Rules and Regulations. Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt
37,950 words·~173 min read·
/register/2007/08/21/07-4111A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 161 Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 [Docket No. PRM-50-88] Energy Solutions; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has received and requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking, dated May 29, 2007, filed by Thomas E. Magette of Energy *Solutions.* The petition was docketed by the NRC on June 6, 2007, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-88. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to provide a regulatory framework that would allow funds from licensees' decommissioning trust funds to be used for the cost of disposal of “major radioactive components”
(MRCs)that have been removed from reactors prior to the permanent cessation of operations. DATES: Submit comments by November 5, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include PRM-50-88 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety on the NRC rulemaking Web site. Personal information, such as your name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, etc., will not be removed from 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://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov.* Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov.* Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (telephone
(301)415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitioner The petitioner is Energy *Solutions.* Energy *Solutions* is a nuclear services firm that provides services to private and government organizations involved in nuclear activities. The petitioner states that it has broad experience and expertise with the NRC licensing process and the standards that apply to the regulation of nuclear facilities, the use of radioactive materials, the clean-up and decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and the disposal of radioactive waste. Background The petitioner states that 10 CFR 50.2 defines decommissioning as not beginning until the site or facility ceases operations, and asserts that the definition implies that an entire facility must be removed from service before an activity can be considered as part of decommissioning. The petitioner also states that 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8) allows withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds for decommissioning expenses only, and further limits withdrawals for planning activities prior to the submittal of the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) following cessation of operations. According to the petitioner, the disposal costs for MRCs that have been removed from service but are awaiting disposal while the facility is still in service are not covered by decommissioning trust funds. The petitioner states that most licensees, rather than use limited operating funds, defer the disposal of MRCs until the time of decommissioning, when they can use their trust funds to remove and dispose of the MRCs in order to achieve the radiation dose limits specified in Subpart E to 10 CFR Part 20. The petitioner asserts that this disposal may not take place for decades, giving rise to adverse environmental impacts if not properly managed. The Proposed Amendments The petitioner requests that NRC amend its regulations at 10 CFR 50.82, “Termination of License,” to provide a process that would permit a licensee, in advance of permanently ceasing operation at a site, to facilitate the decommissioning process by allowing decommissioning trust funds to be used for disposal of removed MRCs. (Note: The petitioner is not requesting that NRC amend its regulations to allow the use of decommissioning trust funds to cover the costs of removing the MRCs from the reactor.) Specifically, the petitioner is requesting that 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) through (a)(8)(iv) be redesignated as 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iv) through (a)(8)(v), and that a new 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) be added. The petitioner proposes the new language read as follows:
(iii)Notwithstanding the limitations of §§ 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 8(ii), a licensee may use decommissioning trust funds to dispose of major radioactive components that have been removed from the reactor provided: A. The licensee has submitted to the NRC with a copy to the Federal or State government agency (e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and State Public Utility Commissions), if any, which has rate regulation oversight responsibility for the licensee's decommissioning trust fund:
(1)A request to allow it to withdraw a specified amount from its decommissioning trust fund for the purpose of disposing of specific major radioactive component(s);
(2)A site-specific decommissioning cost estimate that includes the disposal costs for major components stored on site; and
(3)An analysis demonstrating that if the licensee withdraws funds for the costs of disposing of the particular component(s) from the decommissioning trust fund, the remaining funds in the licensee's decommissioning trust fund are sufficient to meet the provisions of §§ 50.82(a)(8)(i)(B) and (C); and B. The NRC has concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the provisions of §§ 50.82(a)(8)(B) and
(C)will be met if the licensee withdraws the funds requested under § 50.82(a)(8)(iii)(A)(1). The petitioner's asserted justifications for this amendment include:
(1)Reducing the radioactive source term associated with the contaminated components at reactor sites;
(2)Exposing site workers to less radiation;
(3)Eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens by avoiding the costs associated with both maintaining the components on-site and providing protection to workers as a result of maintaining those components;
(4)Reducing the overall costs to decommission sites; and
(5)Ensuring that more funds are available to decommission reactors at the time the reactors cease operation. Conclusion The petitioner concludes that it is in the public interest to provide a regulatory framework to allow funds from licensees' decommissioning trust funds to be used for the cost of disposal of MRCs that have been removed from reactors prior to the permanent cessation of operations. Accordingly, the petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations as described previously in the section titled, “The Proposed Amendments.” Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-16476 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration 10 CFR Part 905 RIN 1901-AB24 Energy Planning and Management Program; Integrated Resource Planning Approval Criteria AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) is proposing changes to current regulations that require customers to prepare integrated resource plans (IRP). Western is proposing to facilitate public review of customer IRPs by making them more readily available, such as by posting customer IRPs on Western's external Web site. Western is also proposing language to encourage participation in regional IRPs by customers who may not be members of a member-based association (MBA). Finally, Western proposes to modify the requirement that each member of an MBA approve the IRP. Publication of this **Federal Register** notice begins the formal process for the proposed regulation revisions. DATES: The comment period begins today and will end November 19, 2007. Western will present a detailed explanation of the proposed revisions to its current regulations and accept oral and written comments at a joint public information and public comment forum. The public forum will be held on the following date: September 6, 2007, 1 p.m. MDT, Denver, CO. Western will accept written comments any time during the comment period. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Ron Horstman, Energy Services Specialist, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213. Comments may be sent by fax to
(720)962-7427 or by electronic mail to *horstman@wapa.gov.* Western will post information about the public process on its Web site at *http://www.wapa.gov.* Western will post official comments received via letter and e-mail to its Web site after the close of the comment period. Western must receive written comments by the end of the comment period to ensure they are considered in Western's decision process. The public forum location will be the Radisson Hotel Denver Stapleton Plaza, 3333 Quebec Street, Denver, Colorado 80207. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Project manager-Ron Horstman,
(720)962-7419, e-mail *horstman@wapa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction and Discussion of Proposal Section 114 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), Public Law 102-486, amended the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 7275-7276) to require integrated resource planning by Western's customers. Western implemented section 114 of EPAct through completion of the Energy Planning and Management Program (Program) in October 1995. 60 FR 54151 (October 20, 1995). The Program was revised in March of 2000 to allow customers more alternatives in meeting the IRP requirements. 65 FR 16789 (March 30, 2000). Western's current regulations are published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR part 905. Western is proposing to revise its IRP rule pursuant to 10 CFR 905.24, which allows Western at appropriate intervals to initiate a public process to review and revise its regulations. Specifically, Western is proposing to change its IRP regulations in three respects. The first proposed change is to the public participation requirement under 10 CFR 905.11 (b)(4). Given the large number of members of some MBAs and the diversity of the member's interests, Western proposes to eliminate the requirement that members of an MBA unanimously approve the IRP (10 CFR 905.11(b)(4)(i) ). Instead, Western proposes to require approval only by the governing body of an MBA, which serves the interests of each MBA member through the member's representation on the MBA board. Western is proposing no other changes to the full public participation requirement in section 905.11(b)(4). Secondly, Western is proposing to add a paragraph to section 905.12(b) to encourage cooperation among customers in the preparation of regional IRPs by clarifying that such a regional approach is acceptable, with advance approval by Western, even if the participating customers are not members of an MBA. Collaboration on transmission projects through a regional planning approach is particularly appropriate. Finally, consistent with the requirement for full public participation in the preparation, development, revision or amendment of an IRP, Western proposes to make current customer IRPs more readily available to the public, such as by posting such documents on Western's external Web site. Customers may continue to request confidential treatment of sensitive information covered by an exemption in the Freedom of Information Act when the IRP is filed with Western. If Western agrees, the sensitive information will be redacted and not released. This proposal is in response to feedback from interested parties that IRPs prepared by Western's customers are more difficult to obtain than investor-owned utility IRPs. Western is proposing to clarify its ability to release customer IRPs in section 905.23. II. Procedural and Regulatory Review Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this notice of proposed rulemaking was not reviewed by OMB under the Executive Order. B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The proposed rule would make a change to the process of approving IRPs; encourage cooperation among customers by clarifying that a regional approach including non-members may be approved by Western; and provide for making customer IRPs more readily available to the public, such as by posting on Western's Web site. Western is proposing no new substantive requirements, and the proposed rule, if promulgated as a final rule, would not have a significant economic impact on any entity. On this basis, Western's Administrator has certified that the proposed rule would have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by this rulemaking. Accordingly, no OMB clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures and Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021), Western has determined this action is categorically excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. This rulemaking would amend an existing regulation without changing the environmental effect of the regulation being amended and, therefore, is covered under the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). Western has examined today's proposed rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements:
(1)Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;
(2)write regulations to minimize litigation; and
(3)provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Federal agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1)Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any;
(2)clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation;
(3)provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4)specifies the retroactive effect, if any;
(5)adequately defines key terms; and
(6)addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Federal agencies to determine whether the regulations meet the applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b), or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. Western has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of a Federal regulatory action on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. Western has determined that today's regulatory action does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector. H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, Western has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). Western has reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as:
(1)Any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule;
(2)is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and
(3)is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's regulatory action is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, Western has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. III. Public Comment Procedures Interested persons are invited to participate by submitting data, views, or arguments with respect to the proposed amendments to part 905 set forth in this notice. Written comments should be submitted to the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents that Western initiates or uses to develop the proposed regulation revisions are available for inspection and copying at Western's Corporate Services Office in Lakewood, Colorado. Many of these documents and supporting information are also available on Western's Web site located at *http://www.wapa.gov.* Any information that a commenter considers to be confidential must be so identified and submitted in writing, one copy only. Western reserves the right to determine the appropriateness of confidential status for the information and to treat it in accordance with its determination. IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of today's proposed rule. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 905 Electric power, Electric utilities, Energy, Energy conservation, Hydroelectric power and utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 6, 2007. Timothy J. Meeks, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the supplementary information section, 10 CFR part 905 is proposed to be amended as set forth below. PART 905—ENERGY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1. The authority citation is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7152, 7191; 42 U.S.C. 7275-7276c. § 905.11 [Amended] 2. Section 905.11(b)(4)(i) is amended by removing “and each MBA member (such as a board of directors or city council)”; and by removing “included or referred to in the IRP”. 3. Section 905.12 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 905.12 How must IRPs be submitted?
(b)* * *
(4)Customers may work together to develop and submit regional IRPs. Customers who wish to submit regional IRPs must first obtain approval by Western to do so. Regional IRPs must be approved individually by each participating customer prior to submittal of the IRP to Western. 4. Section 905.23 is revised to read as follows: § 905.23 What are the opportunities for using the Freedom of Information Act to request data? IRPs, small customer plans, minimum investment reports, public benefits reports, and EE/RE reports and associated data submitted to Western are subject to the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)and may be made available to the public upon request. Customers may request confidential treatment of all or part of a submitted document under applicable FOIA exemptions. Western's FOIA Officer will make his/her own determination whether particular information is exempt from public access. Western will not disclose to the public information it has determined to be exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Western will make customer IRPs available to the public, such as through posting them on Western's external Web site, subject to the same confidentiality determinations made in response to FOIA requests. [FR Doc. E7-16477 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29030; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-284-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070, 0100, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 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: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, * * * Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) * * * required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System * * *. Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an “unsafe condition” * * *. These are identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements. 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 20, 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, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; 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-2007-29030; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-284-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0206, dated June 11, 2006, and EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0208, dated July 12, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation) § 25.901 and § 25.981(a) and (b). A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities) using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) § 25.901(c), § 25.1309. In August 2005 EASA published a policy statement on the process for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of Fuel Tank System ignition source prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO, *http://www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html* ) that also included the EASA expectations with regard to compliance times of the corrective actions on the unsafe and the not unsafe part of the harmonised design review results. On a global scale the TC (type certificate) holders committed themselves to the EASA published compliance dates (see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy statement has been revised in March 2006: The date of 31-12-2005 for the unsafe related actions has now been set at 01-07-2006. Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an “unsafe condition” as defined in FAA's memo 2003-112-15 “SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria”. These are identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements. This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System Airworthiness Limitations, comprising maintenance/inspection tasks and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) for the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above. The corrective action includes revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for certain airplanes, and the FAA-approved maintenance program for certain other airplanes, to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin F28/28-050, dated June 30, 2006; and Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-672, Issue 1, dated January 31, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 18 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour 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 $1,440, or $80 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-2007-29030; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-284-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by September 20, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category; and Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, serial numbers 11003 through 11241, 11991 and 11992, 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
(g)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. Subject
(d)Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation) § 25.901 and § 25.981(a) and (b). A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities) using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) § 25.901(c), § 25.1309. In August 2005 EASA published a policy statement on the process for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of Fuel Tank System ignition source prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO, *http://www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html* ) that also included the EASA expectations with regard to compliance times of the corrective actions on the unsafe and the not unsafe part of the harmonised design review results. On a global scale the TC (type certificate) holders committed themselves to the EASA published compliance dates (see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy statement has been revised in March 2006: the date of 31-12-2005 for the unsafe related actions has now been set at 01-07-2006. Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an ‘unsafe condition' as defined in FAA's memo 2003-112-15 ‘SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria'. These are identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements. This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System Airworthiness Limitations, comprising maintenance/inspection tasks and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) for the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above. The corrective action includes revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for certain airplanes, and the FAA-approved maintenance program for certain other airplanes, to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, do the action in paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable. For all identified tasks, the initial compliance time starts from the effective date of this AD. The repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals not to exceed those specified in Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-672, Issue 1, dated January 31, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin F28/28-050, dated June 30, 2006; as applicable; except as provided by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.
(i)For Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the limits specified in Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-672, Issue 1, dated January 31, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin F28/28-050, dated June 30, 2006; as applicable.
(ii)For Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, incorporate into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program the limits specified in Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-672, Issue 1, dated January 31, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin F28/28-050, dated June 30, 2006.
(2)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, do the action in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i)For Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCLs as defined in Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs) Report SE-672, Issue 1, dated January 31, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin F28/28-050, dated June 30, 2006.
(ii)For Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, incorporate into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program the CDCCLs as defined in Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs) Report SE-672, Issue 1, dated January 31, 2006; or Fokker Service Bulletin F28/28-050, dated June 30, 2006.
