forms, or publications when the person intends to charge a fee. Furthermore, our proposed rule would implement section 312(a) by establishing the procedure any person who intends to charge a fee for reproducing, reprinting, or distributing SSA materials must follow to obtain SSA's prior approval. The requirement to obtain SSA's prior approval would apply regardless of the means the person uses to transmit the document, e.g., Internet or direct mail. This regulation would help to ensure that consumers obtain accurate and current materials and information regarding the Administration's programs. Clarity of This Regulation Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this proposed rule, we invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand. For example: • Have we organized the material to suit your needs? • Are the requirements of the rule clearly stated? • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve the clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866 We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and determined that this proposed rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act The proposed rule at 20 CFR 422.527 contains information collection requirements. SSA will collect the information called for in this regulation using Form SSA-1010, Request to Reproduce, Duplicate, or Distribute SSA Forms, Applications, or Publications. Below is the estimated public reporting burden: SSA-1010 Number of Respondents 9 Frequency of Response 36 Average Burden per Response (minutes) 8 Estimated Annual Burden (hours) 43 We have submitted an Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance. We are soliciting comments on the burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be submitted to the OMB and to the Social Security Administration at the following addresses/fax numbers: Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax Number: 202-395-6974, E-mail address: *OIRA_Submissions@omb.eop.gov.* Social Security Administration, Attn: SSA Reports Clearance Officer, Rm. 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Fax Number: 410-965-6400. Comments can be received for up to 60 days after publication of this notice and will be most useful if received by SSA within 30 days of publication. To receive a copy of the OMB clearance request, call the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454. List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 422 Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Social Security, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 30, 2007. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend § 422.527 of subpart F of part 422 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows. PART 422—ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES Subpart F—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart F of part 422 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 1140(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 1320b-10(a)(2)(A) (Pub. L. 103-296, Sec. 312(a)). 2. Section 422.527 is revised to read as follows: § 422.527 Private printing and modification of prescribed applications, forms, and other publications. Any person, institution, or organization wishing to reproduce, reprint, or distribute any application, form, or publication prescribed by the Administration must obtain prior approval if he or she intends to charge a fee. Requests for approval must be in writing and include the reason or need for the reproduction, reprinting, or distribution; the intended users of the application, form, or publication; the fee to be charged; any proposed modification; the proposed format; the type of machinery (e.g., printer, burster, mail handling), if any, for which the application, form, or publication is being designed; estimated printing quantity; estimated printing cost per thousand; estimated annual usage; and any other pertinent information required by the Administration. Forward all requests for prior approval to: Office of Publications Management, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. [FR Doc. E7-16140 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 606, 607, 610, and 640 [Docket No. 2007N-0264] Revisions to the Requirements Applicable to Blood, Blood Components, and Source Plasma; Companion Document to Direct Final Rule AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is proposing to amend the biologics regulations by removing, revising, or updating specific regulations applicable to blood, blood components, and Source Plasma to be more consistent with current practices in the blood industry and to remove unnecessary or outdated requirements. We are taking this action as part of our continuing effort to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations on industry and to revise outdated regulations without diminishing public health protection. This proposed rule is a companion to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . DATES: Submit written or electronic comments by October 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2007N-0264, by any of the following methods: *Electronic Submissions* Submit electronic comments in the following ways: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site. *Written Submissions* Submit written submissions in the following ways: • FAX: 301-827-6870. • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described previously, in the ADDRESSES portion of this document under Electronic Submissions. *Instructions* : All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* , including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket* : For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen M. Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Companion Document to Direct Final Rulemaking This proposed rule is a companion to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . This companion proposed rule provides the procedural framework to finalize the rule in the event that the direct final rule receives any significant adverse comments and is withdrawn. The comment period for this companion proposed rule runs concurrently with the comment period for the direct final rule. Any comments received under this companion proposed rule will also be considered as comments regarding the direct final rule. We are publishing the direct final rule because the rule is noncontroversial, and we do not anticipate that it will receive any significant adverse comments. A significant adverse comment is defined as a comment that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether an adverse comment is significant and warrants terminating a direct final rulemaking, we will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process in accordance with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of the rule will not be considered significant or adverse under this procedure. A comment recommending a regulation change in addition to those in the rule would not be considered a significant adverse comment unless the comment states why the rule would be ineffective without additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and that provision can be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of a significant adverse comment. If no significant adverse comment is received in response to the direct final rule, no further action will be taken related to this proposed rule. Instead, we will publish a confirmation document, before the effective date of the direct final rule, confirming that the direct final rule will go into effect on February 19, 2008. Additional information about direct rulemaking procedures is set forth in a guidance published in the **Federal Register** of November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466). II. Legal Authority FDA is proposing to issue this new rule under the biological products and communicable diseases provisions of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262-264), and the drugs, devices, and general administrative provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351-353, 355, 360, 360j, 371, and 374). Under these provisions of the PHS Act and the act, we have the authority to issue and enforce regulations designed to ensure that biological products are safe, pure, potent, and properly labeled, and to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease. III. Highlights of Proposed Rule FDA is proposing to amend the biologics regulations by removing, revising, or updating specific regulations applicable to blood, blood components, and Source Plasma to be more consistent with current practices in the blood industry and to remove unnecessary or outdated requirements. We are also issuing these amendments as a direct final rule because we have concluded that they are noncontroversial and that there is little likelihood that there will be comments opposing the rule. Any comment recommending additional changes to these regulations will not be considered to be a “significant adverse comment” unless the comment demonstrates that the change being made in the direct final rule represents a major departure from current regulations or accepted industry standards, or cannot be implemented without additional amendments to the regulation. Below we identify each of the changes included in this proposed rule. We are proposing to amend 21 CFR 606.3(i) by revising the definition of “processing” to mean any procedure employed after collection and before “or after” compatibility testing of blood. The current regulation states that processing means any procedure employed after collection and before compatibility testing of blood. Because blood components occasionally are further processed after compatibility testing has been performed, we are proposing this revision to the definition. We are proposing to amend 21 CFR 607.65(f) by removing the words “approved for Medicare reimbursement and” and replacing with the words “that is certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 263a) and 42 CFR part 493 or has met equivalent requirements as determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and which are”. As a result of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988
(CLIA)and the implementing regulations adopted by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), the inspection regime relied on in a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)between FDA and the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), now CMS, will be modified. Under the CLIA program, clinical laboratories must be surveyed by CMS (either directly or through a State survey agency), unless they are located in a CLIA-approved State, or are accredited by a CMS-approved accreditation organization. CLIA regulations apply to clinical laboratories regardless of whether or not the laboratories seek Medicare participation. FDA is proposing to amend this regulation to make it consistent with updates in the CMS regulations. We are proposing to amend 21 CFR 610.53(c) by revising the dating period in the table for Platelets, Red Blood Cells Deglycerolized, and Red Blood Cells Frozen. Although the current recommended dating period would remain unchanged for Platelets and Red Blood Cells Deglycerolized, we are proposing to add that a different dating period could apply for these products if so specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system approved for such use by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). This change would allow for flexible dating periods depending on the type of collecting, processing, and storage system used. In addition, under Red Blood Cells Frozen, we are proposing to revise the dating period from 3 years to 10 years, or as specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system approved for such use by the Director, CBER. This change would allow for flexible dating periods depending on the type of collecting, processing, and storage system used. Under § 640.4(h) (21 CFR 640.4(h)), we are proposing to revise the temporary storage temperature for blood that is transported from the donor center to the processing laboratory. We are proposing a range between 1 and 10° C until the blood arrives at the processing laboratory. We are proposing this revision to be consistent with 21 CFR 600.15 which allows for shipping temperatures of Whole Blood to be from 1 to 10° C, and for consistency with current industry practice. In addition, we are proposing to revise the applicability of this requirement to Whole Blood unless it is to be further processed into another component, such as Platelets or Red Blood Cells Leukocytes Reduced. The current regulation applies only to Whole Blood unless the blood is to be used as a source for Platelets. This change would clarify that processing Whole Blood into other components, in addition to Platelets, is acceptable. For Whole Blood that is to be processed into another component, we are proposing that the blood must be stored in an environment maintained at a temperature range that is specified for that component in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system approved for such use by the Director, CBER. We are also proposing to replace the term donor “clinic” with donor “center” for consistency with § 640.4(b) and current terminology. We are proposing to remove and reserve § 640.21(b) (21 CFR 640.21(b)) because this provision is obsolete, as well as proposing to remove the reference to plasmapheresis in 21 CFR 640.20(b). Improvements in technology now allow establishments to collect Platelets by automated methods eliminating the need for the collection of platelets by manual plasmapheresis. Currently, establishments may collect Platelets by automated platelet-specific apheresis collection procedures. We are proposing to amend § 640.21(c) by adding that plateletpheresis donors must meet the criteria for suitability as prescribed in 21 CFR 640.3 and 640.63(c)(6), or as described in an approved biologics license application
(BLA)or an approved supplement to a BLA, and that informed consent must be obtained as prescribed in 21 CFR 640.61. This revision would clarify that registered facilities must follow the suitability requirements for plateletpheresis donors. We are proposing to remove and reserve § 640.22(b) (21 CFR 640.22(b)) because this regulation is obsolete. As previously mentioned, improvements in technology now allow establishments to collect Platelets by automated methods, eliminating the need for the collection of platelets by plasmapheresis. Currently, establishments may collect Platelets by automated platelet-specific apheresis collection procedures. We are proposing to amend § 640.22(c) by adding that if plateletpheresis is used, the procedure for collection must be as prescribed in 21 CFR 640.62— *Medical supervision* ; 21 CFR 640.64— *Collection of blood for Source Plasma* ; and 21 CFR 640.65— *Plasmapheresis* , or as described in an approved biologics license application or an approved supplement to a BLA. This revision would clarify that registered facilities must follow the collection of source material requirements for plateletpheresis donors. We are proposing to amend 21 CFR 640.24(a) to allow Platelets to be pooled under certain circumstances. That is, Platelets may be pooled if such processing is specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system for approved such use by the Director, CBER. We are proposing to amend the regulation to provide flexibility depending on the type of collecting, processing, and storage system used. We are proposing to amend 21 CFR 640.25(b)(2) by revising the pH level from “6.0” to “6.2” for consistency with current industry practice. Studies have shown that a lower pH may adversely affect platelet function (Refs. 1 and 2). We are proposing to amend 21 CFR 640.30(a) by revising the term “product,” to “component,” for consistency with current terminology of the proper name. We are also proposing to add an alternative definition of Plasma, namely, “The fluid portion of human blood intended for intravenous use which is prepared by apheresis methods as specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system including closed and open systems.” We are proposing this change because Plasma is now collected by other methods, such as apheresis collection, in addition to being collected as a byproduct of Whole Blood collection. We are proposing to amend 21 CFR 640.32(a) to add that a different storage temperature may be used for Whole Blood intended for further manufacturing into Plasma, Fresh Frozen Plasma, or Liquid Plasma. Any different storage temperature would be specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system. This change would allow for flexible storage temperatures depending on the particular type of system used. We are proposing to amend 21 CFR 640.34(b) by adding the phrase “or collected by an apheresis procedure” in the second sentence to clarify that this section also applies to plasma collected by aphersis procedures. We would require that fresh frozen plasma using the apheresis procedure be prepared from blood collected by a single uninterrupted venipuncture with minimal damage to, and minimal manipulation of, the donor's tissue. We are proposing to amend § 640.64(b) (21 CFR 640.64(b)) by removing the second sentence that states, “The amount of anticoagulant required for the quantity of blood to be collected shall be in the blood container when it is sterilized.” We are proposing to remove this sentence because of technological advances. Now, the anticoagulant does not always have to be in the collection set. The anticoagulant can be connected by a “sterile docking” procedure or attached separately, as is the case with automated apheresis collection. We are also proposing to amend § 640.64(c) by removing the specific anticoagulant solution formulas and indicating that the anticoagulant solutions must be compounded and used according to a formula approved by the Director, CBER. We have determined that it is unnecessary to provide specific formulae for anticoagulant solutions in the regulations, and that manufacturers should be able to use any anticoagulant approved by the FDA for such use by the manufacturer. We have also revised the above regulations, where applicable, by using “must” or “is” instead of “shall,” depending on the circumstances. We have made these revisions for plain language purposes. These editorial changes are for clarity only and do not change the substance of the requirements. We will continue to make these changes in other applicable regulations as they are revised in future rulemakings. In addition, we will continue to make the change from “product” to “component” in other applicable regulations as they are revised in future rulemakings. IV. Analysis of Impacts A. Review Under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive order. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the proposed rule amendments have no compliance costs and do not result in any new requirements, the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $122 million, using the most current
(2005)Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount. B. Environmental Impact The agency has determined, under 21 CFR 25.31(h), that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. C. Federalism FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has concluded that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required. V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no collection of information. Therefore clearance by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required. VI. Request for Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. VII. References The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ), and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 1. Scott Murphy, “Platelet Storage for Transfusion,” *Seminars in Hematology* , 22(3): 165-177, July 1985. 2. L. Dumont and T. VandenBroeke, “Seven-Day Storage of Apheresis Platelets Report of an In Vitro Study,” 43: 143-150, *Transfusion* , February 2003. List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 606 Blood, Labeling, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 21 CFR Part 607 Blood. 21 CFR Part 610 Biologics, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 21 CFR Part 640 Blood, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act, and under authority delegated by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR parts 606, 607, 610, and 640 be amended as follows: PART 606—CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE FOR BLOOD AND BLOOD COMPONENTS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 606 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 355, 360, 360j, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263a, 264. 2. Section 606.3 is amended by revising paragraph
(i)to read as follows: § 606.3 Definitions.
(i)*Processing* means any procedure employed after collection and before or after compatibility testing of blood, and includes the identification of a unit of donor blood, the preparation of components from such unit of donor blood, serological testing, labeling and associated recordkeeping. PART 607—ESTABLISHMENT REGISTRATION AND PRODUCT LISTING FOR MANUFACTURERS OF HUMAN BLOOD AND BLOOD PRODUCTS 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 607 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 355, 360, 371, 374, 381, 393; 42 U.S.C. 262, 264, 271. 4. Section 607.65 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph
(f)to read as follows: § 607.65 Exemptions for blood product establishments.
(f)Transfusion services which are a part of a facility that is certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 263a) and 42 CFR part 493 or has met equivalent requirements as determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and which are engaged in the compatibility testing and transfusion of blood and blood components, but which neither routinely collect nor process blood and blood components. * * * PART 610—GENERAL BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS STANDARDS 5. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 610 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 360c, 360d, 360h, 360i, 371, 372, 374, 381; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a, 264. 6. Section 610.53 is amended in paragraph
(c)in the table by revising the entries for Platelets, Red Blood Cells Deglycerolized, and Red Blood Cells Frozen to read as follows: § 610.53 Dating periods for licensed biological products.
(c)* * * A B C D Product Manufacturer's storage period 1 to 5° C (unless otherwise stated) Manufacturer's storage period 0° C or colder (unless otherwise stated) Dating period after leaving manufacturer's storage when stored at 2 to 8° C (unless otherwise stated) * * * * * * * Platelets Not applicable do 72 hours from time of collection of source blood, provided labeling recommends storage at 20 to 24° C or between 1 and 6° C, or as specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system approved for such use by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). * * * * * * * Red Blood Cells Deglycerolized do do 24 hours after removal from storage at 65° C or colder, provided labeling recommends storage between 1 and 6° C, or as specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system approved for such use by the Director, CBER. Red Blood Cells Frozen do do 10 years from date of collection of source blood, provided labeling recommends storage at 65° C or colder, or as specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system approved for such use by the Director, CBER. PART 640—ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR HUMAN BLOOD AND BLOOD PRODUCTS 7. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 640 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 371; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a, 264. 8. Section 640.4 is amended by revising paragraph
(h)to read as follows: § 640.4 Collection of the blood.
(h)*Storage* . Whole blood must be placed in storage at a temperature between 1 and 6° C immediately after collection unless the blood is to be further processed into another component or the blood must be transported from the donor center to the processing laboratory. If transported, the blood must be placed in temporary storage having sufficient refrigeration capacity to cool the blood continuously at a temperature range between 1 and 10° C until arrival at the processing laboratory. At the processing laboratory, the blood must be stored at a temperature between 1 and 6° C. Blood from which a component is to be prepared must be held in an environment maintained at a temperature range specified for that component in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system approved for such use by the Director, CBER. 9. Section 640.20 is amended by revising paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 640.20 Platelets.
(b)*Source* . The source material for Platelets is plasma which may be obtained by whole blood collection or by plateletpheresis. 10. Section 640.21 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)and revising paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 640.21 Suitability of donors.
(b)[Reserved]
(c)Plateletpheresis donors must meet the criteria for suitability as prescribed in §§ 640.3 and 640.63(c)(6), or as described in an approved biologics license application
(BLA)or an approved supplement to a BLA. Informed consent must be obtained as prescribed in § 640.61. 11. Section 640.22 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)and revising paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 640.22 Collection of source material.
(b)[Reserved]
(c)If plateletpheresis is used, the procedure for collection must be as prescribed in §§ 640.62, 640.64 (except paragraph (c)), and 640.65, or as described in an approved biologics license application
(BLA)or an approved supplement to a BLA. 12. Section 640.24 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 640.24 Processing.
(a)Separation of plasma and platelets and resuspension of the platelets must be in a closed system. Platelets must not be pooled during processing unless the platelets are pooled as specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system approved for such use by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. § 640.25 [Amended] 13. Section 640.25 is amended in paragraph (b)(2) by removing “6.0” and adding in its place “6.2”. 14. Section 640.30 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 640.30 Plasma.
(a)*Proper name and definition* . The proper name of this component is Plasma. The component is defined as:
(1)The fluid portion of one unit of human blood intended for intravenous use which is collected in a closed system, stabilized against clotting, and separated from the red cells; or
(2)The fluid portion of human blood intended for intravenous use which is prepared by apheresis methods as specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system including closed and open systems. 15. Section 640.32 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 640.32 Collection of source material.
(a)Whole Blood must be collected, transported, and stored as prescribed in § 640.4. When whole blood is intended for Plasma, Fresh Frozen Plasma, and Liquid Plasma, until the plasma is removed, the whole blood must be maintained at a temperature between 1 and 6° C or as specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system approved for such use by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluations and Research. Whole blood intended for Platelet Rich Plasma must be maintained as prescribed in § 640.24 until the plasma is removed. The red blood cells must be placed in storage at a temperature between 1 and 6° C immediately after the plasma is separated. 16. Section 640.34 is amended by revising the second sentence in paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 640.34 Processing.