(3)Where Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs) Report SE-672, Issue 1, dated January 31, 2006; and Fokker Service Bulletin F28/28-050, dated June 30, 2006; allow for exceptional short-term extensions, an exception is acceptable to the FAA if it is approved by the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(4)Except as provided by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, no alternative inspection, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used. Note 2: For Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, after an operator complies with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, those paragraphs do not require that operators subsequently record accomplishment of those requirements each time an applicable action is accomplished according to that operator's FAA-approved maintenance inspection program. FAA AD Differences Note 3: 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: 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. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2006-0206, dated June 11, 2006; EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0208, dated July 12, 2006; Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) Report SE-672, Issue 1, dated January 31, 2006; and Fokker Service Bulletin F28/28-050, dated June 30, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 14, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16426 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-22623; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-80-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required the following actions for the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer: Repetitive detailed inspections for discrepancies and loose ball bearings; repetitive lubrication of the ballnut and ballscrew; repetitive measurements of the freeplay between the ballnut and the ballscrew; and corrective action if necessary. The original NPRM resulted from a report of extensive corrosion of a ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer on a similar airplane model. This action revises the original NPRM by including additional initial and repetitive inspections of the ballscrew-to-ballnut freeplay for certain airplanes, and adding a new compliance time for those inspections. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent an undetected failure of the primary load path for the ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent wear and failure of the secondary load path, which could lead to loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* 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: Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Airplane Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6490; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2005-22623; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-80-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket 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 proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for an AD (the “original NPRM”) for all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 7, 2005 (70 FR 58620). The original NPRM proposed to require the following actions for the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer: Repetitive detailed inspections for discrepancies and loose ball bearings; repetitive lubrication of the ballnut and ballscrew; repetitive measurements of the freeplay between the ballnut and the ballscrew; and corrective action if necessary. Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, Boeing has revised certain service information to add initial and repetitive inspections of the ballscrew-to-ballnut freeplay for certain airplanes, and to add a new compliance time for those inspections. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed the following service bulletins: • Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27A0194, Revision 2, dated July 13, 2006 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); and • Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27A0195, Revision 2, dated July 13, 2006 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes). The procedures in Revision 2 of the service bulletins are essentially the same as those in Revision 1 of the service bulletins, both dated July 21, 2005 (which were referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the specified actions); except Revision 2 includes additional requirements for airplanes on which the A55001-22 lock equipment was used to accomplish the ballscrew-to-ballnut freeplay inspection specified in Revision 1 of the service bulletins. For airplanes on which the ballscrew-to-ballnut freeplay inspection was done incorrectly, as specified in section 1.D. “Description” of the service bulletins, Revision 2 also adds a new compliance time for that additional ballscrew-to-ballnut freeplay inspection of within 60 months after the last inspection, or 60 months after the delivery date of the airplane, or 18 months after the date on the service bulletin, whichever occurs latest. Revision 2 also recommends repeating those inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 72 months. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. We added a new paragraph
(g)to this AD to include these requirements. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Request To Change Relevant Service Information Section Boeing asks that we change the second paragraph of the Relevant Service Information section in the original NPRM to read “For airplanes on which an FAA-approved low utilization maintenance program is in effect * * *” We agree with Boeing that the second paragraph could be changed for clarification; however, that paragraph is not included in this supplemental NPRM. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Change Additional Sources of Service Information Table Boeing asks that we change the table in Note 1 of the original NPRM titled “Additional Sources of Service Information” to reflect that the airplane maintenance manual is applicable to all Model 767 airplanes, not just Model 767-200 airplanes. Boeing states that the original NPRM is applicable to all Model 767 airplanes. We agree with Boeing for the reason provided, and we have changed Note 1 of this supplemental NPRM accordingly. Request To Change Compliance Time for Previously Accomplished Actions Boeing asks that the compliance time specified in paragraph
(g)of the original NPRM (paragraph
(h)of the supplemental NPRM) be reduced from 4,000 to 3,500 flight hours. Boeing states that this compliance time is specified in section 1.D. “Description” of Service Bulletin 767-27A0194, Revision 1. We agree with Boeing for the reason provided. The compliance time specified in Service Bulletin 767-27A0195, Revision 1, is also 3,500 flight hours. The compliance time specified in the original NPRM was incorrect; therefore, we have changed the compliance time in paragraph
(h)of this supplemental NPRM accordingly. Request To Withdraw Original NPRM Air Transport Association
(ATA)on behalf of its member Delta Airlines, states that operators are already accomplishing the intent of the original NPRM and there are no instances of the underlying airworthiness concerns occurring on Model 767 airplanes. Delta Airlines disagrees with the requirements in the original NPRM that would mandate what it considers routine maintenance program tasks. Delta states that it already performs all of these tasks and does not agree that the tasks should be mandated. Delta adds that the tasks and compliance intervals specified in the referenced service bulletins are similar to the tasks and intervals already defined in the Maintenance Planning Document (MPD). Delta notes that bundling these tasks allows efficiency, but mandating arbitrary limits through an AD significantly reduces operator scheduling flexibility and is not merited in this case. We infer that the commenters are asking that the original NPRM be withdrawn; we do not agree. We have determined that a degraded stabilizer trim actuator can be a safety concern because each airplane has only one stabilizer trim actuator, which is both a critical system component and a critical structural component of the airplane. As we stated in the original NPRM, the unsafe condition is undetected failure of the primary load path for the ballscrew in the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent wear and failure of the secondary load path, which could lead to loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the airplane. The proposed maintenance tasks and intervals must be mandated because of the criticality of the horizontal stabilizer system, the consequences of not performing the maintenance tasks, and the adverse service history attributed to problems with the horizontal stabilizer system on other airplanes. These tasks and intervals were not chosen arbitrarily, but instead were based on the minimum maintenance requirements needed to maintain the integrity of the stabilizer trim system. Although the lubrication and inspection procedures are normally handled by the procedures in the maintenance program, these maintenance actions can affect the safety of the airplane if they are not performed in a timely manner. We do not mandate the implementation of MPD revisions, and we cannot control escalation of MPD intervals related to maintenance. We consider it unacceptable that maintenance intervals can be escalated for economic reasons when these maintenance actions directly affect the safety of the airplane. Failure to perform these maintenance tasks at the proper intervals can lead to an unsafe condition. Therefore, we consider that mandating the actions in this supplemental NPRM appropriate and necessary. Requests To Extend Compliance Times Delta states that there are no data provided in the original NPRM to support the proposed compliance time limits. Delta notes that both of these limits fall short of its C-check visit, and would impose significant down time and costs to accomplish tasks with such arbitrary limits. Delta recommends that, if the FAA decides to mandate these tasks, the limits be written in a manner that allows flexibility in scheduling, such as “the later of either
(a)or (b), where
(a)is 2,000 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first; or
(b)every C-check.” United Parcel Service
(UPS)asks that we consider revising the NPRM to specify accomplishment of the referenced time-controlled tasks within paragraph
(g)of the original NPRM as follows: “For airplanes on which Boeing Maintenance Program Changes are in place to perform repetitive Inspections/Lubrications/Freeplay checks of the horizontal stabilizer, within 15,000 flight hours after the last Ballscrew-to-Ballnut Freeplay Inspection, or 24 months after the effective date, accomplish applicable actions required by paragraph
(f)of this AD.” UPS states that the continuation of the referenced time-controlled tasks would provide an equivalent level of safety and relieve scheduling burdens that might be encountered during the accomplishment of proposed requirements. We do not agree with allowing operators to perform the actions at later compliance times. We cannot specify a letter check for mandatory inspection intervals because letter checks vary among different operators and can be escalated. The inspection intervals were determined from the results of a safety review by means of testing, failure mode analysis, and fault tree analysis. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we also considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions within an interval of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators, and the recommendation of the manufacturer. However, according to the provisions of paragraph
(k)of this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Change Paragraph
(i)of the Proposed AD UPS states that no overhaul instructions are provided in the referenced service bulletins that are specified in paragraph
(i)of the original NPRM, and adds that sufficient inspection requirements are given in the Component Maintenance Manual (CMM). Therefore, UPS recommends that paragraph
(i)of the original NPRM (Parts Installation) specify that “* * * no person may install on any airplane a horizontal stabilizer trim actuator unless it is new or has been overhauled in accordance with the CMM; or has been inspected, lubricated, and measured in accordance with paragraph
(f)of this AD.” UPS states that the referenced service bulletins do not provide any direction over and above the requirements of the associated CMM. We disagree that the referenced service bulletins do not contain the overhaul instructions for the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator. Although the service bulletins do not list the detailed steps required to overhaul the stabilizer trim actuator, the bulletins do reference the appropriate CMM for accomplishing this task. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request for Addition of Indication The Air Line Pilots Association
(ALPA)recommends that there be a clear indication to the operator when the primary load path has been compromised to the point of loading the secondary load path, so that corrective action can be taken immediately. The ALPA did not provide a specific reason for, or data to support, its recommendation. We acknowledge ALPA's request; however, we do not agree with the need for this specific indication. The maintenance tasks and intervals identified in the service bulletins, and proposed by this supplemental NPRM, are intended to ensure proper operation and detect any degradation of the stabilizer trim actuator ballscrew and ballnut, without the need to provide a separate indication. Detection of any degradation of the primary load path, as detailed in the service bulletins, requires corrective action before further flight. The proposed maintenance interval limits are intended to detect any degradation of the primary load path in advance of loading the secondary load path. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Notify Boeing of the Status of Original NPRM Royal Brunei Airlines asks that Boeing be notified of the status of the original NPRM if the FAA's intent is to mandate Service Bulletin 767-27A0194, Revision 2 (the original NPRM is identified in Revision 2 as related information); then operators can eliminate unnecessary duplication of tasks. Royal Brunei Airlines states that the inspection and lubrication of the horizontal trim actuator are already called out in the relevant Boeing maintenance schedule. Royal Brunei Airlines adds that the Boeing maintenance schedule is approved and mandated by its local regulatory authority. We acknowledge the commenter's request. However, it is not necessary that Boeing be notified of the status of the original NPRM. Boeing is aware that this supplemental NPRM to the original NPRM will be issued to include the procedures specified in Revision 2 of the referenced service bulletins. Boeing is also aware of the duplication of tasks between the MPD and Service Bulletin 767-27A0194, Revision 2. Although we agree that the inspection and lubrication tasks are duplicated, the requirements in this AD take precedence over the maintenance actions in the MPD. Boeing may, in a future revision to the MPD, align the MPD with the requirements of the service bulletin. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM Certain changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance After the original NPRM 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 $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. 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. Costs of Compliance There are about 941 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This supplemental NPRM would affect about 411 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, per cycle. Estimated Costs Repetitive actions Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Detailed inspection 1 $80 $80 411 $32,880 Lubrication 1 80 80 411 32,880 Freeplay measurement 3 80 240 411 98,640 The additional ballscrew-to-ballnut freeplay inspection 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 inspection on U.S. operators is $32,880, or $80 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 supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2005-22623; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-80-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 Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD was prompted by a report of extensive corrosion of a ballscrew in the horizontal stabilizer of a similar airplane model. We are issuing this AD to prevent an undetected failure of the primary load path for the ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent wear and failure of the secondary load path, which could lead to loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer and consequent loss of control 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 Detailed Inspections/Lubrications/Freeplay Measurement/Corrective Action
(f)Do all the applicable actions, including any applicable corrective action, specified in Work Packages 1, 2, and 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27A0194 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27A0195 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both Revision 1, both dated July 21, 2005, or Revision 2, both dated July 13, 2006, as applicable. Do the actions at the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E. “Compliance” of the service bulletins; except, where the service bulletins specify a compliance time relative to the original issue date of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance relative to the effective date of this AD. Where the service bulletins specify a compliance time relative to the delivery date of the airplane, this AD requires compliance relative to the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the actions at the applicable repeat interval specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E “Compliance” of the service bulletins. As of the effective date of this AD only Revision 2 of the service bulletin may be used. Repetitive Ballscrew-to-Ballnut Freeplay Inspections
(g)For airplanes on which the A55001-22 lock equipment was used to do the ballscrew-to-ballnut freeplay inspection, and the maintenance records do not show that the tool was correctly adjusted in accordance with Appendix A, step 1.E.3, of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27A0194 or 767-27A0195, both Revision 1, both dated July 21, 2005: Do the ballscrew-to-ballnut freeplay inspection specified in Work Package 3, including any applicable corrective action, at the time specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E. “Compliance” of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27A0194 or 767-27A0195, both Revision 2, both dated July 13, 2006, as applicable. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the intervals specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E “Compliance” of the service bulletins. Previously Accomplished Actions
(h)For airplanes on which the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer was replaced before the effective date of this AD with a drive mechanism that was not new or overhauled, and the detailed and freeplay inspections were not accomplished in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0194 or 767-27A0195, both dated August 21, 2003: Within 3,500 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first, accomplish the inspections and perform all applicable corrective actions before further flight in accordance with Work Package 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27A0194 or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27A0195, both Revision 1, both dated July 21, 2005; or Revision 2, both dated July 13, 2006; as applicable. As of the effective date of this AD only Revision 2 of the service bulletin may be used.