(b)*Fresh Frozen Plasma* . * * * The plasma must be separated from the red blood cells or collected by an apheresis procedure, and placed in a freezer within 8 hours or within the timeframe specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system, and stored at 18° C or colder. 17. Section 640.64 is amended by revising paragraphs
(b)and
(c)to read as follows: § 640.64 Collection of blood for source plasma.
(b)*Blood containers* . Blood containers and donor sets must be pyrogen-free, sterile, and identified by lot number.
(c)*The anticoagulant solution* . The anticoagulant solution must be sterile and pyrogen-free. Anticoagulant solutions must be compounded and used according to a formula that has been approved for the applicant by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Dated: July 23, 2007. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-15942 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 53 and 301 [REG-142039-06; REG-139268-06] RIN 1545-BG18; 1545-BG20 Excise Taxes on Prohibited Tax Shelter Transactions and Related Disclosure Requirements; Disclosure Requirements With Respect to Prohibited Tax Shelter Transactions; Requirement of Return and Time for Filing; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Corrections to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-142039-06) and notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-139268-06) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Friday, July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36927) providing guidance under 4965 of the Internal Revenue Code and relating to entity-level and manager-level excise taxes with respect to prohibited tax shelter transactions to which tax-exempt entities are parties; §§ 6033(a)(2) and 6011(g), relating to certain disclosure obligations with respect to such transactions; and §§ 6011 and 6071, relating to the requirement of a return and time for filing with respect to section 4965 taxes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Galina Kolomietz,
(202)622-6070, or Michael Blumenfeld,
(202)622-1124 (not toll-free numbers). For questions specifically relating to qualified pension plans, individual retirement accounts, and similar tax-favored savings arrangements, contact Dana Barry,
(202)622-6060 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of proposed rulemaking that are the subjects of this correction are under sections 6011, 6033, 6071, and 4965 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, proposed regulations (REG-142039-06 and REG-139268-06) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the proposed regulations (REG-142039-06 and REG-139268-06) which were the subjects of FR Doc.E7-12902), is corrected as follows: § 53.4965-4 [Corrected] 1. On page 36933, column 1, § 53.4365-4(c) *Example 2.* , line 12 of the paragraph, the language “by Notice 2006-16 (2006-9 IRB 538). The” is corrected to read “by Notice 2006-16 (2006-9 IRB 538)). The”. § 53.4965-8 [Corrected] 2. On page 36936, column 3, § 53.4965-8(e), line 2 of the paragraph, the language “ *periods* . If a transaction (other than a” is corrected to read “ *periods* . If a transaction other than a”. PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION 3. On page 36938, column 1, paragraph 8, line 2, the language “301 continues to read, part, as follows:” is corrected to read “301 continues to read, in part, as follows:”. § 301.6011(g)-1 [Corrected] 4. On page 36938, column 1, § 301.6011(g)-1(a)(2)(i), line 4 of the paragraph, the language “of its tax-exempt, tax-indifferent or tax-” is corrected to read “of its tax-exempt, tax indifferent or tax-”. 5. On page 36938, column 1, § 301.6011(g)-1(a)(2)(ii), line 3 of the paragraph, the language “exempt, tax-indifferent or tax-favored” is corrected to read “exempt, tax indifferent or tax-favored”. § 301.6033-5 [Corrected] 6. On page 36939, column 1, § 301.6033-5, line 1 of the paragraph, the language “[The text of this section is the same” is corrected to read “[The text of the proposed amendment to § 301.6033-5 is the same”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-16080 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 220 RIN 0596-AC49 National Environmental Policy Act Procedures AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of proposed rule; request for comment. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing to move its National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)implementing procedures from Forest Service Manual
(FSM)1950 and Forest Service Handbook
(FSH)1909.15 to 36 Code of Federal Regulations, part 220 (36 CFR 220). The Agency also proposes to clarify existing NEPA procedures and add new procedures to incorporate Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)guidance and to better align Agency NEPA procedures with Agency decision processes. Agency explanatory guidance interpreting CEQ and Agency procedures in regulation will remain in FSH 1909.15. Agency NEPA authority, objectives, policy, and responsibilities will remain in FSM 1950. This rule would meet 40 CFR 1507.3 by placing Agency-implementing procedures in their proper regulatory position. Maintaining Agency explanatory guidance in directives would facilitate timely Agency responses to new ideas, new information, procedural interpretations, training needs, and editorial changes to assist field units when implementing the NEPA process. Finally, the proposed changes to the Forest Service NEPA procedures are intended to provide an environmental analysis process that fits better with modern thinking on decisionmaking, collaboration, and adaptive management to meet the intent of NEPA through establishing incremental alternative development, and adaptive management principles. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be sent by e-mail to *fsnepa@contentanalysisgroup.com,* or by facsimile to 801-397-2601, or via the U.S. Postal Service to: NEPA Implementation Procedures, C/O Content Analysis Group, 1584 South 500 West, Suite 201, Woods Cross, UT 84010. Electronic or facsimile comments are preferred. If comments are sent via U.S. Postal Service, please do not submit duplicate electronic or facsimile comments. Please confine comments to the proposed move of existing NEPA procedures from FSH to regulation, proposed changes to existing NEPA procedures, and proposed new NEPA procedures and explain the reasons for any recommended changes. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Carbone, Ecosystem Management Staff,
(202)205-0884, Forest Service, USDA. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Need for the Proposed Rule Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)regulations at 40 CFR 1507.3 require Federal agencies to adopt procedures as necessary to supplement CEQ's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)and to consult with CEQ during their development and prior to publication in the **Federal Register** . The regulation further encourages agencies to publish agency explanatory guidance for CEQ's regulations and agency procedures. In 1979, the Forest Service chose to combine its implementing procedures and explanatory guidance in Agency directives (Forest Service Manual 1950 and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15). The blending of NEPA implementing procedures with explanatory guidance requires the Forest Service to provide for public notice and comment and to consult with CEQ, as required by 40 CFR1507.3, when amending any guidance for explaining CEQ or Agency procedures, resulting in an increased administrative burden for the Agency and CEQ. This proposal would meet the intent of 40 CFR 1507.3 by placing Agency-implementing procedures in their proper regulatory position. Placing Agency explanatory guidance in directives would facilitate quicker Agency responses to new ideas, new information, procedural interpretations, training needs, and editorial changes. Since the last major update of Forest Service NEPA policy in 1992, CEQ has issued guidance the Agency wishes to incorporate in its regulation. The Agency also wants to incorporate several concepts that are currently used, but for which there are no explicit provisions in the current procedures. Finally, this proposal would allow for better integrating of NEPA procedures and documentation into current Agency decisionmaking processes, including collaborative and incremental decisionmaking. Almost 30 years ago, CEQ stated in its preamble to the final NEPA implementing regulations (Nov. 29, 1978, 43 FR 55978) that the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)has “tended to become an end in itself, rather than a means to making better decisions. They noted further; “One serious problem with the administration of NEPA has been the separation between an agency's NEPA process and its decisionmaking process. In too many cases bulky EISs have been prepared and transmitted but not used by the decision-maker.” The innovation at that time was a new requirement for a “Record of Decision”
(ROD)to show “how the EIS was used in arriving at the decision.” At that time, CEQ broadened the focus from emphasis on a single document
(EIS)to “emphasize the entire NEPA process, from early planning through assessment and EIS preparation through decisions and provisions for follow-up.” Today, after receiving comments on a draft EIS, agencies prepare a final EIS and document their decision in a ROD, tying the analysis from the EIS to the final agency decision. Almost 20 years later, a CEQ report, “The National Environmental Policy Act—A Study of Its Effectiveness After Twenty-five Years” (January 1997) stated that “frequently NEPA takes too long and costs too much, agencies make decisions before hearing from the public, documents are too long and technical for many people to use” and according to Federal agency NEPA liaisons, “the EIS process is still frequently viewed as merely a compliance requirement rather than as a tool to effect better decision-making. Because of this, millions of dollars, years of time, and tons of paper have been spent on documents that have little effect on decisionmaking.” They point out “some citizens’ groups and concerned individuals view the NEPA process as largely a one-way communications track that does not use their input effectively” and “when they are invited to a formal scoping meeting to discuss a well-developed project about which they have heard little, they may feel they have been invited too late in the process.” Finally, the report states, “some citizens complain that their time and effort spent providing good ideas are not reflected in changes to proposals.” A 2005 National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee (NECRAC) Report chartered by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution of the Morris K. Udall Foundation reflected further on the state of the NEPA process 27 years after CEQ published its regulations and recommended furthering the evolution of making section 102 procedural requirements less an end in themselves and more as a means to fulfill the policies set out in section 101. The report calls for improvements in the “traditional model for NEPA implementation” where “agencies announce their plans, share their analyses of potential impacts of a range of options, solicit public comment, make decisions, deal with the fallout, if any, and move on to the next project.” This model results in agency decisions “based on a collection of views and interests” but “generally not a collective decision.” The report goes on to state that while not a failure, the traditional model for NEPA “does not take full advantage of the many strengths of section 101.” The NECRAC recognized that “Americans expect to be able to work things out and make things better over time. It is not inevitable, and it is clearly not desirable, that society's ability to constructively address and resolve conflicts should languish or fail to adapt to changing times. The current state of environmental and natural resource decision-making is dominated by the traditional model, which too often fails to capture the breadth and quality of the values and purposes of NEPA.” The Committee called for Federal decisionmaking that “enables interested parties” to “engage more effectively in the decisionmaking process” where “interested parties are no longer merely commenters on a Federal proposal, but act as partners in defining Federal plans, programs, and projects.” The Federal Government has placed increasing emphasis on “cooperating agencies” “cooperative conservation,” “collaboration,” and “environmental conflict resolution.” CEQ guidance and direction on cooperating agencies and environmental conflict resolution includes: • CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Federal Agencies: Designation of Non-Federal Agencies to be Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of NEPA, July 28, 1999; • CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Federal Agencies: Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, January 30, 2002; and • CEQ & OMB Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution, 28 November 2005. As a part of its continuing efforts to improve the implementation of NEPA, CEQ issued a NEPA Task Force report in 2003 entitled “Modernizing NEPA Implementation”, which included recommendations to further collaboration in the NEPA process. Other Federal efforts include Executive Order 13352 on Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation, August 26, 2004, and Forest Service continuing emphasis on collaboration in Agency planning, NEPA analysis and decisionmaking (see *http://www.partnershipresourcecenter.org/policy/* for a list of laws and Forest Service policies related to collaboration). As the Forest Service integrates the NEPA process and EIS into its collaborative and cooperative decisionmaking, the Agency needs an option to provide EIS documentation that reflects the way this interactive and incremental decisionmaking occurs. There is a need to ensure that the EIS is used in “arriving at the decision.” In order to do this, Forest Service NEPA procedures need an option to reflect a more modern environmental analysis process that fits better with today's collaborative processes and is used differently than the traditional NEPA documentation model currently assumes. A “one size fits all” approach to NEPA documentation has not been effective. The option of providing documentation that reflects the collaborative processes as described in these procedures will allow the Forest Service to document the analysis that best fits the particular situation. As the NECRAC Report points out, there continues to be focus on preparing NEPA documents such as an EIS or environmental assessment
(EA)for litigation rather than to facilitate an informed decision process. The proposed NEPA documentation requirements are intended to enable interested parties to engage more effectively in the decisionmaking process rather than merely as commenters on proposals and documents. Rather than a document to be used only for a final Agency decision, the EIS could evolve as the decision evolves incrementally and be useful throughout the process. The EIS would then be used as a tool to foster a collaborative and incremental decision-making process rather than an end in itself. The record would reflect a history of how the detailed statement was used in collaborative and incremental decisionmaking and the final draft and final EISs would address a more narrowly focused Agency action for a final decision. The responsible official will make available preliminary draft and/or preliminary final EISs to keep interested parties informed as the analysis progresses. While the proposed regulation does not require a decision to be made collaboratively, it does allow the Agency to meet the procedural requirements of section 102
(2)of NEPA while fostering fulfillment of the act's purpose in section 101. Proposed NEPA procedures to allow for better alignment of an EIS with Agency decisionmaking include:
(1)Allowing proposals and alternative(s) to be explored and modified throughout the NEPA process (36 CFR 220.2 (e)), and
(2)allowing the circulation of multiple preliminary detailed statement(s) without filing requirements (36 CFR 220.2(g)(2)). The intent is to use environmental information effectively by multiple parties during the NEPA process rather than only at distinct comment periods for a draft and final impact statement. This is to allow efficient and effective use of an EIS to influence Agency decisionmaking as interested parties regularly exchange and discuss issues; differences; and necessary environmental, social, and economic effects analyses while alternatives are explored, evaluated, and modified throughout the process. The intent is to focus on a deliberative public process and appropriate disclosure outlined in section 102 of NEPA to promote the act's purposes. The Agency is also proposing to incorporate adaptive management into its procedures. This would allow procedural flexibility to manage natural resources in light of uncertainties. As Agency NEPA procedures are being moved from the Forest Service Directive System to the Code of Federal Regulations, the following key changes would be made: • Clarify actions subject to NEPA by summarizing the relevant CEQ regulations in one place. • Recognize Agency obligations to take immediate emergency responses and emphasize the options available for subsequent proposals to address actions related to the emergency when normal NEPA processes are not possible. • Incorporate CEQ guidance language regarding what past actions are “relevant and useful” in illuminating or predicting direct and indirect effects of a proposed action when doing cumulative effects analysis. • Clarify that an alternative(s) including the proposed action may be modified through an incremental process. • Clarify that adaptive management strategies may be incorporated into an alternative(s), including the proposed action. • Incorporate CEQ guidance that states EAs need only analyze the proposed action if there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alterative uses of available resources. Section-by-Section Description of Proposed Changes The majority of implementing procedures found in FSH 1909.15 will transfer to 36 CFR part 220 and remain intact with organizational and grammatical changes added to reflect regulatory requirements. Rule organization, additions to current procedures, and significant changes to current procedures are outlined below. Agency explanatory guidance interpreting CEQ regulations and this rule will remain in FSH 1909.15. CEQ guidance memos, court cases, and Agency manual and handbook direction can be reviewed at *http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa.* *Section 220.1 Purpose and Scope.* This section outlines the intent of the rule and identifies to which authority the rule is subject. *Section 220.2 Applicability.* This section establishes that all Agency organizational elements are subject to the rule. *Section 220.3 Definitions.* This section incorporates from FSH 1909.15 definitions for Decision Document, Decision Memo, Decision Notice, Environmentally Preferable Alternative, and adds definitions for Adaptive Management, Preliminary Environmental Impact Statements, Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions, and Responsible Official. *Section 220.4 General Requirements.* This section establishes procedures that apply to NEPA documents. Paragraph
(a)Sets forth which Agency actions are subject to NEPA requirements by compiling pertinent sections from CEQ regulations in one place. Paragraph
(b)clarifies expectations for Agency NEPA compliance in the case of emergencies. This section clarifies that responsible officials can take immediate actions in response to the immediate effects of emergencies necessary to mitigate harm to life, property, or important resources without complying with the procedural requirements of NEPA, the CEQ regulations, or these proposed regulations. Furthermore, responsible officials can take urgent actions to respond to the immediate effects of an emergency when there is not sufficient time to comply with the procedural requirements of NEPA, the CEQ regulations, or these proposed regulations by consulting with the Washington Office (and CEQ in cases where the response action is expected to have significant environmental impacts) about alternative arrangements. Paragraph
(c)states how the NEPA process is to be integrated with Agency decisionmaking. Paragraph
(d)incorporates FSH language for the Schedule of Proposed Actions. Paragraph
(e)incorporates FSH language on scoping and further states that a Schedule of Proposed Actions is not intended to be used as the sole scoping mechanism for a proposed action. Paragraph
(f)consolidates and amends FSH language by incorporating CEQ guidance of June 24, 2005, which clarifies what past actions should be considered in a cumulative effects analysis. Paragraph
(g)establishes language on the management of classified information. Paragraph
(h)establishes language on incorporation by reference; and
(i)clarifies situations involving applicants. *Section 220.5 Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).* This section incorporates language from chapter 20 of the FSH. Paragraph
(a)lays the foundation for which Agency actions with significant environmental effects normally require the preparation of an EIS. Existing FSH language, establishing specific classes of actions requiring an EIS would be moved to the rule with the exception of the present category for EISs required by law or regulation. This category is not needed as there are no laws or regulations presently requiring an EIS for a specific class of actions and if there are any in the future, such laws and regulations would apply regardless of this rule. Also, the rule lists classes of actions that “normally” require an EIS rather than the current language requiring an EIS. The change is consistent with the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(i). Paragraph
(b)incorporates FSH language on the development and content of a Notice of Intent. Paragraph
(c)incorporates FSH language on the cancellation of a Notice of Intent. Paragraph
(d)allows for variation in content and format of an EIS as long as it is consistent with CEQ regulations. Paragraph
(e)amends FSH language on the development of alternatives by establishing that:
(1)No specific number of alternatives is required or prescribed;
(2)The No Action alternative may be considered through the effects analysis by contrasting the impacts of the proposed action and an alternative(s) with the current condition and expected future condition;
(3)As the decisionmaking/analysis process progresses an alternative(s), including the proposed action, may be modified through an incremental process. This enhances the collaborative decisionmaking process by allowing the responsible official, interested and affected persons, and agencies to make appropriate adjustments to the alternative(s) as the analysis progresses; and
(4)Adaptive management strategies may be incorporated into an alternative(s), including the proposed action. Adaptive management strategies would be clearly articulated and the effects of said strategies analyzed in the document. Paragraph
(f)establishes language on the documentation of environmental effects related to incremental alternative development and adaptive management. Paragraph
(g)amends FSH language on circulating and filing the draft and final EIS by including language that allows for making multiple preliminary EIS(s) available to the public. Paragraph
(h)incorporates FSH language on the distribution of the record of decision. *Section 220.6 Categorical Exclusions.* This section incorporates implementing language found in chapter 30 of the FSH. The headings are changed to be more explanatory but the content remains the same as the current FSH. No new categorical exclusions are proposed. *Section 220.7 Environmental Assessment (EA).* This section incorporates implementing language found in chapter 40 of the FSH. Paragraph
(a)consolidates FSH language outlining when an EA shall be prepared and indicating that there is no standard document format. Paragraph
(b)establishes new language outlining what information shall be included in an EA based on CEQ guidance; specifically an EA must include: a description of the need for the project; a description of the proposed action and reasonable alternative(s) that meet the proposal's need for action; a brief description of analysis to determine whether to prepare an EIS; and a list of Tribes, agencies, and persons consulted. Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102(E) and 40 CFR 1501.2(c), when there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, the Agency need only analyze the proposed action. While this provision is not intended to limit the alternatives to be considered, it recognizes situations where there are no conflicts and therefore no compelling need for alternatives. A stand-alone No Action alternative is not required. The environmental analysis may document consideration of a no-action alternative through the effects analysis by contrasting the impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. As the decisionmaking/analysis process progresses, the alternative(s), including the proposed action, may be modified through an incremental process. This enhances the collaborative decisionmaking process by allowing the responsible official, interested and affected persons, and agencies to make appropriate adjustments to the alternative(s) as the analysis progresses. The modifications made during the process should be documented and available to the public and in the record. Adaptive management strategies may be incorporated into an alternative(s), including the proposed action. Adaptive management strategies should be clearly articulated and the effects of said strategies analyzed in the document. Paragraph
(c)incorporates FSH language on content for a Decision Notice. Paragraph