(i)For Model 767 airplanes that have line numbers 002 through 175 inclusive: Accomplishing the initial inspection, applicable corrective action, and lubrication before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0185, dated July 10, 2003; is considered acceptable for compliance with the applicable actions required by paragraph
(f)of this AD. Note 1: Boeing Service Bulletins 767-27A0194 and 767-27A0195, both Revision 2, both dated July 13, 2006, refer to the applicable Boeing 767 Airplane Maintenance Manuals as additional sources of service information for accomplishing the detailed inspections, lubrications, freeplay measurements, and corrective action. Parts Installation
(j)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a horizontal stabilizer trim actuator unless it is new or has been overhauled as specified in Boeing Service Bulletins 767-27A0194 and 767-27A0195, both Revision 2, both dated July 13, 2006; or has been inspected, lubricated, and measured in accordance with paragraph
(f)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. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 31, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16424 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28844; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-066-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Aeromot-Industria Mecanico Metalurgica Ltda. Model AMT-100/200/200S/300 Gliders 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)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 occurrence of incorrect use of the self-locking nuts in bolts subject to rotational loads in bolted fittings of some assemblies of metallic components. Such event may result in disconnection of those fittings, which jeopardizes the structural integrity of the aircraft or its flight controls. 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 20, 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:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; fax:
(816)329-4090. 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-2007-28844; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-066-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 Departamento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued AD No. 2005-12-01, dated January 17, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found the occurrence of incorrect use of the self-locking nuts in bolts subject to rotational loads in bolted fittings of some assemblies of metallic components. Such even may result in disconnection of those fittings, which jeopardizes the structural integrity of the aircraft or its flight controls. Since this condition may occur in other airplanes of the same type and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this AD in the indicated time limit. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Aeromot has issued Service Bulletin
(SB)No. 200-20-102, revision B, dated January 23, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed 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 56 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 8 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 $430 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $59,920 or $1,070 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: **Aeromot-Industria Mecanico Metalurgica ltda.:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28844; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-066-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by September 20, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following gliders in the table below that:
(1)are certificated in any category and
(2)have not incorporated the actions in their entirety of Aeromot SB No. 200-20-102, revision A, dated April 19, 2005. Airplane Applicability Model Serial Nos. AMT-100 100.001 through 100.003, 100.005 through 100.015, 100.017, 100.019, 100.022 through 100.039, and 100.041 through 100.044. AMT-100 (modified to AMT-200) 100.004, 100.016, 100.018, 100.020, and 100.021. AMT-200 200.040, 200.045 through 200.105, 200.108 through 200.111, 200.113 through 200.118, and 200.121. AMT-200S 200.119, 200.122 through 200.124, and 200.126 through 200.161. AMT-300 300.106, 300.107, 300.115, and 300.125. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 51: Structures. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been found the occurrence of incorrect use of the self-locking nuts in bolts subject to rotational loads in bolted fittings of some assemblies of metallic components. Such even may result in disconnection of those fittings, which jeopardizes the structural integrity of the aircraft or its flight controls. Since this condition may occur in other airplanes of the same type and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this AD in the indicated time limit. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, within the next 50 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after the effective date of this AD, following Aeromot Service Bulletin No. 200-20-102 Rev. B, dated January 23, 2006, install new bolts, washers, and castellated nuts with cotter pins in the following areas:
(1)both main landing gear legs,
(2)swivel tail wheel,
(3)eye-bolt fittings located at firewall inside cabin,
(4)left and right rudder pedal assembly,
(5)bellcranks of the rudder cables assembly,
(6)bellcranks of the propeller pitch control assembly, and
(7)left and right wing hinge point. FAA AD Differences No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; fax:
(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Departamento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, AD No. 2005-12-01; and Aeromot SB No. 200-20-102, revision B, dated January 23, 2006, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 14, 2007. Terry L. Chasteen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16421 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28730; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-063-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; GARMIN International GSM 85 Servo Gearbox Units 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 certain GARMIN International (GARMIN) GSM 85 servo gearbox units that are installed on airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to inspect the GSM 85 servo gearbox for foreign object debris and return the unit to the manufacturer for replacement if you find debris. This proposed AD results from reports of certain GARMIN GSM 85 servo gearbox units that have foreign object debris inside the assembly. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct defective GARMIN GSM 85 servo gearbox units, which could result in jamming of the gearbox. Jamming of the gearbox could lead to the pilot having to apply excessive manual force to control the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.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:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact GARMIN International Inc., 1200 East 151st Street, Olathe, KS 66062; telephone: 913-397-8200; fax: 913-397-8282. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger A. Souter, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-4134; fax: 316-946-4107; e-mail address: *roger.souter@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2007-28730; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-063-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 we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion We have received reports of certain GARMIN GSM 85 servo gearbox units having foreign object debris inside the assembly. The debris was found during installation and removal. The GSM 85 servo gearbox extrusion (housing) is composed primarily of aluminum. The manufacturer selectively uses a tumbling process to deburr the housing, which resulted in foreign object debris collecting in the housing cavities. We have determined that foreign object debris inside the gear-assembly housing may come loose causing the GSM 85 servo gearbox to jam. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the GSM 85 servo gearbox unit becoming jammed. Jamming of the servo gearbox could lead to the pilot having to apply excessive manual force to control the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed GARMIN International, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision A, dated May 7, 2007; GARMIN International, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision B, dated May 18, 2007; GARMIN International, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision C, dated May 29, 2007; and GARMIN International, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision D, dated June 13, 2007. These service bulletins describe procedures for inspecting the GSM 85 servo gearbox for foreign object debris and returning the unit to the manufacturer for replacement if debris is found. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require you to inspect the GSM 85 servo gearbox for foreign object debris and return the unit to the manufacturer for replacement if you find debris. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 900 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 7 work-hours × $80 per hour = $560 Not applicable $560 $504,000 For airplanes that would need to replace the GSM 85 servo gearbox based on the results of the proposed inspection, we estimate the following costs to set the torque value of the slip-clutch breakaway required for installation. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement: Labor cost per GSM 85 Servo Gearbox Parts cost Total cost per GSM 85 Servo Gearbox .5 work-hours × $80 per hour = $40 Not applicable $40 Warranty credit will be given to the extent specified in the service information. 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. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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: **GARMIN International:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28730; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-063-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by October 22, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the GSM 85 servo gearbox units that are specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and are installed on airplanes. These GSM 85 servo gearbox units are installed in, but not limited to, airplanes that are certificated in any category and presented in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD:
(1)*GSM 85 servo gearbox units, part numbers (P/Ns):* 011-00894-00, 011-00894-02, 011-00894-04, 011-00894-06, 011-00894-07, 011-00894-08, 011-00894-09, 011-00894-10, 011-00894-11, and 011-00894-14.
(2)*Airplanes with the GSM 85 servo gearbox units installed (other aircraft could have installations through other methods such as field approval):* Type certificate holder Models
(i)Cessna Aircraft Company 182T, T182T, 206H, and T206H.
(ii)Hawker Beechcraft Corporation G36 and G58.
(iii)Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH DA40 and DA40F.
(iv)Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing 350 and 400.
(v)Mooney Airplane Company, Inc M20M and M20R. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of certain GARMIN GSM 85 servo gearbox units that have foreign object debris inside the assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defective GARMIN GSM 85 servo gearbox units, which could result in jamming of the servo gearbox. This jamming could lead to the pilot having to apply excessive manual force to control the airplane. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Check the serial tag of the installed GSM 85 servo gearbox unit to determine the mod level. The mod level marked on the serial tag indicates if the GSM 85 servo gearbox unit is already in compliance with this AD
(i)If the serial tag on the installed GSM 85 servo gearbox unit for P/Ns 011-00894-00 or 011-00894-10 is marked at mod level 3, no further action is required
(ii)If the serial tag on the installed GSM 85 servo gearbox unit for P/Ns 011-00894-02, 011-00894-04, 011-00894-06, 011-00894-07, 011-00894-08, 011-00894-09, 011-00894-11, or 011-00894-14 is marked at mod level 1, no further action is required
(iii)If the serial tag on the above GSM servo gearbox unit is not at mod level 1 or 3, then go to paragraph (e)(2) of this AD Check within the next 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after the effective date of this AD or within the next 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first Check following GARMIN International, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision A, dated May 7, 2007; Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision B, dated May 18, 2007; Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision C, dated May 29, 2007; or Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision D, dated June 13, 2007. If the Mod Level of the P/Ns specified in paragraph (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) are at mod level 1 and mod level 3, as applicable, make an entry into the aircraft logbook showing compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do this action.
(2)If the serial tag on the GSM 85 servo gearbox for P/Ns specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD is not marked at mod level 1 or mod level 3 as applicable, inspect the servo gearbox for foreign object debris Within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 3 calendar months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first Follow the Modification Instructions in GARMIN International, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision A, dated May 7, 2007; Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision B, dated May 18, 2007; Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision C, dated May 29, 2007; or Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision D, dated June 13, 2007.
(3)If foreign object debris is found during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, remove and return the GSM 85 servo gearbox to the manufacturer for replacement Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD Follow the Modification Instructions in GARMIN International, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision A, dated May 7, 2007; Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision B, dated May 18, 2007; Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision C, dated May 29, 2007; or Service Bulletin No. 0713, Revision D, dated June 13, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Roger A. Souter, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4134; fax:
(316)946-4107; e-mail address: *roger.souter@faa.gov.* 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
(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact GARMIN International Inc., 1200 East 151st Street, Olathe, KS 66062; telephone:
(913)397-8200; fax:
(913)397-8282. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2007-28730; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-063-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 14, 2007. Terry L. Chasteen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-16416 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28400; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-11] Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Helena, MT AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Helena, MT. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Localizer
(LOC)Back Course (BC)-C Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAP)at Helena Regional Airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Helena Regional Airport, Helena, MT. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room at 12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone
(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-28400; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Area Office, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone
(425)917-6726. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-28400 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-11) and be submitted in triplicate to Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-28400 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-11”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRM's An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Federal Register's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace at Helena, MT. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new LOC/BC-C SIAP at Helena Regional Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Helena Regional Airport, Helena, MT. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation:
(1)is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006 is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ANM MT E5 Helena, MT [Modified] Helena Regional Airport, MT (Lat. 46°36′25″ N., long. 111°58′58″ W.) Helena VORTAC (Lat. 46°36′25″ N., long. 111°57′13″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10.5-mile radius of the Helena VORTAC, and within 5.3 miles northwest and 3.5 miles southeast of the Helena VORTAC 104° radial extending from the 10.5-mile radius to 18.3 miles southeast of the Helena VORTAC, and within 4.0 miles either side of Helena VORTAC 282° (267°M) radial extending from the 10.5-mile radius to 25 miles west of the Helena VORTAC; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 20.9-mile radius of the Helena VORTAC, and within 5.3 miles south and 7.9 miles north of the Helena VORTAC 272° radial extending from the 20.9-mile radius to 39.2 miles west of the VORTAC, and within 13.5 miles west and parallel to the Helena VORTAC 352° radial extending from the 20.9-mile radius to 27 miles north of the VORTAC, and within 4.3 miles east and 7.9 miles west of the Helena VORTAC 023° radial extending from the 20.9-mile radius to 31.4 miles northeast of the VORTAC, and within 5.3 miles south and 8.3 miles north of the Helena VORTAC 102° radial extending from the 20.9-mile radius to 24.8 miles east of the VORTAC. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 10, 2007. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area. [FR Doc. E7-16398 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 20 [REG-119097-05] RIN 1545-BE52 Grantor Retained Interest Trusts—Application of Sections 2036 and 2039; Hearing AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Change of location for public hearing. SUMMARY: This document provides a change of location for a public hearing on proposed regulations providing guidance on the portion of a trust properly includible in a grantor's gross estate under Internal Revenue Code sections 2036 and 2039 if the grantor has retained the use of property in a trust or the right to annuity, unitrust, or other income payment from such trust for life, for any period not ascertainable without reference to the grantor's death, or for a period that does not in fact end before the grantor's death. DATES: The public hearing is being held on Wednesday, September 26, 2007, at 10 a.m. ADDRESSES: The public hearing was originally being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The hearing location has changed. The public hearing will be held in room 2116, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaNita Van Dyke,
(202)622-3215 or Richard Hurst at *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-119097-05) that was published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31487). The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who submit written comments and outlines by September 5, 2007, may present oral comments at the hearing. A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. The IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-16377 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-07-091] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Quinnipiac River, New Haven, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the Ferry Street Bridge, across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut. This notice of proposed rulemaking allows the bridge owner to keep one of the two moveable bascule spans in the closed position at all times from September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008. This temporary rule is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, One South Street, Battery Park Building, New York, New York, 10004, or deliver them to the same address between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(212)668-7165. The First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District,
(212)668-7195. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-07-091), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting; however, you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Ferry Street Bridge, across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.213. In early 2007, the Connecticut Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled structural repairs and bridge painting at the Ferry Street Bridge at New Haven, Connecticut. In order to perform the structural repairs, one bascule bridge span had to remain in the closed position while the other span could remain in the full open position at all times for the passage of vessel traffic. As a result of the above request, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 18884), on April 16, 2007, in effect from April 16, 2007 through September 27, 2007. On June 22, 2007, the Coast Guard was notified that the scheduled repairs authorized under the temporary deviation listed above would not be completed by the end of the effective period, scheduled to end on September 27, 2007. As a result of the above information, Connecticut Department of Transportation requested a temporary regulation to allow the repair work to continue at the bridge through April 30, 2008, in order to complete the remaining work. Under this notice of proposed rulemaking, from September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008, the Ferry Street Bridge across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut, would keep one of the two bascule bridge spans in the closed position at all times while keeping the second bascule span in the fully open position for the passage of vessel traffic at all times. Note that due to the need to have a temporary final rule in place when the current deviation expires on September 27, 2007, we plan on issuing a temporary final rule with an effective date less than 30 days from the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . We ask specifically for comments on this planned course of action. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed change would amend 33 CFR 117.213 by suspending paragraph
(a)and adding a new temporary paragraph
(g)that would list the temporary bridge opening schedule for the Ferry Street Bridge, as well as restating the existing operating schedules for the remaining bridges listed in paragraph (a). This temporary rule is necessary to facilitate the rehabilitation construction at the bridge. This proposed change would allow the Ferry Street Bridge to keep one of the two bascule spans in the open position at all times while keeping the second span in the closed position at all times from September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that existing vessel traffic will be able to transit through the single open span at the bridge at all times. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This conclusion is based on the fact that the existing vessel traffic will be able to transit through an open bridge span at all times. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact, Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, One South Street, New York, NY 10004. The telephone number is
(212)668-7165. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation as this action relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Checklist” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. From September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008, § 117.213 is amended by suspending paragraph
(a)and adding a temporary paragraph
(g)to read as follows: § 117.213 Connecticut River.
(g)The draws shall open on signal; except as follows:
(1)From 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., noon to 12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. to 1 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., the draws need not be opened.
(2)The draw of the Ferry Street Bridge, mile 0.7, at New Haven, shall maintain one of the two moveable bascule bridge spans in the full open position at all times for the passage of vessel traffic. The second moveable bascule bridge span may remain in the closed position at all times.
(3)From 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw of the Grand Avenue bridge, Quinnipiac River, shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the drawtender at the Ferry Street bridge. In the event that the drawtender is at the Chapel Street bridge, a delay of up to an additional hour may be expected.