(d)incorporates FSH language on availability of the EA, Decision Notice, and Finding of No Significant Impact. Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Changes to Existing Procedures Current procedures Proposed procedures Emergency Response [§ 220.4(b)] Quotes CEQ regulation (1506.11) and directs Agency official to call the Washington Office for other than fire suppression Clarifies responsibilities for initial actions related to an emergency as well as proposals to address subsequent actions related to emergencies beyond initial response. Cumulative Effects (Past Actions) [§ 220.4(e)] Paraphrases CEQ definition of cumulative impacts and states that consideration must be given to past actions References CEQ guidance explaining that a past action must be “relevant and useful” in illuminating or predicting direct and indirect effects of a proposed action. (CEQ Memo, 6/24/05). Class of Actions Normally Requiring an EIS [§ 220.5(a)] Identifies four classes: proposed actions where an EIS is required by law or regulation; proposals to carry out or approve aerial application of chemical pesticides; proposals that would substantially alter the undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless area; and proposals for major Federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment Existing classes of actions requiring an EIS are now listed as “normally” requiring an EIS. Existing class for EISs required by law or regulation is no longer included as there are no specific classes of actions that are currently required by law to prepare an EIS. Format for an EIS [§ 220.5(d)] Focusing on CEQ procedures References CEQ procedures. Alternative Development for an EIS [§ 220.5(e)] Paraphrases CEQ regulations Provides an option that alternative(s) and the proposed action may be modified through an incremental process that must be documented and available in the record. Alternative(s) may include an adaptive management strategy that is clearly articulated, analyzed, and pre-specified. Environmental Effects [§ 220.5(f)] Paraphrases CEQ regulations and is prescriptive on what to consider. References CEQ requirements and describes that the responsible official must disclose any effects considered during the incremental development of an alternative(s) or adaptive management strategy. Circulation of Preliminary EIS(s) [§ 220.5(g)(2)] Does not specifically allow circulation of preliminary detailed statement(s) Allows for the circulation of preliminary detailed statement(s). Content for an EA [§ 220.7(b)] Quotes CEQ regulation at 40 CFR 1508.9(b) Clarifies that when no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources exist the Agency need only analyze the proposed action. An alternative(s), including the proposed action may be modified through an incremental process. Adaptive management strategies may be incorporated into an alternative(s). (CEQ memos September 8, 2005, and December 9, 2002). Regulatory Certification National Environmental Policy Act The proposed rule would move existing procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)from Agency handbook to 36 CFR part 220 and provide additional direction by regulation. The rule would not directly impact the environment. The CEQ does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or document before establishing agency procedures that supplement the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. Agency NEPA procedures are procedural guidance to assist agencies in the fulfillment of agency responsibilities under NEPA, but are not the agency's final determination of what level of NEPA analysis is required for a particular proposed action. The requirements for establishing agency NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3. The determination that establishing agency NEPA procedures does not require NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in *Heartwood, Inc.* v. *U.S. Forest Service,* 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. III. 1999), aff'd 230 F.3d 947. 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000). Regulatory Impact This proposed rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.* It has been determined that this is not an economically significant action. This action to issue agency regulations will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This action will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This action will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. However, because of the extensive interest in National Forest System
(NFS)planning and decision-making, this proposed rule to establish Agency implementing procedures for NEPA in the Code of Federal Regulations has been designated as significant and, therefore, is subject to Office of Management and Budget review under E.O. 12866. In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis,” a cost/benefit analysis was conducted. The analysis compared the costs and benefits associated with the current condition of having Agency implementing procedures combined with Agency explanatory guidance in Forest Service Handbook
(FSH)and the proposed condition of having implementing direction in regulation and explanatory guidance in FSH. Many benefits and costs associated with the proposed rule are not quantifiable. Benefits, including collaborative and participatory public involvement to more fully address public concerns, timely and focused environmental analysis, flexibility in preparation of environmental documents, and improved legal standing indicate a positive effect of the new rule. Moving implementing NEPA procedures from the FSH to regulation is expected to provide a variety of potentially beneficial effects. The rule would meet 40 CFR 1507.3 by placing Agency-implementing procedures in their proper regulatory position. Maintaining Agency explanatory guidance in the FSH would facilitate timely Agency responses to new ideas, new information, procedural interpretations, training needs, and editorial changes to addresses and internet links to assist field units when implementing the NEPA process. Finally, the proposed changes to the Forest Service NEPA procedures are intended to provide the Forest Service specific options to meet the intent of NEPA through collaboration, the establishment of incremental alternative development, and the use of adaptive management principles. Based on the context of this analysis, no one factor creates a significant factor, but taken together does create the potential for visible improvements in the Agency's NEPA program. Federalism The Agency has considered this proposed rule under the requirements of *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* The Agency has concluded that the proposed rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this Executive Order; will not impose any compliance costs on the states; and will not have substantial direct effects on the states or the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Agency has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Pursuant to *Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”,* the Agency has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian Tribal governments and has determined that it does not significantly or uniquely affect communities of Indian Tribal governments. The proposed rule deals with requirements for NEPA analysis and has no direct effect regarding the occupancy and use of NFS land. The Agency has also determined that this proposed rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Therefore, it has been determined that this proposed rule does not have Tribal implications requiring advance consultation with Indian Tribes. No Takings Implications This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in *Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,* and it has been determined that the proposed rule does not pose the risk of a taking of protected private property. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule has been reviewed under *Executive Order 12988 of February 7, 1996, “Civil Justice Reform”.* After adoption of this proposed rule,
(1)All State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this rule or that would impede full implementation of this rule would be preempted;
(2)no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and
(3)the proposed rule would not require the use of administrative proceedings before parties could file suit in court challenging its provisions. Unfunded Mandates Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Agency has assessed the effects of this proposed rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or Tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required. Energy Effects This proposed rule has been reviewed under *Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.* It has been determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive order. Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public This proposed rule does not contain any additional record keeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use, and therefore, imposes no additional paperwork burden on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 220 Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental policy, National forests. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest Service proposes to add part 220 to Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 220—NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
(NEPA)COMPLIANCE Sec. 220.1 Purpose and scope. 220.2 Applicability. 220.3 Definitions. 220.4 General requirements. 220.5 Environmental impact statements. 220.6 Categorical exclusions. 220.7 Environmental assessment. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ; E.O. 11514; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; 7 CFR part 1b. § 220.1 Purpose and Scope.
(a)*Purpose.* This part establishes USDA Forest Service procedures for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).
(b)*Scope.* This part supplements, and is to be used in conjunction with, the CEQ regulations and U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations at 7 CFR part 1b. § 220.2 Applicability. This part applies to all organizational elements of the USDA Forest Service. § 220.3 Definitions. The following definitions supplement terms defined at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. *Adaptive management.* A system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting desired outcomes; and, if not, facilitating management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or re-evaluated. Adaptive management recognizes that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain. *Decision Document.* A record of decision, decision memo, or decision notice. *Decision Memo.* A concise written record of the responsible official's decision to implement an action categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. A decision memo is applicable to a prescribed set of categories. *Decision Notice.* A concise written record of the responsible official's decision to implement an action when an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact has been prepared. *Environmentally Preferable Alternative.* The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will best promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least harm to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects and preserves historic, cultural, and natural resources. *Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement.* An interim environmental document that a responsible official may use to initiate discussion, solicit comments, and inform interested parties and agency personnel while proposals, alternatives, and environmental effects are explored and considered prior to filing a draft or final environmental impact statement. A preliminary environmental impact statement is an option available for responsible officials to use and is not required. *Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions.* Those activities not yet undertaken, for which there are existing decisions, funding, or identified proposals. *Responsible Official.* The Agency employee who has the authority to make and implement a decision on a proposed action. § 220.4 General Requirements.
(a)*Proposed actions subject to the National Environmental Policy Act requirements (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).* A Forest Service proposal is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act Requirements when all of the following apply:
(1)The Forest Service has a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal (40 CFR 1508.23);
(2)The proposed action is subject to Forest Service control and responsibility (40 CFR 1508.18);
(3)The proposed action would cause effects on the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment (40 CFR 1508.14) that can be meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR 1508.23); and
(4)The proposed action is not statutorily exempt from the requirements of section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act.
(b)*Emergency responses.*
(1)If the responsible official determines that an emergency exists that makes it necessary to take emergency actions before completing a NEPA analysis and documentation in accordance with the provisions in §§ 220.5 and 220.7, then these provisions apply.
(2)The responsible official may take emergency actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency to mitigate harm to life, property, or important resources. When taking such actions, the responsible official shall take into account the probable environmental consequences of the emergency action and mitigate foreseeable adverse environmental effects to the extent practical.
(3)If the responsible official determines that proposed emergency actions beyond actions noted in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are not likely to have significant environmental impacts, the responsible official shall document that determination in an EA and FONSI prepared in accordance with these regulations, unless categorically excluded (§ 220.6). If the responsible official finds that the nature and scope of the subsequent actions related to the emergency require taking such proposed actions prior to completing an EA and FONSI, the responsible official shall consult with the Washington Office about alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance. Consultation with the Washington Office must be coordinated through the appropriate Regional Office.
(4)If the responsible official determines that proposed emergency actions beyond actions noted in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are likely to have significant environmental impacts, then the responsible official shall consult with CEQ, through the appropriate Regional Office and the Washington Office, about alternative arrangements as soon as possible. Alternative arrangements address the proposed actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other proposed actions remain subject to NEPA analysis and documentation in accordance with these regulations.
(c)*Agency Decisionmaking.*
(1)Forest Service Manual 1906 outlines Agency planning and decisionmaking. Forest Service Manual 1950 identifies the responsible official for the NEPA process as the Agency employee who has the delegated authority to make and implement a decision on a proposed action.
(2)For each Forest Service proposal (§ 220.4(a)), the responsible official shall coordinate and integrate NEPA review and relevant environmental documents with Agency decisionmaking by:
(i)Completing the environmental document review before making a decision on the proposal, consistent with 40 CFR 1506.1;
(ii)Considering environmental documents, public and Agency comments (if any) on those documents, and Agency responses to those comments (40 CFR 1505.1(d));
(iii)Including environmental documents, comments, and responses as part of the administrative record (40 CFR 1505.1(c));
(iv)Considering the alternatives analyzed in environmental document(s) before rendering a decision on the proposal; and
(v)Making a decision encompassed within the range of alternatives analyzed in the environmental documents (40 CFR 1505.1(e)).
(d)*Schedule of Proposed Actions.*
(1)A Schedule of Proposed Actions shall be published quarterly to inform interested persons where to get information about proposed Forest Service actions, including the status of environmental analyses.
(2)The Schedule of Proposed Actions shall include proposals that will result in Agency decision documents (§ 220.3).
(3)Actions proposed and decided between scheduled publications shall be identified in the next schedule.
(4)The Schedule of Proposed Actions shall include a contact for additional information on Forest Service proposals and actions.
(e)*Scoping (40 CFR 1501.7).*
(1)Scoping is required for all Forest Service proposed actions, including those that would appear to be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement (§ 220.6).
(2)Scoping shall be consistent with 40 CFR 1501.7. However, because the nature and complexity of a proposed action determine the scope and intensity of analysis, no single scoping technique is required or prescribed.
(3)The Schedule of Proposed Actions is not intended to be used as the sole scoping mechanism for a proposed action.
(f)*Cumulative Effects Considerations of Past Actions (40 CFR 1508.7).* In accordance with The Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Memorandum on Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis dated June 24, 2005, the analysis of cumulative effects begins with consideration of the direct and indirect effects on the environment that are expected or likely to result from the alternative proposals for agency action. Agencies then look for present effects of past actions that are, in the judgment of the agency, relevant and useful because they have a significant cause-and-effect relationship with the direct and indirect effects of the proposal for agency action and its alternatives. CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decisionmaking.
(g)*Classified information (40 CFR 1507.3(c)).* To the extent practicable, the responsible official shall segregate any information classified in accordance with Executive order or statute. The responsible official shall maintain the confidentiality of such information in a manner required for the information involved. Such information may not be included in any publicly disclosed documents. If such material cannot be reasonably segregated, or if segregation would leave essentially meaningless material, the responsible official must withhold the entire analysis document from the public; however, the responsible official shall otherwise prepare the analysis documentation in accordance with applicable regulations.
(h)*Incorporation by Reference.* Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.21, material may be incorporated by reference into any environmental or decision document. This material must be reasonably available to the public and its contents briefly described in the environmental or decision document.
(i)*Applicants.* The responsible official shall make policies or staff available to advise potential applicants of studies or other information foreseeably required for acceptance of their applications. For situations involving an applicant, the responsible official should initiate the NEPA process upon acceptance of an application in accordance with 36 CFR 251.54(g). § 220.5 Environmental Impact Statements.
(a)*Classes of Actions Normally Requiring Environmental Impact Statements—*
(1)*Class 1: Proposals to carry out or to approve aerial application of chemical pesticides on an operational basis.* Examples include:
(i)Applying chemical insecticides by helicopter on an area infested with spruce budworm to prevent serious resource loss.
(ii)Authorizing the application of herbicides by helicopter on a major utility corridor to control unwanted vegetation.
(iii)Applying herbicides by fixed-wing aircraft on an area to release trees from competing vegetation.
(2)*Class 2: Proposals that would substantially alter the undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless area of 5,000 acres or more (FSH 1909.12).* Examples include:
(i)Constructing roads and harvesting timber in a 56,000-acre inventoried roadless area where the proposed road and harvest units impact 3,000 acres in only one part of the roadless area.
(ii)Constructing or reconstructing water reservoir facilities in a 5,000-acre unroaded area where flow regimens may be substantially altered.
(iii)Approving a plan of operations for a mine which would cause considerable surface disturbance over 700 acres in a 10,000 acre roadless area.
(3)*Class 3: Other proposals to take major Federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.* Examples include:
(i)Approving the use of 1,500 acres of National Forest System land to construct and operate an all-season recreation resort complex.
(ii)Authorizing the Bureau of Land Management to offer the sale of leases for oil and natural gas resources from beneath 400,000 acres of National Forest System lands that have historically demonstrated a relatively high potential for discovery and development of oil and natural gas.
(iii)Approving the construction and operation of an international gas pipeline beneath a previously undeveloped 30-mile long, 1,000-foot wide corridor within an ecologically sensitive area of National Forest System land.
(b)*Notice of Intent.* A notice of intent shall be prepared and published in the **Federal Register** as soon as practicable after deciding that an environmental impact statement will be prepared. In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 1508.22, notices of intent must include the following:
(1)Title of the responsible official(s);
(2)Any permits or licenses required to implement the proposed action and the issuing authority;
(3)Lead, joint lead, or cooperating agencies if identified; and
(4)Address(es) to which comments may be sent.
(c)*Withdrawal Notice.* A withdrawal notice must be published in the **Federal Register** if, after publication of the notice of intent or notice of availability, an environmental impact statement is no longer necessary. A withdrawal notice must refer to the date and page number of the previously published notice.
(d)*Environmental Impact Statement Format and Content.* The responsible official may use any environmental impact statement format and design as long as the statement is in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.10.
(e)*Alternative(s).* The environmental impact statement shall document the examination of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Reasonable alternatives should meet the purpose and need and address one or more significant issues (40 CFR 1501.7) related to the proposed action. Since an alternative may be developed to address more than one significant issue, no specific number of alternatives is required or prescribed. In addition to the requirements at 40 CFR 1502.14 the responsible official has an option to use the following procedures to develop and analyze alternatives.
(1)The effects of the no-action alternative may be documented by contrasting the current condition and expected future condition should the proposed action not be undertaken with the impacts of the proposed action and any reasonable alternatives.
(2)To facilitate collaborative processes and sound decisions, the responsible official may collaborate with interested parties to modify the proposed action and alternative(s) under consideration prior to issuing a draft environmental impact statement. In such cases, the responsible official may consider the incremental changes as alternatives considered. The documentation of these incremental changes to a proposed action or alternatives may be incorporated by reference in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.21 rather than duplicating the description and analysis in the statement.
(3)A proposed action or alternative(s) may include adaptive management strategies allowing for adjustment of the action during implementation. If the adjustments to an action are clearly articulated and pre-specified in the description of the alternative and fully analyzed, then the action may be adjusted during implementation without the need for further analysis. Adaptive management includes a monitoring component, approved adaptive actions that may be taken, and environmental effects analysis for the adaptive actions approved.
(f)*Environmental Effects.* In addition to the environmental consequences requirements at 40 CFR 1502.16, the EIS must include the impacts considered during any incremental alternative development process and the environmental effects of any adaptive management strategy.
(g)*Circulating and Filing Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements.*
(1)The draft and final EISs shall be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Federal Activities in Washington, DC (40 CFR 1506.9).
(2)If preliminary drafts are prepared the responsible official shall make those multiple preliminary draft and preliminary final EISs available to those interested and affected persons and agencies for comment; however, requirements at 40 CFR 1506.10 and 40 CFR 1502.19 shall only apply to the last draft and final EIS.
(3)When the responsible official determines that an extension of the review period on a draft EIS is appropriate, notice shall be given in the same manner used for inviting comments (40 CFR 1503.1) on the draft.
(h)*Distribution of the Record of Decision* . The responsible official shall notify interested or affected parties of the availability of the record of decision as soon as practical after signing. § 220.6 Categorical Exclusions.
(a)*General* . A proposed action may be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an EIS or EA only if there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action and if:
(1)The proposed action is within one of the categories established by the Secretary at 7 CFR part 1b.3; or
(2)The proposed action is within a category listed in section 220.6(d)(e).
(b)*Resource conditions* .