(4)From 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw of the Chapel Street bridge, Mill River, shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the drawtender at Ferry Street bridge. In the event that the drawtender is at the Grand Avenue bridge, a delay of up to an additional hour may be expected. Dated: August 10, 2007. Timothy V. Skuby, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-16399 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 070627217-7218-01] RIN 0648-AV70 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Region Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology
(SBRM)Omnibus Amendment (SBRM Amendment) to the Fishery Management Plans
(FMPs)of the Northeast Region, developed by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils (Councils). The SBRM Amendment would establish an SBRM for all 13 Northeast Region FMPs, as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The proposed measures include: Bycatch reporting and monitoring mechanisms; analytical techniques and allocation of at-sea fisheries observers; an SBRM performance standard; a review and reporting process; framework adjustment and annual specifications provisions; a prioritization process; and provisions for industry-funded observers and observer set-aside programs. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *SBRM.Amend.PR@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following identifier: “Comments on the Proposed Rule to implement the SBRM Omnibus Amendment.” • Federal e-rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on the Proposed Rule to implement the SBRM Omnibus Amendment.” • Fax:
(978)281-9135 Copies of the SBRM Amendment, and of the draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790; and from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. The EA/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Pentony, Senior Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9283. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that all FMPs “establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery.” In 2004, several conservation organizations challenged the approval of two major amendments to Northeast Region FMPs. In ruling on these suits, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the FMPs did not clearly establish an SBRM as required under the relevant section of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and remanded the amendments back to the agency to fully develop and establish the required SBRM. In particular, the Court found that the amendments
(1)failed to fully evaluate reporting methodologies to assess bycatch,
(2)did not mandate an SBRM, and
(3)failed to respond to potentially important scientific evidence. In response, the Councils, working closely with NMFS, undertook development of a remedy that would address all Northeast Region FMPs. In January 2006, development began on the Northeast Region Omnibus SBRM Amendment. This amendment covers 13 FMPs, 39 managed species, and 14 types of fishing gear. The purpose of the amendment is to: Explain the methods and processes by which bycatch is currently monitored and assessed for Northeast Region fisheries; determine whether these methods and processes need to be modified and/or supplemented; establish standards of precision for bycatch estimation for all Northeast Region fisheries; and, thereby, document the SBRM established for all fisheries managed through the FMPs of the Northeast Region. The amendment also responds to the “potentially important scientific evidence” cited by the Court in the two decisions referenced above. The Northeast Region SBRM Amendment would establish an SBRM comprised of seven elements:
(1)The methods by which data and information on discards are collected and obtained;
(2)the methods by which the data obtained through the mechanisms identified in element 1 are analyzed and utilized to determine the appropriate allocation of at-sea observers;
(3)a performance measure by which the effectiveness of the Northeast Region SBRM can be measured, tracked, and utilized to effectively allocate the appropriate number of observer sea days;
(4)a process to provide the Councils with periodic reports on discards occurring in Northeast Region fisheries and on the effectiveness of the SBRM;
(5)a measure to enable the Councils to make changes to the SBRM through framework adjustments and/or annual specification packages rather than full FMP amendments;
(6)a process to provide the Councils and the public with an opportunity to consider, and provide input into, the decisions regarding prioritization of at-sea observer coverage allocations; and
(7)to implement consistent, cross-cutting observer service provider approval and certification procedures and to enable the Councils to implement either a requirement for industry-funded observers or an observer set-aside program through a framework adjustment rather than an FMP amendment. Bycatch Reporting and Monitoring Mechanisms This element addresses the methods by which data and information on discards occurring in Northeast Region fisheries would be collected and obtained. The amendment proposes to maintain the status quo. The Northeast Region SBRM would employ sampling designs developed to minimize bias to the maximum extent practicable. The Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) would serve as the primary mechanism to obtain data on discards in all Northeast Region commercial fisheries managed under one or more of the subject FMPs. All subject FMPs would continue to require vessels permitted to participate in said fisheries to carry an at-sea observer upon request, and all data obtained by the NEFOP under this SBRM would be collected according to the techniques and protocols established and detailed in the Fisheries Observer Program Manual and the Biological Sampling Manual. Data collected by the NEFOP would include, but not be limited to, the following items: Vessel name; date/time sailed; date/time landed; steam time; crew size; home port; port landed; dealer name; fishing vessel trip report
(FVTR)serial number; gear type(s) used; number/amount of gear; number of hauls; weather; location of each haul (beginning and ending latitude and longitude); species caught; disposition (kept/discarded); reason for discards; and weight of catch. These data would be collected on all species of biological organisms caught by the fishing vessel and brought on board, including species managed under the subject FMPs, but also including species of non-managed fish, invertebrates, and marine plants. To obtain information on discards occurring in recreational fisheries subject to a Northeast Region FMP, the Northeast Region SBRM would fully incorporate, to the extent practicable and appropriate for the Region, all surveys and data collection mechanisms implemented by NMFS and affected states as a result of the agency-wide redesign of the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) Program. Analytical Techniques and Allocation of At-sea Fisheries Observers This element addresses the methods by which the data obtained through the mechanisms included above would be analyzed and utilized to determine the appropriate allocation of at-sea observers across the subject fishing modes. The amendment proposes to substantially expand and refine the status quo methods to fully incorporate all managed species and all relevant fishing gear types in the Northeast Region. At-sea fisheries observers would, to the maximum extent possible and subject to available resources, be allocated and assigned to fishing vessels according to the procedures established through the amendment. All appropriate filters identified in the amendment would be applied to the results of the analysis to determine the observer coverage levels needed to achieve the objectives of the SBRM. SBRM Performance Standard The amendment proposes to ensure that the data collected under the Northeast Region SBRM are sufficient to produce a coefficient of variation
(CV)of the discard estimate of no more than 30 percent, in order to ensure that the effectiveness of the Northeast Region SBRM can be measured, tracked, and utilized to effectively allocate the appropriate number of observer sea days. Each year, the Regional Administrator and the Science and Research Director would, subject to any external operational constraints, allocate at-sea observer coverage to the applicable fisheries of the Northeast Region sufficient to achieve a level of precision (measured as the CV) no greater than 30 percent for each applicable species and/or species group, subject to the use of the filters noted above. SBRM Review and Reporting Process The amendment proposes to require an annual report on discards occurring in Northeast Region fisheries to be prepared by NMFS and provided to the Councils, and also to require a report every 3 years that evaluates the effectiveness of the Northeast Region SBRM. Every 3 years, the Regional Administrator and the Science and Research Director would appoint appropriate staff to work with staff appointed by the Executive Directors of the Councils to obtain and review available data on discards and to prepare a report assessing the effectiveness of the Northeast Region SBRM. This report would include, at a minimum:
(1)A review of the recent levels of observer coverage in each applicable fishery;
(2)a review of recent observed encounters with each species in each fishery, and a summary of observed discards by weight; a review of the CV of the discard information collected for each fishery;
(4)an estimate of the total discards associated with each fishery;
(5)an evaluation of the effectiveness of the SBRM at meeting the performance standard for each fishery;
(6)a description of the methods used to calculate the reported CVs and to determine observer coverage levels, if those methods are different from those described and evaluated in the SBRM Amendment;
(7)an updated assessment of potential sources of bias in the sampling program and analyses of accuracy; and
(8)an evaluation of the implications for management of the discard information collected under the SBRM, for any cases in which the evaluation performed for item 5 indicates that the performance standard is not met. Once each year, the Science and Research Director would present to the Councils a report on catch and discards occurring in Northeast Region fisheries, as reported to the NEFOP by at-sea fisheries observers. This annual discard report would include:
(1)The number of observer sea days scheduled for each fishery, by area and gear type, in each quarter;
(2)the percent of total trips observed, by gear type, in each quarter;
(3)the distribution of sea sampling trips by gear type and statistical area in each fishery;
(4)the observed catch and discards of each species, by gear type and fishery, in each quarter; and
(5)the observed catch and discards of each species, by gear type and fishery, in each statistical area. Framework Adjustment and/or Annual Specification Provisions The amendment proposes a measure to enable the Councils to make changes to certain elements of the SBRM through framework adjustments and/or annual specification packages rather than full FMP amendments. All subject FMPs would provide for an efficient process to modify aspects of the Northeast Region SBRM, as relates to each specific FMP, should the need arise and the appropriate Council determine that a change to the SBRM is warranted and needed to address a contemporary management or scientific issue. Depending on the provisions of each FMP, changes to the SBRM may be effected either through a framework adjustment to the FMP or through annual or periodic specifications. Such changes to the SBRM may include modifications to the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained in the fishery, reporting on discards or the SBRM, or the stratification (modes) used as the basis for SBRM-related analyses. Such changes may also include the establishment of a requirement for industry-funded observers and/or observer set-aside provisions. Prioritization Process The amendment proposes a process to provide the Councils and the public with an opportunity to consider, and provide input into, the decisions regarding prioritization of at-sea observer coverage allocations, if the expected resources necessary may not be available. In any year in which external operational constraints would prevent NMFS from fully implementing the required at-sea observer coverage levels, the Regional Administrator and Science and Research Director would consult with the Councils to determine the most appropriate prioritization for how the available resources should be allocated. In order to facilitate this consultation, in these years, the Regional Administrator and the Science and Research Director would provide the Councils, at the earliest practicable opportunity:
(1)The at-sea observer coverage levels required to attain the SBRM performance standard in each applicable fishery;
(2)the coverage levels that would be available if the resource shortfall were allocated proportionately across all applicable fisheries;
(3)the coverage levels that incorporate the recommended prioritization; and
(4)the rationale for the recommended prioritization. The recommended prioritization should be based on: Meeting the data needs of upcoming stock assessments; legal mandates of the agency under other applicable laws, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)and the Endangered Species Act (ESA); meeting the data needs of upcoming fishery management actions, taking into account the status of each fishery resource; improving the quality of discard data across all fishing modes; and/or any other criteria identified by NMFS and/or the Councils. The Councils may choose to accept the proposed observer coverage allocation or to recommend revisions or additional considerations for the prioritized observer allocations ultimately adopted and implemented by the Regional Administrator and the Science and Research Director. Industry-funded Observers and Observer Set-aside Program Provisions The amendment proposes to implement consistent, cross-cutting observer service provider approval and certification procedures and to enable the Councils to implement either a requirement for industry-funded observers and/or an observer set-aside program through a framework adjustment, rather than an FMP amendment. Classification At this time, NMFS has not determined that the FMP amendment that this proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period. A notice of availability of the Draft EA/RIR, which analyzed the impacts of all the measures under consideration in the SBRM Amendment, was published at 72 FR 41047, July 26, 2007. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.The proposed rule would modify the regulations at 50 CFR part 648 to require additional information be prepared by NMFS and provided to the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, and authorize said Councils to modify certain elements of the Northeast Region SBRM through the use of framework adjustments and/or annual specifications rather than full FMP amendments. The Northeast Region Omnibus SBRM Amendment establishes a more comprehensive methodology that NMFS must follow in determining the appropriate allocations of at-sea fisheries observers and in collecting and analyzing bycatch information in the subject fisheries. As such, this proposed rule only addresses a limited number of administrative aspects of the proposed SBRM. These administrative changes are intended to ensure high quality data are available for use in stock assessments and in management decisions, consistent with section 303(a)(11) and National Standards 1 and 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Therefore, this proposed rule would not impose significant new direct or indirect economic impacts on small entities, as all affected entities are already subject to the observer requirements stipulated at § 648.11. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 13, 2007. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.11, paragraphs
(h)and
(i)are revised to read as follows: § 648.11 At-sea sea sampler/observer coverage.
(h)*Observer service provider approval and responsibilities* —(1) *General* . An entity seeking to provide observer services must apply for and obtain approval from NMFS following submission of a complete application to The Observer Program Branch Chief, 25 Bernard St Jean Drive, East Falmouth, MA 02536. A list of approved observer service providers shall be distributed to vessel owners and shall be posted on the NMFS/NEFOP website at *http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/fsb/* .
(2)*Existing observer service providers* . Observer service providers that currently deploy certified observers in the Northeast must submit an application containing the information specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section, excluding any information specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section that has already been submitted to NMFS.
(3)*Contents of application* . An application to become an approved observer service provider shall contain the following:
(i)Identification of the management, organizational structure, and ownership structure of the applicant's business, including identification by name and general function of all controlling management interests in the company, including but not limited to owners, board members, officers, authorized agents, and staff. If the applicant is a corporation, the articles of incorporation must be provided. If the applicant is a partnership, the partnership agreement must be provided.
(ii)The permanent mailing address, phone and fax numbers where the owner(s) can be contacted for official correspondence, and the current physical location, business mailing address, business telephone and fax numbers, and business e-mail address for each office.
(iii)A statement, signed under penalty of perjury, from each owner or owners, board members, and officers, if a corporation, that they are free from a conflict of interest as described under paragraph (h)(6) of this section.
(iv)A statement, signed under penalty of perjury, from each owner or owners, board members, and officers, if a corporation, describing any criminal convictions, Federal contracts they have had, and the performance rating they received on the contract, and previous decertification action while working as an observer or observer service provider.
(v)A description of any prior experience the applicant may have in placing individuals in remote field and/or marine work environments. This includes, but is not limited to, recruiting, hiring, deployment, and personnel administration.
(vi)A description of the applicant's ability to carry out the responsibilities and duties of a fishery observer services provider as set out under paragraph (h)(2) of this section, and the arrangements to be used.
(vii)Evidence of holding adequate insurance to cover injury, liability, and accidental death for observers during their period of employment (including during training). Workers' Compensation and Maritime Employer's Liability insurance must be provided to cover the observer, vessel owner, and observer provider. The minimum coverage required is $5 million. Observer service providers shall provide copies of the insurance policies to observers to display to the vessel owner, operator, or vessel manager, when requested.
(viii)Proof that its observers, either contracted or employed by the service provider, are compensated with salaries that meet or exceed the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL)guidelines for observers. Observers shall be compensated as a Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA)non-exempt employees. Observer providers shall provide any other benefits and personnel services in accordance with the terms of each observer's contract or employment status.
(ix)The names of its fully equipped, NMFS/NEFOP certified observers on staff or a list of its training candidates (with resumes) and a request for an appropriate NMFS/NEFOP Observer Training class. The NEFOP training has a minimum class size of eight individuals, which may be split among multiple vendors requesting training. Requests for training classes with less than eight individuals will be delayed until further requests make up the full training class size. Requests for training classes must be made 30 days in advance of the requested date and must have a complete roster of trainees at that time.
(x)An Emergency Action Plan
(EAP)describing its response to an “at sea” emergency with an observer, including, but not limited to, personal injury, death, harassment, or intimidation.
(4)*Application evaluation* .
(i)NMFS shall review and evaluate each application submitted under paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this section. Issuance of approval as an observer provider shall be based on completeness of the application, and a determination of the applicant's ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of a fishery observer service provider, as demonstrated in the application information. A decision to approve or deny an application shall be made by NMFS within 15 business days of receipt of the application by NMFS.
(ii)If NMFS approves the application, the observer service provider's name will be added to the list of approved observer service providers found on the NMFS/NEFOP website specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, and in any outreach information to the industry. Approved observer service providers shall be notified in writing and provided with any information pertinent to its participation in the fishery observer program.
(iii)An application shall be denied if NMFS determines that the information provided in the application is not complete or the evaluation criteria are not met. NMFS shall notify the applicant in writing of any deficiencies in the application or information submitted in support of the application. An applicant who receives a denial of his or her application may present additional information to rectify the deficiencies specified in the written denial, provided such information is submitted to NMFS within 30 days of the applicant's receipt of the denial notification from NMFS. In the absence of additional information, and after 30 days from an applicant's receipt of a denial, an observer provider is required to resubmit an application containing all of the information required under the application process specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section to be re-considered for being added to the list of approved observer service providers.
(5)*Responsibilities of observer service providers* .
(i)An observer service provider must provide observers certified by NMFS/NEFOP pursuant to paragraph
(i)of this section for deployment in a fishery when contacted and contracted by the owner, operator, or vessel manager of a vessel fishing, unless the observer service provider refuses to deploy an observer on a requesting vessel for any of the reasons specified at paragraph (h)(5)(viii) of this section. An approved observer service provider must maintain a minimum of eight appropriately trained NEFOP certified observers in order to remain approved; should a service provider cadre drop below eight, the provider must submit the appropriate number of candidates for the next available training class. Failure to do so shall be cause for suspension of their approved status until rectified.
(ii)An observer service provider must provide to each of its observers:
(A)All necessary transportation, including arrangements and logistics, of observers to the initial location of deployment, to all subsequent vessel assignments, and to any debriefing locations, if necessary;
(B)Lodging, per diem, and any other services necessary for observers assigned to a fishing vessel or to attend an appropriate NMFS/NEFOP Observer Training class;
(C)The required observer equipment, in accordance with equipment requirements listed on the NMFS/NEFOP website specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, prior to any deployment and/or prior to NMFS observer certification training; and
(D)Individually assigned communication equipment, in working order, such as a cell phone or pager, for all necessary communication. An observer service provider may alternatively compensate observers for the use of the observer's personal cell phone or pager for communications made in support of, or necessary for, the observer's duties.
(iii)*Observer deployment logistics* . Each approved observer service provider must assign an available certified observer to a vessel upon request. Each approved observer service provider must provide for access by industry 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, to enable an owner, operator, or manager of a vessel to secure observer coverage when requested. The telephone system must be monitored a minimum of four times daily to ensure rapid response to industry requests. Observer service providers approved under paragraph
(h)of this section are required to report observer deployments to NMFS daily for the purpose of determining whether the predetermined coverage levels are being achieved in the appropriate fishery.
(iv)*Observer deployment limitations* . Unless alternative arrangements are approved by NMFS, an observer provider must not deploy any observer on the same vessel for two or more consecutive deployments, and not more than twice in any given month. A certified observer's first deployment and the resulting data shall be immediately edited, and approved, by NMFS prior to any further deployments of that observer.
(v)*Communications with observers* . An observer service provider must have an employee responsible for observer activities on call 24 hours a day to handle emergencies involving observers or problems concerning observer logistics, whenever observers are at sea, stationed shoreside, in transit, or in port awaiting vessel assignment.
(vi)*Observer training requirements* . The following information must be submitted to NMFS to request a certified observer training class at least 30 days prior to the beginning of the proposed training class: Date of requested training; a list of observer candidates, with a minimum of eight individuals; observer candidate resumes; and a statement signed by the candidate, under penalty of perjury, that discloses the candidate's criminal convictions, if any. All observer trainees must complete a basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation/first aid course prior to the beginning of a NMFS/NEFOP Observer Training class. NMFS may reject a candidate for training if the candidate does not meet the minimum qualification requirements as outlined by NMFS National Minimum Eligibility Standards for observers as described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
(vii)*Reports* —(A) *Observer deployment reports* . The observer service provider must report to NMFS when, where, to whom, and to what fishery an observer has been deployed, within 24 hours of their departure. The observer service provider must ensure that the observer reports back to NMFS its Observer Contract (OBSCON) data, as described in the certified observer training, within 12 hours of landing. OBSCON data are to be submitted electronically or by other means as specified by NMFS. The observer service provider shall provide the raw (unedited) data collected by the observer to NMFS within 72 hours of the trip landing.
(B)*Safety refusals* . The observer service provider must report to NMFS any trip that has been refused due to safety issues, e.g., failure to hold a valid USCG Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Examination Decal or to meet the safety requirements of the observer's pre-trip vessel safety checklist, within 24 hours of the refusal.
(C)*Biological samples* . The observer service provider must ensure that biological samples, including whole marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds, are stored/handled properly and transported to NMFS within 7 days of landing.
(D)*Observer debriefing* . The observer service provider must ensure that the observer remains available to NMFS, including NMFS Office for Law Enforcement, for debriefing for at least 2 weeks following any observed trip. If requested by NMFS, an observer that is at sea during the 2-week period must contact NMFS upon his or her return.
(E)*Observer availability report* . The observer service provider must report to NMFS any occurrence of inability to respond to an industry request for observer coverage due to the lack of available observers on staff by 5 pm, Eastern Standard Time, of any day on which the provider is unable to respond to an industry request for observer coverage.
(F)*Other reports* . The observer provider must report possible observer harassment, discrimination, concerns about vessel safety or marine casualty, observer illness or injury, and any information, allegations, or reports regarding observer conflict of interest or breach of the standards of behavior must be submitted to NMFS within 24 hours of the event or within 24 hours of learning of the event.
(viii)*Refusal to deploy an observer* .
(A)An observer service provider may refuse to deploy an observer on a requesting fishing vessel if the observer service provider does not have an available observer within 72 hours of receiving a request for an observer from a vessel.
(B)An observer service provider may refuse to deploy an observer on a requesting fishing vessel if the observer service provider has determined that the requesting vessel is inadequate or unsafe pursuant to the reasons described at § 600.746.
(C)The observer service provider may refuse to deploy an observer on a fishing vessel that is otherwise eligible to carry an observer for any other reason, including failure to pay for previous observer deployments, provided the observer service provider has received prior written confirmation from NMFS authorizing such refusal.
(6)*Limitations on conflict of interest* . An observer service provider:
(i)Must not have a direct or indirect interest in a fishery managed under Federal regulations, including, but not limited to, a fishing vessel, fish dealer, fishery advocacy group, and/or fishery research;
(ii)Must assign observers without regard to any preference by representatives of vessels other than when an observer will be deployed; and
(iii)Must not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, gift, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from anyone who conducts fishing or fishing related activities that are regulated by NMFS, or who has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the official duties of observer providers.
(7)*Removal of observer service provider from the list of approved observer service providers* . An observer provider that fails to meet the requirements, conditions, and responsibilities specified in paragraphs (h)(5) and (h)(6) of this section shall be notified by NMFS, in writing, that it is subject to removal from the list of approved observer service providers. Such notification shall specify the reasons for the pending removal. An observer service provider that has received notification that it is subject to removal from the list of approved observer service providers may submit information to rebut the reasons for removal from the list. Such rebuttal must be submitted within 30 days of notification received by the observer service provider that the observer service provider is subject to removal and must be accompanied by written evidence that clearly disproves the reasons for removal. NMFS shall review information rebutting the pending removal and shall notify the observer service provider within 15 days of receipt of the rebuttal whether or not the removal is warranted. If no response to a pending removal is received by NMFS, the observer service provider shall be automatically removed from the list of approved observer service providers. The decision to remove the observer service provider from the list, either after reviewing a rebuttal, or if no rebuttal is submitted, shall be the final decision of NMFS and the Department of Commerce. Removal from the list of approved observer service providers does not necessarily prevent such observer service provider from obtaining an approval in the future if a new application is submitted that demonstrates that the reasons for removal are remedied. Certified observers under contract with an observer service provider that has been removed from the list of approved service providers must complete their assigned duties for any fishing trips on which the observers are deployed at the time the observer service provider is removed from the list of approved observer service providers. An observer service provider removed from the list of approved observer service providers is responsible for providing NMFS with the information required in paragraph (h)(5)(vii) of this section following completion of the trip. NMFS may consider, but is not limited to, the following in determining if an observer service provider may remain on the list of approved observer service providers:
(i)Failure to meet the requirements, conditions, and responsibilities of observer service providers specified in paragraphs (h)(5) and (h)(6) of this section;
(ii)Evidence of conflict of interest as defined under paragraph (h)(3) of this section;
(iii)Evidence of criminal convictions related to:
(A)Embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; or
(B)The commission of any other crimes of dishonesty, as defined by state law or Federal law that would seriously and directly affect the fitness of an applicant in providing observer services under this section;
(iv)Unsatisfactory performance ratings on any Federal contracts held by the applicant; and
(v)Evidence of any history of decertification as either an observer or observer provider.
(i)*Observer certification* .
(1)To be certified, employees or sub-contractors operating as observers for observer service providers approved under paragraph
(h)of this section must meet NMFS National Minimum Eligibility Standards for observers. NMFS National Minimum Eligibility Standards are available at the National Observer Program website: *http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st4/nop/* .
(2)*Observer training* . In order to be deployed on any fishing vessel, a candidate observer must have passed an appropriate NMFS/NEFOP Observer Training course. If a candidate fails training, the candidate shall be notified in writing on or before the last day of training. The notification will indicate the reasons the candidate failed the training. Observer training shall include an observer training trip, as part of the observer's training, aboard a fishing vessel with a trainer. A certified observer's first deployment and the resulting data shall be immediately edited, and approved, by NMFS prior to any further deployments of that observer.
(3)*Observer requirements* . All observers must:
(i)Have a valid NMFS/NEFOP fisheries observer certification pursuant to paragraph (i)(1) of this section;
(ii)Be physically and mentally capable of carrying out the responsibilities of an observer on board fishing vessels, pursuant to standards established by NMFS. Such standards are available from NMFS/NEFOP website specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section and shall be provided to each approved observer service provider;
(iii)Have successfully completed all NMFS-required training and briefings for observers before deployment, pursuant to paragraph (i)(2) of this section; and
(iv)Hold a current Red Cross (or equivalence) CPR/first aid certification.
(4)*Probation and decertification* . NMFS has the authority to review observer certifications and issue observer certification probation and/or decertification as described in NMFS policy found on the NMFS/NEFOP website specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
(5)*Issuance of decertification* . Upon determination that decertification is warranted under paragraph (i)(3) of this section, NMFS shall issue a written decision to decertify the observer to the observer and approved observer service providers via certified mail at the observer's most current address provided to NMFS. The decision shall identify whether a certification is revoked and shall identify the specific reasons for the action taken. Decertification is effective immediately as of the date of issuance, unless the decertification official notes a compelling reason for maintaining certification for a specified period and under specified conditions. Decertification is the final decision of NMFS and the Department of Commerce and may not be appealed. 3. Add § 648.18 to subpart A to read as follows: § 648.18 Standardized bycatch reporting methodology. NMFS shall comply with the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology
(SBRM)provisions established in the following fishery management plans: Atlantic Bluefish; Atlantic Herring; Atlantic Salmon; Deep-Sea Red Crab; Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Monkfish; Northeast Multispecies; Northeast Skate Complex; Sea Scallop; Spiny Dogfish; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass; Surfclam and Ocean Quahog; and Tilefish. 4. In § 648.21, paragraph (c)(13) is added to read as follows: § 648.21 Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.
(c)* * *
(13)Changes, as appropriate, to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the coefficient of variation
(CV)based performance standard, fishery stratification, and/or reports. 5. In § 648.24, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows: § 648.24 Framework adjustments to management measures.
(a)* * *
(1)*Adjustment process* . The Council shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Council must provide the public with advance notice of the availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the second Council meeting. The Council's recommendations on adjustments or additions to management measures must come from one or more of the following categories: Minimum fish size, maximum fish size, gear restrictions, gear requirements or prohibitions, permitting restrictions, recreational possession limit, recreational seasons, closed areas, commercial seasons, commercial trip limits, commercial quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure and possible quota set asides to mitigate bycatch, recreational harvest limit, annual specification quota setting process, FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process, description and identification of EFH (and fishing gear management measures that impact EFH), description and identification of habitat areas of particular concern, overfishing definition and related thresholds and targets, regional gear restrictions, regional season restrictions (including option to split seasons), restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft horsepower, changes to the Northeast Region SBRM (including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs), any other management measures currently included in the FMP, set aside quota for scientific research, regional management, and process for inseason adjustment to the annual specification. 6. In § 648.55, paragraph (e)(32) is revised and paragraph (e)(33) is added to read as follows: § 648.55 Framework adjustments to management measures.
(e)* * *
(32)Changes to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs.
(33)Any other management measures currently included in the FMP. 7. In § 648.77, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows: § 648.77 Framework adjustments to management measures.
(a)* * *
(1)*Adjustment process* . The Council shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Council must provide the public with advance notice of the availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting, and prior to and at the second Council meeting. The Council's recommendations on adjustments or additions to management measures must come from one or more of the following categories: The overfishing definition (both the threshold and target levels), description and identification of EFH (and fishing gear management measures that impact EFH), habitat areas of particular concern, set-aside quota for scientific research, VMS, OY range, suspension or adjustment of the surfclam minimum size limit, and changes to the Northeast Region SBRM (including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs). 8. In § 648.90, paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (b)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(i) are revised to read as follows: § 648.90 NE Multispecies assessment, framework procedures and specifications, and flexible area action system.
(a)* * *
(2)*Biennial review* .
(i)Beginning in 2005, the NE Multispecies PDT shall meet on or before September 30 every other year, unless otherwise specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, under the conditions specified in that paragraph, to perform a review of the fishery, using the most current scientific information available provided primarily from the NEFSC. Data provided by states, ASMFC, the USCG, and other sources may also be considered by the PDT. Based on this review, the PDT will develop target TACs for the upcoming fishing year(s) and develop options for Council consideration, if necessary, on any changes, adjustments, or additions to DAS allocations, closed areas, or on other measures necessary to achieve the FMP goals and objectives, including changes to the Northeast Region SBRM. For the 2005 biennial review, an updated groundfish assessment, peer-reviewed by independent scientists, will be conducted to facilitate the PDT review for the biennial adjustment, if needed, for the 2006 fishing year. Amendment 13 biomass and fishing mortality targets may not be modified by the 2006 biennial adjustment unless review of all valid pertinent scientific work during the 2005 review process justifies consideration.