(1)Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to a proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS are:
(i)Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species.
(ii)Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds.
(iii)Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas.
(iv)Inventoried roadless areas.
(v)Research natural areas.
(vi)American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites.
(vii)Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas.
(2)The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion (CE). It is the existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.
(c)*Scoping* . If the responsible official determines, based on scoping, that it is uncertain whether the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment, prepare an EA. If the responsible official determines, based on scoping, that the proposed action may have a significant environmental effect, prepare an EIS.
(d)*Categories of actions for which a project or case file and decision memo are not required* . A supporting record and a decision memo are not required, but at the discretion of the responsible official, may be prepared for the following categories:
(1)Orders issued pursuant to 36 CFR part 261—Prohibitions to provide short-term resource protection or to protect public health and safety. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Closing a road to protect bighorn sheep during lambing season.
(ii)Closing an area during a period of extreme fire danger.
(2)Rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Adjusting special use or recreation fees using an existing formula.
(ii)Proposing a technical or scientific method or procedure for screening effects of emissions on air quality related values in Class I wildernesses.
(iii)Proposing a policy to defer payments on certain permits or contracts to reduce the risk of default.
(iv)Proposing changes in contract terms and conditions or terms and conditions of special use authorizations.
(v)Establishing a Service-wide process for responding to offers to exchange land and for agreeing on land values.
(vi)Establishing procedures for amending or revising forest land and resource management plans.
(3)Repair and maintenance of administrative sites. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Mowing lawns at a district office.
(ii)Replacing a roof or storage shed.
(iii)Painting a building.
(iv)Applying registered pesticides for rodent or vegetation control.
(4)Repair and maintenance of roads, trails, and landline boundaries. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Authorizing a user to grade, resurface, and clean the culverts of an established National Forest System road.
(ii)Grading a road and clearing the roadside of brush without the use of herbicides.
(iii)Resurfacing a road to its original condition.
(iv)Pruning vegetation and cleaning culverts along a trail and grooming the surface of the trail.
(v)Surveying, painting, and posting landline boundaries.
(5)Repair and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Applying registered herbicides to control poison ivy on infested sites in a campground.
(ii)Applying registered insecticides by compressed air sprayer to control insects at a recreation site complex.
(iii)Repaving a parking lot.
(iv)Applying registered pesticides for rodent or vegetation control.
(6)Acquisition of land or interest in land. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Accepting the donation of lands or interests in land to the National Forest System.
(ii)Purchasing fee, conservation easement, reserved interest deed, or other interests in lands.
(7)Sale or exchange of land or interest in land and resources where resulting land uses remain essentially the same. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Selling or exchanging land pursuant to the Small Tracts Act.
(ii)Exchanging National Forest System lands or interests with a State agency, local government, or other non-Federal party (individual or organization) with similar resource management objectives and practices.
(iii)Authorizing the Bureau of Land Management to issue leases on producing wells when mineral rights revert to the United States from private ownership and there is no change in activity.
(iv)Exchange of administrative sites involving other than National Forest System lands.
(8)Approval, modification, or continuation of minor, short-term (1 year or less) special uses of National Forest System lands. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Approving, on an annual basis, the intermittent use and occupancy by a State-licensed outfitter or guide.
(ii)Approving the use of National Forest System land for apiaries.
(iii)Approving the gathering of forest products for personal use.
(9)Issuance of a new permit for up to the maximum tenure allowable under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b) for an existing ski area when such issuance is a purely ministerial action to account for administrative changes, such as a change in ownership of ski area improvements, expiration of the current permit, or a change in the statutory authority applicable to the current permit. Examples of actions in this category include, but are not limited to:
(i)Issuing a permit to a new owner of ski area improvements within an existing ski area with no changes to the master development plan, including no changes to the facilities or activities for that ski area.
(ii)Upon expiration of a ski area permit, issuing a new permit to the holder of the previous permit where the holder is not requesting any changes to the master development plan, including changes to the facilities or activities.
(iii)Issuing a new permit under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to the holder of a permit issued under the Term Permit and Organic Acts, where there are no changes in the type or scope of activities authorized and no other changes in the master development plan.
(10)Amendment to or replacement of an existing special use authorization that involves only administrative changes and does not involve changes in the authorized facilities or increase in the scope or intensity of authorized activities, or extensions to the term of authorization, when the applicant or holder is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the special use authorization. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Amending a special use authorization to reflect administrative changes such as adjustment to the land use fees, inclusion of non-discretionary environmental standards or updating a special use authorization to bring it into conformance with current laws or regulations (for example, new monitoring required by water quality standards).
(ii)Issuance of a new special use authorization to reflect administrative changes such as, a change of ownership or control of previously authorized facilities or activities, or conversion of the existing special use authorization to a new type of special use authorization (for example, converting a permit to a lease or easement).
(e)*Categories of actions for which a project or case file and decision memo are required* . A supporting record is required and the decision to proceed must be documented in a decision memo for the categories of action in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)16 of this section. As a minimum, the project or case file should include any records prepared, such as: the names of interested and affected people, groups, and agencies contacted; the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist; a copy of the decision memo; and a list of the people notified of the decision.
(1)Construction and reconstruction of trails. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Constructing or reconstructing a trail to a scenic overlook.
(ii)Reconstructing an existing trail to allow use by handicapped individuals.
(2)Additional construction or reconstruction of existing telephone or utility lines in a designated corridor. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Replacing an underground cable trunk and adding additional phone lines.
(ii)Reconstructing a power line by replacing poles and wires.
(3)Approval, modification, or continuation of minor special uses of National Forest System lands that require less than five contiguous acres of land. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Approving the construction of a meteorological sampling site.
(ii)Approving the use of land for a one-time group event.
(iii)Approving the construction of temporary facilities for filming of staged or natural events or studies of natural or cultural history.
(iv)Approving the use of land for a 40-foot utility corridor that crosses one mile of a National Forest.
(v)Approving the installation of a driveway, mailbox, or other facilities incidental to use of a residence.
(vi)Approving an additional telecommunication use at a site already used for such purposes.
(vii)Approving the removal of mineral materials from an existing community pit or common-use area.
(viii)Approving the continued use of land where such use has not changed since authorized and no changes in the physical environment or facilities are proposed.
(4)Reserved.
(5)Regeneration of an area to native tree species, including site preparation that does not involve the use of herbicides or result in vegetation type conversion. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Planting seedlings of superior trees in a progeny test site to evaluate genetic worth.
(ii)Planting trees or mechanical seed dispersal of native tree species following a fire, flood, or landslide.
(6)Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than one mile of low standard road construction. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Girdling trees to create snags.
(ii)Thinning or brush control to improve growth or to reduce fire hazard including the opening of an existing road to a dense timber stand.
(iii)Prescribed burning to control understory hardwoods in stands of southern pine.
(iv)Prescribed burning to reduce natural fuel build-up and improve plant vigor.
(7)Modification or maintenance of stream or lake aquatic habitat improvement structures using native materials or normal practices. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Reconstructing a gabion with stone from a nearby source.
(ii)Adding brush to lake fish beds.
(iii)Cleaning and resurfacing a fish ladder at a hydroelectric dam.
(8)Short-term (1 year or less) mineral, energy, or geophysical investigations and their incidental support activities that may require cross-country travel by vehicles and equipment, construction of less than one mile of low standard road, or use and minor repair of existing roads. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Authorizing geophysical investigations which use existing roads that may require incidental repair to reach sites for drilling core holes, temperature gradient holes, or seismic shot holes.
(ii)Gathering geophysical data using shot hole, vibroseis, or surface charge methods.
(iii)Trenching to obtain evidence of mineralization.
(iv)Clearing vegetation for sight paths or from areas used for investigation or support facilities.
(v)Redesigning or rearranging surface facilities within an approved site.
(vi)Approving interim and final site restoration measures.
(vii)Approving a plan for exploration which authorizes repair of an existing road and the construction of one-third mile of temporary road; clearing vegetation from an acre of land for trenches, drill pads, or support facilities.
(9)Implementation or modification of minor management practices to improve allotment condition or animal distribution when an allotment management plan is not yet in place. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Rebuilding a fence to improve animal distribution.
(ii)Adding a stock watering facility to an existing water line.
(iii)Spot seeding native species of grass or applying lime to maintain forage condition.
(10)Hazardous fuels reduction activities using prescribed fire, not to exceed 4,500 acres; and mechanical methods for crushing, piling, thinning, pruning, cutting, chipping, mulching, and mowing, not to exceed 1,000 acres. Such activities:
(i)Shall be limited to areas:
(A)In the wildland-urban interface; or
(B)Condition Classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III, outside the wildland-urban interface.
(ii)Shall be identified through a collaborative framework as described in “A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan”;
(iii)Shall be conducted consistent with Agency and Departmental procedures and applicable land and resource management plans;
(iv)Shall not be conducted in wilderness areas or impair the suitability of wilderness study areas for preservation as wilderness; and
(v)Shall not include the use of herbicides or pesticides or the construction of new permanent roads or other new permanent infrastructure; and may include the sale of vegetative material if the primary purpose of the activity is hazardous fuels reduction.