(iii)Based on this review, the PDT shall recommend target TACs and develop options necessary to achieve the FMP goals and objectives, which may include a preferred option. The PDT must demonstrate through analyses and documentation that the options they develop are expected to meet the FMP goals and objectives. The PDT may review the performance of different user groups or fleet Sectors in developing options. The range of options developed by the PDT may include any of the management measures in the FMP, including, but not limited to: Target TACs, which must be based on the projected fishing mortality levels required to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the FMP for the 10 regulated species, Atlantic halibut (if able to be determined), and ocean pout; DAS changes; possession limits; gear restrictions; closed areas; permitting restrictions; minimum fish sizes; recreational fishing measures; description and identification of EFH; fishing gear management measures to protect EFH; designation of habitat areas of particular concern within EFH; and changes to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs. In addition, the following conditions and measures may be adjusted through future framework adjustments: Revisions to status determination criteria, including, but not limited to, changes in the target fishing mortality rates, minimum biomass thresholds, numerical estimates of parameter values, and the use of a proxy for biomass; DAS allocations (such as the category of DAS under the DAS reserve program, etc.) and DAS baselines, etc.; modifications to capacity measures, such as changes to the DAS transfer or DAS leasing measures; calculation of area-specific TACs, area management boundaries, and adoption of area-specific management measures; Sector allocation requirements and specifications, including establishment of a new Sector; measures to implement the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding, including any specified TACs (hard or target); changes to administrative measures; additional uses for Regular B DAS; future uses for C DAS; reporting requirements; the GOM Inshore Conservation and Management Stewardship Plan; GB Cod Gillnet Sector allocation; allowable percent of TAC available to a Sector through a Sector allocation; categorization of DAS; DAS leasing provisions; adjustments for steaming time; adjustments to the Handgear A permit; gear requirements to improve selectivity, reduce bycatch, and/or reduce impacts of the fishery on EFH; SAP modifications; and any other measures currently included in the FMP.
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)The WMC shall recommend management options necessary to achieve FMP goals and objectives pertaining to small-mesh multispecies, which may include a preferred option. The WMC must demonstrate through analyses and documentation that the options it develops are expected to meet the FMP goals and objectives. The WMC may review the performance of different user groups or fleet Sectors in developing options. The range of options developed by the WMC may include any of the management measures in the FMP, including, but not limited to: Annual target TACs, which must be based on the projected fishing mortality levels required to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the FMP for the small-mesh multispecies; possession limits; gear restrictions; closed areas; permitting restrictions; minimum fish sizes; recreational fishing measures; description and identification of EFH; fishing gear management measures to protect EFH; designation of habitat areas of particular concern within EFH; changes to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs; and any other management measures currently included in the FMP.
(c)* * *
(1)* * *
(i)After a management action has been initiated, the Council shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Council shall provide the public with advance notice of the availability of both the proposals and the analyses and opportunity to comment on them prior to and at the second Council meeting. The Council's recommendation on adjustments or additions to management measures, other than to address gear conflicts, must come from one or more of the following categories: DAS changes, effort monitoring, data reporting, possession limits, gear restrictions, closed areas, permitting restrictions, crew limits, minimum fish sizes, onboard observers, minimum hook size and hook style, the use of crucifer in the hook-gear fishery, fleet Sector shares, recreational fishing measures, area closures and other appropriate measures to mitigate marine mammal entanglements and interactions, description and identification of EFH, fishing gear management measures to protect EFH, designation of habitat areas of particular concern within EFH, changes to the Northeast Region SBRM, and any other management measures currently included in the FMP. In addition, the Council's recommendation on adjustments or additions to management measures pertaining to small-mesh NE multispecies, other than to address gear conflicts, must come from one or more of the following categories: Quotas and appropriate seasonal adjustments for vessels fishing in experimental or exempted fisheries that use small mesh in combination with a separator trawl/grate (if applicable), modifications to separator grate (if applicable) and mesh configurations for fishing for small-mesh NE multispecies, adjustments to whiting stock boundaries for management purposes, adjustments for fisheries exempted from minimum mesh requirements to fish for small-mesh NE multispecies (if applicable), season adjustments, declarations, participation requirements for the Cultivator Shoal Whiting Fishery Exemption Area, and changes to the Northeast Region SBRM (including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs). 9. In § 648.96, paragraphs (a), (b)(5), and (c)(1)(i) are revised to read as follows: § 648.96 Monkfish annual adjustment process and framework specifications.
(a)*General* . The Monkfish Monitoring Committee
(MFMC)shall meet on or before November 15 of each year to develop target TACs for the upcoming fishing year in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and options for NEFMC and MAFMC consideration on any changes, adjustment, or additions to DAS allocations, trip limits, size limits, the Northeast Region SBRM (including the CV-based performance standard, fishery stratification, and/or reports), or other measures necessary to achieve the Monkfish FMP's goals and objectives. The MFMC shall review available data pertaining to discards and landings, DAS, and other measures of fishing effort; stock status and fishing mortality rates; enforcement of and compliance with management measures; and any other relevant information.
(b)* * *
(5)*Annual review process* . The Monkfish Monitoring Committee
(MFMC)shall meet on or before November 15 of each year to develop options for the upcoming fishing year, as needed, and options for NEFMC and MAFMC consideration on any changes, adjustment, or additions to DAS allocations, trip limits, size limits, the Northeast Region SBRM (including the CV-based performance standard, fishery stratification, and/or reports), or other measures necessary to achieve the Monkfish FMP's goals and objectives. The MFMC shall review available data pertaining to discards and landings, DAS, and other measures of fishing effort; stock status and fishing mortality rates; enforcement of and compliance with management measures; and any other relevant information.
(c)* * *
(1)* * *
(i)Based on their annual review, the MFMC may develop and recommend, in addition to the target TACs and management measures established under paragraph
(b)of this section, other options necessary to achieve the Monkfish FMP's goals and objectives, which may include a preferred option. The MFMC must demonstrate through analysis and documentation that the options it develops are expected to meet the Monkfish FMP goals and objectives. The MFMC may review the performance of different user groups or fleet sectors in developing options. The range of options developed by the MFMC may include any of the management measures in the Monkfish FMP, including, but not limited to: Closed seasons or closed areas; minimum size limits; mesh size limits; net limits; liver-to-monkfish landings ratios; annual monkfish DAS allocations and monitoring; trip or possession limits; blocks of time out of the fishery; gear restrictions; transferability of permits and permit rights or administration of vessel upgrades, vessel replacement, or permit assignment; measures to minimize the impact of the monkfish fishery on protected species; gear requirements or restrictions that minimize bycatch or bycatch mortality; transferable DAS programs; changes to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs; and other frameworkable measures included in §§ 648.55 and 648.90. 10. In § 648.100, paragraph
(a)is revised and paragraph (b)(12) is added to read as follows: § 648.100 Catch quotas and other restrictions.
(a)*Review* . The Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee shall review each year the following data, subject to availability, unless a TAL has already been established for the upcoming calendar year as part of a multiple-year specification process, provided that new information does not require a modification to the multiple-year quotas, to determine the annual allowable levels of fishing and other restrictions necessary to achieve, with at least a 50-percent probability of success, a fishing mortality rate
(F)that produces the maximum yield per recruit (F max ): Commercial, recreational, and research catch data; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual states; impact of size/mesh regulations; discards; sea sampling and winter trawl survey data or, if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency information from the winter trawl survey and mesh selectivity analyses; impact of gear other than otter trawls on the mortality of summer flounder; and any other relevant information.
(b)* * *
(12)Changes, as appropriate, to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, fishery stratification, and/or reports. 11. In § 648.108, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows: § 648.108 Framework adjustments to management measures.
(a)* * *
(1)*Adjustment process* . The Council shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Council must provide the public with advance notice of the availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the second Council meeting. The Council's recommendations on adjustments or additions to management measures must come from one or more of the following categories: Minimum fish size, maximum fish size, gear restrictions, gear requirements or prohibitions, permitting restrictions, recreational possession limit, recreational seasons, closed areas, commercial seasons, commercial trip limits, commercial quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure and possible quota set asides to mitigate bycatch, recreational harvest limit, annual specification quota setting process, FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process, description and identification of essential fish habitat (and fishing gear management measures that impact EFH), description and identification of habitat areas of particular concern, overfishing definition and related thresholds and targets, regional gear restrictions, regional season restrictions (including option to split seasons), restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft horsepower, operator permits, changes to the Northeast Region SBRM (including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs), any other commercial or recreational management measures, any other management measures currently included in the FMP, and set aside quota for scientific research. 12. In § 648.120, paragraph
(a)is revised and paragraph (b)(13) is added to read as follows: § 648.120 Catch quotas and other restrictions.
(a)*Review* . The Scup Monitoring Committee shall review each year the following data, subject to availability, unless a TAL already has been established for the upcoming calendar year as part of a multiple-year specification process, provided that new information does not require a modification to the multiple-year quotas: Commercial, recreational, and research data; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual states; impact of size/mesh regulations; impact of gear on the mortality of scup; discards; and any other relevant information. This review will be conducted to determine the allowable levels of fishing and other restrictions necessary to achieve the F that produces the maximum yield per recruit (F max ).
(b)* * *
(13)Changes, as appropriate, to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, fishery stratification, and/or reports. 13. In § 648.140, paragraph
(a)is revised and paragraph (b)(12) is added to read as follows: § 648.140 Catch quotas and other restrictions.
(a)*Review* . The Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee shall review each year the following data, subject to availability, unless a TAL already has been established for the upcoming calendar year as part of a multiple-year specification process, provided that new information does not require a modification to the multiple-year quotas, to determine the allowable levels of fishing and other restrictions necessary to result in a target exploitation rate of 23 percent (based on F <sup>max</sup> ) in 2003 and subsequent years: Commercial, recreational, and research catch data; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual states; impact of size/mesh regulations; discards; sea sampling and winter trawl survey data, or if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency information from the winter trawl survey and mesh selectivity analyses; impact of gear other than otter trawls, pots and traps on the mortality of black sea bass; and any other relevant information.
(b)* * *
(12)Changes, as appropriate, to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, fishery stratification, and/or reports. 14. In § 648.160, paragraph
(a)is revised and paragraph (b)(9) is added to read as follows: § 648.160 Catch quotas and other restrictions.
(a)*Annual review* . On or before August 15 of each year, the Bluefish Monitoring Committee will meet to determine the total allowable level of landings
(TAL)and other restrictions necessary to achieve the target fishing mortality rate
(F)specified in the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish for the upcoming fishing year or the estimated F for the fishing year preceding the Council submission of the recommended specifications, whichever F is lower. In determining the TAL and other restrictions necessary to achieve the specified F, the Bluefish Monitoring Committee will review the following data, subject to availability: Commercial, recreational, and research catch data; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual states; impact of size/mesh regulations; discards; sea sampling data; impact of gear other than otter trawls and gill nets on the mortality of bluefish; and any other relevant information.
(b)* * *
(9)Changes, as appropriate, to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, fishery stratification, and/or reports. 15. In § 648.165, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows: § 648.165 Framework specifications.
(a)* * *
(1)*Adjustment process* . After a management action has been initiated, the Council shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Council shall provide the public with advance notice of the availability of both the proposals and the analysis and the opportunity to comment on them prior to and at the second Council meeting. The Council's recommendation on adjustments or additions to management measures must come from one or more of the following categories: Minimum fish size, maximum fish size, gear restrictions, gear requirements or prohibitions, permitting restrictions, recreational possession limit, recreational season, closed areas, commercial season, description and identification of essential fish habitat (EFH), fishing gear management measures to protect EFH, designation of habitat areas of particular concern within EFH, changes to the Northeast Region SBRM (including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs), and any other management measures currently included in the FMP. 16. In § 648.200, paragraph
(b)introductory text is revised to read as follows: § 648.200 Specifications.
(b)*Guidelines* . As the basis for its recommendations under paragraph
(a)of this section, the PDT shall review available data pertaining to: Commercial and recreational catch data; current estimates of fishing mortality; discards; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results and other estimates of stock size; sea sampling and trawl survey data or, if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency information from trawl surveys; impact of other fisheries on herring mortality; and any other relevant information. The specifications recommended pursuant to paragraph
(a)of this section must be consistent with the following: 17. In § 648.206, paragraphs (b)(28) and (b)(29) are revised and paragraph (b)(30) is added to read as follows: § 648.206 Framework provisions.
(b)* * *
(28)TAC set-aside amounts, provisions, adjustments;
(29)Changes, as appropriate, to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs; and
(30)Any other measure currently included in the FMP. 18. In § 648.230, paragraphs (a), (b)(4), and (b)(5) are revised and paragraph (b)(6) is added to read as follows: § 648.230 Catch quotas and other restrictions.
(a)*Process for setting specifications* . The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will review the following data at least every 5 years, subject to availability, to determine the total allowable level of landings
(TAL)and other restrictions necessary to assure that a target fishing mortality rate specified in the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan will not be exceeded in each year for which TAL and any other measures are recommended: Commercial and recreational catch data; discards; current estimates of F; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual states; impact of size/mesh regulations; sea sampling data; impact of gear other than otter trawls and gill nets on the mortality of spiny dogfish; and any other relevant information.
(b)* * *
(4)Trip limits;
(5)Changes to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, fishery stratification, and/or reports; or
(6)Other gear restrictions. 19. In § 648.237, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows: § 648.237 Framework provisions.
(a)* * *
(1)*Adjustment process* . After the Councils initiate a management action, they shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Councils shall provide the public with advance notice of the availability of both the proposals and the analysis for comment prior to, and at, the second Council meeting. The Councils' recommendation on adjustments or additions to management measures must come from one or more of the following categories: Minimum fish size; maximum fish size; gear requirements, restrictions or prohibitions (including, but not limited to, mesh size restrictions and net limits); regional gear restrictions; permitting restrictions and reporting requirements; recreational fishery measures (including possession and size limits and season and area restrictions); commercial season and area restrictions; commercial trip or possession limits; fin weight to spiny dogfish landing weight restrictions; onboard observer requirements; commercial quota system (including commercial quota allocation procedures and possible quota set-asides to mitigate bycatch, conduct scientific research, or for other purposes); recreational harvest limit; annual quota specification process; FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process; description and identification of essential fish habitat; description and identification of habitat areas of particular concern; overfishing definition and related thresholds and targets; regional season restrictions (including option to split seasons); restrictions on vessel size (length and GRT) or shaft horsepower; target quotas; measures to mitigate marine mammal entanglements and interactions; regional management; changes to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside program; any other management measures currently included in the Spiny Dogfish FMP; and measures to regulate aquaculture projects. 20. In § 648.260, paragraph
(b)introductory text is revised to read as follows: § 648.260 Specifications.