(11)Post-fire rehabilitation activities, not to exceed 4,200 acres (such as tree planting, fence replacement, habitat restoration, heritage site restoration, repair of roads and trails, and repair of damage to minor facilities such as campgrounds), to repair or improve lands unlikely to recover to a management approved condition from wildland fire damage, or to repair or replace minor facilities damaged by fire. Such activities:
(i)Shall be conducted consistent with Agency and Departmental procedures and applicable land and resource management plans;
(ii)Shall not include the use of herbicides or pesticides or the construction of new permanent roads or other new permanent infrastructure; and
(iii)Shall be completed within 3 years following a wildland fire.
(12)Harvest of live trees not to exceed 70 acres, requiring no more than 1/2 mile of temporary road construction. Do not use this category for even-aged regeneration harvest or vegetation type conversion. The proposed action may include incidental removal of trees for landings, skid trails, and road clearing. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Removal of individual trees for sawlogs, specialty products, or fuelwood.
(ii)Commercial thinning of overstocked stands to achieve the desired stocking level to increase health and vigor.
(13)Salvage of dead and/or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 1/2 mile of temporary road construction. The proposed action may include incidental removal of live or dead trees for landings, skid trails, and road clearing. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Harvest of a portion of a stand damaged by a wind or ice event and construction of a short temporary road to access the damaged trees.
(ii)Harvest of fire-damaged trees.
(14)Commercial and non-commercial sanitation harvest of trees to control insects or disease not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 1/2 mile of temporary road construction, including removal of infested/infected trees and adjacent live uninfested/uninfected trees as determined necessary to control the spread of insects or disease. The proposed action may include incidental removal of live or dead trees for landings, skid trails, and road clearing. Examples include but are not limited to:
(i)Felling and harvest of trees infested with southern pine beetles and immediately adjacent uninfested trees to control expanding spot infestations.
(ii)Removal and/or destruction of infested trees affected by a new exotic insect or disease, such as emerald ash borer, Asian long horned beetle, and sudden oak death pathogen.
(15)Issuance of a new special use authorization for a new term to replace an existing or expired special use authorization when the only changes are administrative, there are not changes to the authorized facilities or increases in the scope or intensity of authorized activities, and the applicant or holder is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the special use authorization.
(16)Land management plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions developed in accordance with 36 CFR 219.1 through 219.16 that provide broad guidance and information for project and activity decisionmaking in a National Forest System unit. Proposals for actions that approve projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments, are outside the scope of this category and shall be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA procedures.
(17)Approval of a Surface Use Plan of Operations for oil and natural gas exploration and initial development activities, associated with or adjacent to a new oil and/or gas field or area, so long as the approval will not authorize activities in excess of any of the following:
(i)One mile of new road construction.
(ii)One mile of road reconstruction.
(iii)Three miles of individual or co-located pipelines and/or utilities disturbance.
(iv)Four drill sites.
(f)*Decision Memos* . The responsible official shall notify interested or affected parties of the availability of the decision memo as soon as practical after signing. While sections may be combined or rearranged in the interest of clarity and brevity, decision memos must include the following content:
(1)A heading, which must identify:
(i)Title of document: Decision Memo;
(ii)Agency and administrative unit;
(iii)Title of the proposed action; and
(iv)Location of the proposed action, including administrative unit, county, and State.
(2)Decision to be implemented and the reasons for categorically excluding the proposed action. Including:
(i)The category of the proposed action.
(ii)The rationale for using the category and, if more than one category could have been used, why the specific category was chosen.
(iii)A finding that no extraordinary circumstances exist.
(3)Any interested and affected agencies, organizations, and persons contacted.
(4)Findings required by other laws such as, but not limited to findings of consistency with the forest land and resource management plan as required by the National Forest Management Act; or a public interest determination (36 CFR 254.3(c)).
(5)The date when the responsible official intends to implement the decision and any conditions related to implementation.
(6)Whether the decision is subject to review or appeal, the applicable regulations, and when and where to file a request for review or appeal.
(7)Name, address, and phone number of a contact person who can supply further information about the decision.
(8)The responsible official's signature and date when the decision is made. § 220.7 Environmental Assessment.
(a)*Environment Assessment* . An environmental assessment
(EA)shall be prepared for proposals as described in 220.4(a) that are not categorically excluded from documentation (§ 220.6) and for which the need of an EIS has not been determined (§ 220.5). An EA may be prepared in any format useful to facilitate planning, decisionmaking, and public disclosure as long as the requirements of this paragraph are met. The EA may incorporate by reference information that is reasonably available to the public.
(b)*An EA must include the following:*
(1)Need for the proposal. The EA must briefly describe the need for the project.
(2)Proposed action and alternative(s). The EA shall briefly describe the proposed action and alternative(s) that meet the need for action. No specific number of alternatives is required or prescribed.
(i)When there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA, section 102(2)(E)), the EA need only analyze the proposed action and proceed without consideration of additional alternatives.
(ii)The EA may document consideration of a no-action alternative through the effects analysis by contrasting the impacts of the proposed action and any alternative(s) with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented.
(iii)The description of the proposal and alternative(s) may include a brief description of modifications and incremental design features developed through the analysis process to develop the range of alternatives considered.
(iv)A proposed action or alternative(s) may include adaptive management strategies allowing for adjustment of the action during implementation. If the adjustments to an action are clearly articulated and pre-specified in the description of the alternative and fully analyzed, then the action may be adjusted during implementation without the need for further analysis. Adaptive management includes a monitoring component, approved adaptive actions that may be taken, and environmental effects analysis for the adaptive actions approved.
(3)Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative(s). The EA:
(i)Shall briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis, including the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternative(s), to determine whether to prepare either an EIS or a finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9).
(ii)Shall disclose the environmental effects of any adaptive management strategy.
(iii)Shall describe impacts in terms of context and intensity as described in the definition of “significantly” at 40 CFR 1508.27.
(iv)May discuss the impact(s) (direct, indirect, and cumulative) of alternatives together in a comparative description or describe the impacts of each alternative separately.
(v)May incorporate by reference data, inventories, other information and analyses.
(4)Agencies and Persons Consulted.
(c)*Decision Notice* . If an EA and finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.13) have been prepared, the responsible official must document a decision to proceed with an action in a decision notice unless law or regulation requires another form of decision documentation. Decision notices must document the conclusions drawn and the decision(s) made based on the supporting record, including the EA and finding of no significant impact. While sections may be combined or rearranged in the interest of clarity and brevity, decision notices must include the following content:
(1)A heading, which must identify:
(i)Title of document,
(ii)Agency and administrative unit,
(iii)Title of the project,
(iv)Location of the action, including county, and State;
(2)Decision and rationale.
(3)Brief summary of public involvement.
(4)Findings required by other laws and regulations applicable to the decision at the time of decision. The responsible official must:
(i)Cite the supporting record or analysis document that contains the information used to support the findings;
(ii)Incorporate by reference the finding of no significant impact if not included with the decision notice; and
(iii)Describe how the decision is consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
(5)Implementation date. The responsible official must identify the decision's expected implementation date.
(6)Administrative review or appeal opportunities. The responsible official must state whether the decision is subject to administrative review or appeal, cite the applicable regulations, and indicate when and where to file a request for review or appeal.
(7)Contact person. The responsible official must identify the name, address, and phone number of a contact person who can supply additional information.
(8)Signature and Date. The responsible official must sign and date the decision notice.
(d)*Notification* . The responsible official shall notify interested or affected parties of the availability of the EA, finding of no significant impact and decision notice, as soon as practicable after each document is signed. Dated: August 8, 2007. Sally Collins, Associate Chief. [FR Doc. E7-15867 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-8455-8] Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The State of Louisiana has applied to EPA for Final Authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final Authorization to the State of Louisiana. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time. DATES: Send your written comments by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the materials submitted by the State of Louisiana during normal business hours at the following locations: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number
(214)665-6444; or Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2178, phone number
(225)219-3559. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the immediate final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson
(214)665-8533. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: July 25, 2007. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 07-4000 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 82
Traces to 82 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
140 references not yet in our index
  • 47 CFR 1
  • Pub. L. 109-171
  • 47 CFR 9.3
  • 47 CFR 9
  • 451 F.3d 226
  • 47 CFR 1.1161(c)
  • 47 CFR 1.1910
  • 47 CFR 1.1940(d)
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 107-198
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 110 Stat. 847
  • 3 CFR 121.201
  • 47 CFR 24.720(b)
  • 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1)
  • 47 CFR 101
  • 47 CFR 74
  • 47 CFR 90.1103
  • 47 CFR 22.99
  • 47 CFR 22.757
  • 47 CFR 22.1001-22
  • 47 CFR 101.538(a)(2)
  • 47 CFR 101.538(a)(1)
  • 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1)
  • 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1)
  • 13 CFR 121(a)(4)
  • 47 CFR 76.901(e)
  • 47 CFR 76.901(c)
  • 47 CFR 76.901(f)
  • 47 CFR 76.909(b)
  • 47 CFR 90
  • 47 CFR 95
  • 47 CFR 90.15-90
  • 47 CFR 90.33-90
  • 47 CFR 1.1162
  • Pub. L. 194-134
  • 47 CFR 1.1164
  • 47 CFR 1.1164(c)
  • Pub. L. 104-134
+ 100 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
U.S.C.§ 159
U.S.C.§ 151
U.S.C.§ 152
U.S.C.§ 3506
U.S.C.§ 801
U.S.C.§ 154
U.S.C.§ 603
U.S.C.§ 604
U.S.C.§ 601
F. App'x451 F.3d 226
F. Supp.73 F. Supp. 2d 962
F. App'x230 F.3d 947
Cites 222 · 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.