(b)*Development of specifications* . In developing the management measures and specifications, the PDT shall review at least the following data, if available: Commercial catch data; current estimates of fishing mortality and catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE); discards; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results and other estimates of stock size; sea sampling, port sampling, and survey data or, if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency information from port sampling and/or surveys; impact of other fisheries on the mortality of red crabs; and any other relevant information. 21. In § 648.293, paragraphs (a)(1)(xiv) and
(xv)are revised and paragraph (a)(1)(xvi) is added to read as follows: § 648.293 Framework specifications.
(a)* * *
(1)* * *
(xiv)Habitat areas of particular concern,
(xv)Set-aside quotas for scientific research, and
(xvi)Changes to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs. 22. In § 648.321, paragraphs (b)(19) and (b)(20) are revised and paragraph (b)(21) is added to read as follows: § 648.321 Framework adjustment process.
(b)* * *
(19)OY and/or MSY specifications;
(20)Changes to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set-aside programs; and
(21)Any other measures contained in the FMP. [FR Doc. E7-16238 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 161 Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 16, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Agricultural Statistics Service *Title:* Nursery and Christmas Tree Production Survey and Nursery and Floriculture Chemical Use Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0244. *Summary of Collection:* The National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS)is charged with the responsibility of providing reliable, up-to-date information concerning the Nation's crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition, as well as environmental statistics. This includes estimates of production and value of key nursery products and chemical use by nursery and floriculture production operations. Congress appropriated funds for the collection of pesticide use data on nursery and floriculture operations. This data will expand the existing NASS pesticide database that contains comprehensive annual pesticide use reports. NASS will collect the information using surveys. The authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204. *Need and Use of the Information:* Nursery and Christmas tree production data and nursery and floriculture chemical use data will be used by NASS, the Environmental Protection Agency, the nursery and floriculture industries, and other parties to assess the environmental and economic impact of various programs, policies, and procedures on nursery and floriculture operators and workers. The basic chemical use and farm practices information also will be used to enhance the national chemical use database maintained by NASS. This database is an integral source of data necessary for on-going risk assessments related to dietary exposure to chemicals, worker safety, water quality, and ecological resources. *Description of Respondents:* Farms; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 37,288. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Triennial. *Total Burden Hours:* 3,807. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-16435 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 16, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* Food Stamp Program Regulations, Part 275—Quality Control. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-0303. *Summary of Collection:* Section 16 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 provides the legislative basis for the operation of the Food Stamp Program Quality Control system. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), as administrator of the Food Stamp Program, requires each State agency to implement a quality control system to provide basis for determining each State agency's error rates through review of a sample of Food Stamp cases. Each State agency is responsible for the design and selection of the quality control samples and must submit a quality control sampling plan for approval to FNS. Additionally, State agencies are required to maintain case records for three years to ensure compliance with provisions of the Food Stamp Act of 1977. *Need and Use of the Information:* The quality control sampling plan is necessary for FNS to monitor State operations and is essential to the determination of a State agency's error rate and corresponding entitlement to increased Federal share of its administrative costs or liability for sanctions. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local, or Tribal Government; Federal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 53. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion; Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,267. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-16436 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 16, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food Safety and Inspection Service *Title:* Specified Risk Materials. *OMB Control Number:* 0583-0127. *Summary of Collection:* The Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS)has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act
(FMIA)(21 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA)(21 U.S.C. 451 *et seq.* ), and the Egg Products Inspection Act
(EPIA)(21 U.S.C. 1031 *et seq.* ). This statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by ensuring that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. FSIS established new, flexible procedures to actively encourage the development and use of new technologies in meat and poultry establishments and egg products plants. The new procedures will facilitate notification to the Agency of any new technology that is intended for use in meat and poultry establishments and egg products plants so that the Agency can decide whether the new technology requires a pre-use review. A pre-use review often includes an in-plant trail. *Need and Use of the Information:* FSIS will collect information to determine if an in-plant trail is necessary, FSIS will request that the firm submit a protocol that is designed to collect relevant data to support the use of the new technology. To not collect this information would reduce the effectiveness of the meat, poultry, and egg products inspection program. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 250. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 8,400. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-16443 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Announcement of a Workshop on the Topic of “Future Energy Science and Education Initiatives Within the REE Mission Area” AGENCY: Research, Education, and Economics, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Workshop. SUMMARY: In accordance with the section 3124a of Title 7 of the United States Code, the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)announces an energy science and education workshop to be conducted by the Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area (REE). DATES: The workshop will be held on September 5 and 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: The workshop will take place at the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph A. Dunn, PhD; telephone:
(202)720-3075; fax:
(202)690-2842; or e-mail: *Joseph.Dunn@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Wednesday, September 5, 2007, and Thursday, September 6, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. the REE mission area of the USDA will hold a workshop, including breakout sessions, to discuss and plan the scope and effectiveness of REE's research, extension, and economics programs as they relate to energy science and education. The purpose of this workshop is to obtain input from experts of the four REE Agencies, the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research, Education and Economics Service, the National Agriculture Statistics Service and the Economics Research Service, along with experts from the mission area's Land-Grant partners, on energy science and education issues of high priority to the USDA and to the Nation. Particular emphasis will be placed on results from breakout sessions conducted within the workshop which will assist in the planning of future energy science and education initiatives within the purview of the four REE agencies. On Wednesday, September 5 at 8 a.m. the workshop will begin with introductory remarks provided by the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics, Dr. Gale Buchanan. The workshop will conclude on Thursday, September 6 at 5 p.m. There will be an opportunity for public comment during the workshop. The findings of this workshop will be consolidated into a document containing the Mission Area's energy science and education vision and goals along with a roadmap for achieving this vision and goals. This document will be posted on the mission area Web site ( *www.ree.usda.gov* ). Done in Washington, DC this 14th day of August, 2007. Merle D. Pierson, Deputy Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics. [FR Doc. E7-16391 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council will meet in Boston, Massachusetts, October 16-18, 2007. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss emerging issues in urban and community forestry. DATES: The meeting will be held on October 16-18, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Double Tree Hotel Downtown, 821 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts. Written comments concerning this meeting should be addressed to Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff to National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, 201 14th St., SW., Yates Building (1 Central) MS-1151, Washington, DC 20250-1151. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to *nstremple@fs.fed.us* , or via facsimile to 202-690-5792. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at 201 14th St., SW., Yates Building (1 Central) MS-1151, Washington, DC 20250-1151. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 202-205-1054 to facilitate entry into the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff or Robert Prather Staff Assistant to National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, 201 14th St., SW., Yates Building (1 Central) MS-1151, Washington, DC 20250-1151, phone 202-205-1054. 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: The meeting is open to the public. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members; however, persons who wish to bring urban and community forestry matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council staff (201 14th St., SW., Yates Building (1 Central) MS-1151, Washington, DC 20250-1151, e-mail *nstremple@fs.fed.us* ) before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided at the meeting. Dated: August 13, 2007. Robin L. Thompson, Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry. [FR Doc. E7-16413 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Notice of Availability of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability of a Finding of No Significant Impact for a project on McDonald Creek for review and comment. SUMMARY: The NRCS has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for a stream restoration project on a private landowner's land on McDonald Creek. A copy of the FONSI and the final Environmental Assessment
(EA)is available for public review at the following locations: • NRCS Office, 10507 N. McAlister Road, OR 97850. • Grande Ronde Model Watershed, 1114 J Avenue, La Grande, OR 97850. • La Grande Public Library, 2006 Fourth Street, La Grande, OR 97850. • Additional copies may be obtained by contacting Greg Kuehl, NRCS, 541-963-4178, ext. 107. DATES: Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with this date of publication. ADDRESSES: Address all requests and comments to Greg Kuehl, Basin Team Leader, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 10507 N. McAlister Road, OR 97850; (541)-963-1022 (fax). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Bahn, NRCS, 541-523-7121, ext. 115. Dated: August 13, 2007. Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Portland, OR. [FR Doc. E7-16380 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Dunloup Creek Watershed, Fayette and Raleigh Counties, WV AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service. ACTION: Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision. SUMMARY: Kevin Wickey, responsible Federal official for projects administered under the provisions of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566, 16 U.S.C. 1001-1008, in the State of West Virginia, is hereby providing notification that a Record of Decision to proceed with the installation of the Dunloup Creek Watershed Project is available. Single copies of this Record of Decision may be obtained from Kevin Wickey at the address shown below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Wickey, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 75 High Street, Room 301, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, telephone
(304)284-7545. Dated: August 10, 2007. Kevin Wickey, State Conservationist. (This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10-904—Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention—and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.) [FR Doc. E7-16382 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Notice of Proposed Changes to Section IV of the Iowa State Technical Guide AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed changes in the Iowa NRCS State Technical Guide for review and comment. SUMMARY: It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for Iowa that changes must be made in the NRCS State Technical Guide, specifically in Section IV Practice Standards and Specifications, Stripcropping
(585)to account for improved technology. This practice standard can be used in systems that treat highly erodible land. DATES: Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with this date of publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Van Klaveren, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 210 Walnut Street, Room 693, Des Moines, Iowa 50309; telephone 515-284-6655; fax 515-284-4394. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days the NRCS will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made. Dated: August 3, 2007. Richard Van Klaveren, State Conservationist. [FR Doc. E7-16381 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census [Docket Number 070723403-7404-01] Suspension of the Geographically Updated Population Certification Program (GUPCP) for Places Incorporating or Annexing Between Censuses AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Suspension of Program. SUMMARY: This document serves notice to state and local governments and to other federal agencies that beginning on January 1, 2008, the Bureau of the Census will suspend the Geographically Updated Population Certification Program for five years—the two years preceding the decennial census, the decennial census year, and the two years following it—to accommodate the taking of the 2010 Census. During this time, the Bureau of the Census will not provide the operations necessary to determine the updated April 1, 2000, census population and housing unit counts for entities that annex territory or that incorporate or organize as counties, boroughs, cities, towns, villages, townships, or other general purpose governments. However, all requests for population and housing count updates received in writing before January 1, 2008 will be considered. DATES: As of January 1, 2008, the Geographically Updated Population Certification Program will be suspended. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Darryl Cohen, Population Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233, telephone
(301)763-2419, e-mail at *Darryl.T.Cohen@census.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Census Bureau first began to make updated decennial census count determinations to reflect geographic boundary changes in 1972 in response to the requests of local governments to establish eligibility for participation in the General Revenue Sharing Program, authorized under Pub. L. 92-512. At that time, the Census Bureau established a fee-paid program enabling entities with annexations to obtain updated decennial census population counts that reflected the population living in the boundary change areas. The Census Bureau also received funding from the U.S. Department of the Treasury to make those determinations for larger annexations that met prescribed criteria and for the new incorporations. The General Revenue Sharing Program ended on September 30, 1986, but the certification program continued into 1988 with support from the Census Bureau. The program was suspended to accommodate the taking of the 1990 decennial census and resumed in 1992. The Bureau of the Census supported the program through fiscal year 1995 for cities with large annexations and through fiscal year 1996 for newly incorporated places. The program was continued on a fee-paid basis only until June 1, 1998, at which time it was suspended for the 2000 decennial census (see the **Federal Register** , 63 FR 27706, May 20, 1998). In 2002, the program was resumed and has since been referred to as the Geographically Updated Population Certification Program or GUPCP (see the **Federal Register** , 67 FR 72095, December 4, 2002). As with previous censuses, the Census Bureau is suspending the program for the two years immediately preceding and following the 2010 census to permit allocation of necessary resources to the decennial census. However, all requests for population and housing count updates received before January 1, 2008 will be considered. The Census Bureau will announce in the **Federal Register** the date that the program is resumed. The Census Bureau plans to resume the program in the year 2012, after 2010 census data become available, for those entities that desire the service, provided that any and all costs associated with this work are borne by the local governmental entity. Authority to continue this program on a fee-for-service basis is contained in Title 13, United States Code, Section 8. Dated: August 15, 2007. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E7-16365 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 34-2007] Foreign-Trade Zone 221 -- Mesa, Arizona, Application for Reorganization/Expansion An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones
(FTZ)Board (the Board) by the City of Mesa, Arizona, grantee of FTZ 221, requesting authority to reorganize and expand its existing zone site to include additional acreage in or adjacent to the Williams Gateway Airport Customs and Border Protection user-fee airport. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on August 8, 2007. FTZ 221 was approved on April 25, 1997 (Board Order 883, 62 FR 25164, 5/8/97). The general-purpose zone currently consists of one site (3,020 acres) at the Williams Gateway Airport located at 6001 South Power Road in Mesa (Maricopa County). The applicant is now requesting authority for a reorganization and expansion of the zone site: 1) Modify the existing site by deleting 1,609 acres at the airport; and, 2) Expand the existing site to include an additional 607 acres (3 parcels) at the Logistics Park Mesa
(LPM)located adjacent to the airport. The proposal will result in an overall net decrease in total zone space. LPM is owned by Pecos Capital Group LLC, North Valley Corporate Center LLC and Crismon Capital Group LLC. The site will provide warehousing and distribution services to area businesses. No specific manufacturing authority is being requested at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 22, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 5, 2007. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: City of Mesa Economic Development/Mesa City Plaza, 20 East Main Street, Mesa, AZ 85201; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. For further information, contact Camille Evans at Camille_Evans@ita.doc.gov or at
(202)482-2350. Dated: August 10, 2007. Pierre V.Duy, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16444 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 36-2007] Foreign-Trade Zone 75 -- Phoenix, Arizona, Application for Expansion An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones
(FTZ)Board (the Board) by the City of Phoenix, Arizona, grantee of FTZ 75, requesting authority to expand its existing zone to include two additional sites within the Phoenix Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on August 14, 2007. FTZ 75 was approved on March 25, 1982 (Board Order 185, 47 FR 14931, 4/7/82), and was expanded on July 2, 1993 (Board Order 647, 58 FR 37907, 7/14/93). The general-purpose zone currently consists of two sites (356 acres total) in Phoenix: *Site 1* (338 acres)—within the 550-acre Phoenix Sky Harbor Center and Sky Harbor International Airport's air cargo terminal located at Papago Freeway (Interstate 10) and Buckeye Road; and, *Site 2* (18 acres)—within the central southwestern portion of the CC&F South Valley Industrial Center located near the intersection of 7th Street and Victory Street. The applicant is now requesting authority to expand its zone to include two additional sites in Phoenix: *Proposed Site 3* (74 acres)—Riverside Industrial Center located at 4747 West Buckeye Road; and, *Proposed Site 4* (18 acres)—Santa Fe Business Park located between 47th Avenue and 45th Avenue. The sites are owned by K. T. Riverside I, LLC and Highland Industrial Center, LLC, respectively. The sites will provide warehousing and distribution space for area businesses. No specific manufacturing authority is being requested at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 22, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 5, 2007. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: Phoenix Export Assistance Center, 1700 West Washington Street, Suite 220, Phoenix, AZ 85007; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. For further information, contact Camille Evans at Camille_Evans@ita.doc.gov or at
(202)482-2350. Dated: August 14, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16446 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 35-2007] Foreign-Trade Zone 39 -- Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, Application for Reorganization/Expansion An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones
(FTZ)Board (the Board) by the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board, grantee of FTZ 39, requesting authority to reorganize and expand its existing zone in the Dallas area within the Dallas Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on August 8, 2007. FTZ 39 was approved on August 17, 1978 (Board Order 133, 43 FR 37478, 8/23/78), and expanded on: December 11, 1992 (Board Order 613, 57 FR 61046, 12/23/92); December 27, 1994 (Board Order 723, 60 FR 2377, 1/9/95); December 27, 1994 (Board Order 724, 60 FR 2376, 1/9/95); March 12, 1999 (Board Order 1028, 64 FR 14212, 3/24/99); and, March 29, 2002 (Board Order 1213, 67 FR 17049, 4/9/02). The zone project currently consists of the following six sites (5,182 acres total): Site 1 (2,400 acres)—within the 18,000-acre Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport complex; Site 2 (754 acres)—Southport Centre Industrial Park, South Dallas; Site 3 (552 acres)—within the 1,100-acre Grayson County Airport Complex, Grayson County; Site 4 (644 acres, 3 parcels)—Railhead Fort Worth site, intersection of Loop 820 (the Jim Wright Freeway) and Blue Mound Road (FM 156), Fort Worth; Site 5 (280 acres)—within the 745-acre Meacham Airport complex, intersection of Loop 820 and Interstate 35, Fort Worth; and, Site 6 (552 acres)—within the 1,060-acre Redbird Airport complex, intersection of Loop 12 and Interstate 35, Dallas. The applicant is now requesting authority to reorganize and expand existing Site 2 and to expand the zone to include six additional sites in the Dallas area: Site 2—modify the site by deleting 108 acres due to changed circumstances and expand the site to include an additional 1,303 acres within the larger 6,000-acre Dallas Logistics Hub (in which Site 2 will be renamed) located in the Cities of Hutchins, Wilmer, Lancaster and Dallas (new total acreage—1,949 acres); Proposed Site 7 (39 acres)—Duke Intermodal Park located at Interstate 45 and E. Wintergreen Road, Hutchins; Proposed Site 8 (434 acres)—within the 650-acre Sunridge Business Park, located at Interstate 45 and East Pleasant Road, Wilmer; Proposed Site 9 (356 acres)—Dalport Business Park, located at the southwest corner of Interstate 45 and Beltline Road, Wilmer; Proposed Site 10 (50 acres)—within the 307-acre Lancaster Municipal Airport Complex, Lancaster; Proposed Site 11 (175 acres)—ProLogis 20/35 Industrial Park, located near the intersection of Interstate 20 and N. Houston School Road, Lancaster; and, Proposed Site 12 (112 acres)—Crossroads Trade Center, located at Interstate 35E and Danieldale Road, DeSoto. The sites are owned by The Allen Group, Duke Realty LLP, Wilmer Pleasant Run L.P., Argent Property Co., City of Lancaster, ProLogis, and Hillwood LIT II LP, respectively. The sites will provide warehousing and distribution space for area businesses. No specific manufacturing authority is being requested at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 22, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 5, 2007. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: Fort Worth U.S. Export Assistance Center, 808 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. For further information, contact Camille Evans at *Camille_Evans@ita.doc.gov* or at
(202)482-2350. Dated: August 10, 2007. Pierre V. Duy, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16445 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-801] Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam: Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) has received information sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Based on a request filed by Vinh Hoan Co., Ltd. (“Vinh Hoan”), the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review and preliminarily determining that Vinh Hoan Corporation (“Vinh Hoan Corp.”) is the successor-in-interest to Vinh Hoan, a respondent in the original investigation and three recent administrative reviews. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2243. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The antidumping duty order for certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam was published on August 12, 2003. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 47909 (August 12, 2003) (“ *Vietnam Fish Order* ”). As part of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, Vinh Hoan received an antidumping duty cash deposit rate of 37.94 percent. Id. Moreover, as part of the final results of the first administrative review, Vinh Hoan received a cash deposit rate of 6.81 percent. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Administrative Review* , 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006). The Department initiated on Vinh Hoan in both the second and third administrative reviews; however, both reviews with regard to Vinh Hoan were subsequently rescinded. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission, in Part, and Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 6266 (February 7, 2006); and *Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission and Notice of Intent To Rescind, in Part, and Partial Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10981 (March 12, 2007), respectively. On June 26, 2007, Vinh Hoan filed a submission requesting that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam to confirm that Vinh Hoan Corp. is the successor-in-interest to Vinh Hoan. 1 In its submission, Vinh Hoan provided information on the events leading to the transition from Vinh Hoan to Vinh Hoan Corp. Vinh Hoan also provided documentation relating to its change from a limited liability company
(LLC)to a joint stock company. In addition, Vinh Hoan provided documentation relating to the ownership structure and management, organizational structure, customer base, accounting processes, supplier relationships, and products. As part of its June 26, 2007, submission, Vinh Hoan requested that the Department conduct an expedited review. 1 See Letter from Vinh Hoan, to the Department, regarding *Request for Expedited Changed Circumstances Determination, Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam* (Case No. A-552-801) (June 26, 2007) (“Vinh Hoan's CCR Request”). Scope of Order The product covered by this order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species *Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* ), and *Pangasius Micronemus* . Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the belly flap intact (“regular” fillets), boneless fillets with the belly flap removed (“shank” fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into strips (“fillet strips/ finger”), which include fillets cut into strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, cross-section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen “basa” and “tra” fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for these species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article codes 1604.19.4000 2 , 1604.19.5000 3 , 0305.59.4000 4 , 0304.29.6033 5 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species *Pangasius* including basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 6 This order covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. 2 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (March 1, 2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 3 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (March 1, 2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 4 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Second Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (February 2, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007. 5 *See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number* , (January 30, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007. 6 Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these products were classifiable under tariff article code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species *Pangasius* including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. Additionally, section 751(b)(4) of the Act states that the Department shall not conduct a review less than 24 months after the date of publication of the less-than-fair-value determination, in the absence of good cause. As noted above, Vinh Hoan and Vinh Hoan Corp. filed their request for a changed circumstances review on June 26, 2007, well over 24 months after the publication of the order. *See Vietnam Fish Order* . Preliminary Results of the Review Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216, we will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty finding or order that shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Vinh Hoan stating the change in the entity's legal status, from an LLC to a corporation, demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. *See* 19 CFR 351.216(d). As noted above in the “Background” section of this notice, in its request for a changed circumstances review, Vinh Hoan stated that it underwent a change in legal status. Vinh Hoan was converted from an LLC to a joint stock company and renamed Vinh Hoan Corp. Subsequent to the name change, the majority owner of Vinh Hoan and the controlling stock holder of Vinh Hoan Corp. remained the same (Ms. Trung Thi Le Khanh). In addition, Ms. Trung still controls Vinh Hoan Corp. as its general director. In determining whether one company is the successor-in-interest to another for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in:
(1)management;
(2)production facilities;
(3)supplier relationships; and
(4)customer base. *See, e.g., Certain Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 72 FR 24273 (May 2, 2007). While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor-in-interest to the previous company if the resulting operation, with regard to the subject merchandise, is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. *See, e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil* , 71 FR 2183 (January 13, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 3. Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the former company, the Department will accord the new company the same antidumping duty treatment as its predecessor. In our analysis, we first reviewed the management structure of Vinh Hoan Corp. Vinh Hoan reported that there has been no change in the company's management or management structure after becoming Vinh Hoan Corp. *See* Vinh Hoan's CCR Request at 4-5. Therefore, we find that the management structure has remained unchanged. Second, we looked at the operational structure of Vinh Hoan Corp. Vinh Hoan explained that there have been no material changes to its operations or the way it sells subject merchandise. Additionally, Vinh Hoan provided a sales process flowchart, which demonstrates how products are ordered and sold, and stated that these processes are identical between Vinh Hoan and Vinh Hoan Corp. *See* Vinh Hoan's CCR Request at 5-6 and Exhibit 3. We find that Vinh Hoan's operational structure has not changed as a result of becoming Vinh Hoan Corp. Third, we reviewed the supplier relationships of Vinh Hoan and Vinh Hoan Corp. Vinh Hoan stated that it has not had any significant or material changes to its supplier base (including its food-sized fish input). *See* Vinh Hoan's CCR Request at 6 and Exhibit 4. We find that Vinh Hoan's supplier relationships have not changed since becoming Vinh Hoan Corp. Fourth, we reviewed the customer base of both Vinh Hoan and Vinh Hoan Corp. Vinh Hoan explained that its, and subsequently, Vinh Hoan Corp.'s major U.S. customer remained the same. *See* Vinh Hoan's CCR Request at 6 and Exhibit 5. Accordingly, we find that Vinh Hoan's customer base has remained the same since becoming Vinh Hoan Corp. In summary, Vinh Hoan reported that its conversion from Vinh Hoan to Vinh Hoan Corp. did not meaningfully affect the supplier relationships, customer base, management, marketing or sale of products and services. Moreover, there have been no material changes to Vinh Hoan's operations or the way it produces and sells subject merchandise resulting in the conversion from Vinh Hoan to Vinh Hoan Corp. Based on evidence provided by Vinh Hoan regarding its change from an LLC to a joint stock company, and absent any other record evidence that would contradict Vinh Hoan's statements, we preliminarily determine, pursuant to section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations, that Vinh Hoan Corp. is the succesor-in-interest to Vinh Hoan. If the above preliminary results are affirmed in the Department's final results, the cash deposit rate most recently calculated for Vinh Hoan will apply to all entries of subject merchandise by Vinh Hoan Corp. entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review. *See, e.g., Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This cash deposit rate, if imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Any hearing, if requested, will normally be held two days after rebuttal briefs are due, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). The Department will issue its final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated, or within 45 days if all parties to the proceeding agree to the outcome of the review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), and will publish these results in the **Federal Register** . The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 of the Department's regulations. Dated: August 10, 2007. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-16447 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-918] Notice of Extension of the Deadline for Determining the Adequacy of the Antidumping Duty Petition: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik or Julia Hancock, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6905 or
(202)482-1394, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION The Petition On July 31, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received an antidumping duty petition (“petition”) filed by M&B Metal Products Company, Inc. (“Petitioner”) on behalf of the domestic industry producing steel wire garment hangers. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 732(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), requires that a petition be filed by or on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that the Department's industry support determination be based on whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for:
(i)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:
(i)poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or
(ii)if there is a large number of producers, determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry. Extension of Time Section 732(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that within 20 days of the filing of an antidumping duty petition, the Department will determine, *inter alia* , whether the petition has been filed by or on behalf of the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. Section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the deadline for the initiation determination, in exceptional circumstances, may be extended by 20 days in any case in which the Department must “poll or otherwise determine support for the petition by the industry.” Because it is not clear from the petition whether the industry support criteria have been met, the Department has determined to extend the time for initiating an investigation in order to poll the domestic industry. The Department will issue polling questionnaires to all known domestic producers of steel wire garment hangers identified in the petition. The questionnaires will be on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. The Department will request that each company complete the polling questionnaire and fax their responses to the Department. The Department will need additional time to analyze the domestic producers' responses to this request for information. Therefore, it is necessary to extend the deadline in order to determine the adequacy of the petition for a period not to exceed 40 days from the filing of the petition. As a result, the initiation determination will now be due no later than September 10, 2007. 1 1 Twenty days from the original deadline is September 9, 2007. However, Department practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend, the appropriate deadline is the next business day. *See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Act* , 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). International Trade Commission Notification The Department will contact the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and will make this extension notice available to the ITC. Dated: August 15, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-16448 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration The President's Export Council: Meeting of the President's Export Council; Correction AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a time change for an open meeting via teleconference. SUMMARY: The President's Export Council will hold a meeting via teleconference to deliberate a draft letter of recommendation to the President. This meeting was announced in a **Federal Register** document published on August 13, 2007 (72 FR 45224). This notice corrects the time of that meeting. *Date:* August 23, 2007. *Time:* 1 p.m. (EDT); Correction. *For the Conference Call-In Number and Further Information, Contact:* The President's Export Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1124), or visit the PEC Web site, *http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/pec.* Dated: August 16, 2007. J. Marc Chittum, Executive Secretary and Staff Director, President's Export Council. [FR Doc. 07-4111 Filed 8-17-07; 9:33 am]
Connectionstraces to 34
Traces to 34 documents
CFR
- Definitions.§ 50.2
- Termination of license.§ 50.82
- Will Western conduct reviews of this program?§ 905.24
- What must an IRP include?§ 905.11
- General.§ 91.403
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, § 135.411(a)(1), and § 135.419 of this chapter).§ 43.9
- Persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.§ 43.7
- Applicability.§ 71.1
- Rules and regulations.§ 601.601
- New Haven Harbor, Quinnipiac and Mill Rivers.§ 117.213
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- Changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of the Act.§ 351.216
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Written argument.§ 351.309
register
U.S. Code
- Definitions§ 601
- Purposes§ 3501
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Rules and regulations§ 3516
- Transfers from Department of the Interior§ 7152
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Regulations for drawbridges§ 499
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Definitions§ 601
- Congressional statement of findings§ 451
- Congressional statement of findings§ 1031
25 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 50
- 10 CFR 20
- 10 CFR 905
- Pub. L. 102-486
- 42 USC 7275-7276
- 10 CFR 1021
- Pub. L. 104-4
- Pub. L. 105-277
- 42 USC 7275-7276c
- 14 CFR 39
- 14 CFR 71
- 26 CFR 20
- 33 CFR 117
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- 50 CFR 648
- Pub. L. 104-13
- Pub. L. 83-566
- 16 USC 1001-1008
- Pub. L. 92-512
- 19 USC 81a-81u
- 15 CFR 400
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt
Cite10 CFR 50
Cite10 CFR 20
Cite10 CFR 905
Cites 59 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources