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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-08-31 · Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Notice of availability

60,608 words·~275 min read·/register/2007/08/31/07-4271

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 169 Friday, August 31, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. 2007-0022] 9 CFR Parts 304, 308, 310, 320, 327, 381, 416, and 417 Availability of the Report: Review of the Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems Final Rule Pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS)is announcing the availability of its report entitled, “Review of the Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems Final Rule Pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, As Amended.” ADDRESSES: The report is available in Room 102, Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. It is also available on the Internet at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/2007_Proposed_Rules_Index/index.asp.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John O'Connell, Regulations and Petitions Policy Staff, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee Development, FSIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 112, Cotton Annex Building, 300 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700; telephone
(202)720-0345, fax
(202)690-0486. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture as specified 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.* ). These statutes provide that FSIS is to protect the public by verifying that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended (5 U.S.C. 601-612), requires that Federal agencies conduct a review of their rules that have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. Agencies are required to conduct the review by the end of 10 years after the implementation of such a rule. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the rule should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. On January 28, 2005, FSIS published a schedule of its planned reviews in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 4047)—Regulatory Flexibility Act; Amended Plan for Reviewing Regulations Under Section 610 Requirements. According to the schedule, the Agency would first review the Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (PR/HACCP) Systems final rule (61 FR 38806). FSIS assembled a team that conducted a review of the regulations implemented by the PR/HACCP rule. The team examined the five factors enumerated by Section 610 of the RFA:
(1)The continued need for the rule;
(2)the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the rule;
(3)the complexity of the rule;
(4)the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules and, to the extent feasible, with State and local government rules; and
(5)the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. The team also looked at the economic impact of the rule on the meat and poultry industries. As part of its effort to satisfy the requirements of Section 610 of the RFA, FSIS published on August 12, 2005, a notice in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 47147) requesting comments from the public on the impact of the PR/HACCP rule and on the relevant factors enumerated by Section 610 of the RFA. The Agency received 19 comments from the public concerning the PR/HACCP rule. The Agency also conducted a survey of nine small and very small meat and poultry establishments in order to ensure that it received comments on the PR/HACCP rule from small and very small businesses affected by the rule. FSIS summarized the comments it received and gives its response to these comments in the review report. In response to the comments and the review that the team conducted, the report recommends that the Agency take several steps to enhance and strengthen its outreach to small and very small businesses regarding HACCP and pathogen reduction efforts. Based on its analysis of the comments, FSIS determined that it was not necessary to make any changes to the PR/HACCP rule. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2007_Proposed_Rules_Index/index.asp* . FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. The Update also is available on the FSIS Web page. Through Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/.* Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account. Done at Washington, DC on August 27, 2007. Alfred Almanza, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-17212 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Part 100, 104, and 114 [Notice 2007-16] Electioneering Communications AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission requests comments on proposed revisions to its rules governing electioneering communications. These proposed rules would implement the Supreme Court's decision in *FEC* v. *Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.* , which held that the prohibition on the use of corporate and labor organization funds for electioneering communications is unconstitutional as applied to certain types of electioneering communications. The Commission has made no final decision on the issues presented in this rulemaking. Further information is provided in the supplementary information that follows. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2007. The Commission will hold a hearing on the proposed rules on October 17, 2007 at 10 a.m. Anyone seeking to testify at the hearing must file written comments by the due date and must include a request to testify in the written comments. ADDRESSES: All comments must be in writing, must be addressed to Mr. Ron B. Katwan, Assistant General Counsel, and must be submitted in e-mail, facsimile, or paper copy form. Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit comments by e-mail or fax to ensure timely receipt and consideration. E-mail comments must be sent to *wrtl.ads@fec.gov.* If e-mail comments include an attachment, the attachment must be in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft Word (.doc) format. Faxed comments must be sent to
(202)219-3923, with paper copy follow-up. Paper comments and paper copy follow-up of faxed comments must be sent to the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. All comments must include the full name and postal service address of the commenter or they will not be considered. The Commission will post comments on its Web site after the comment period ends. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ron B. Katwan, Assistant General Counsel, Mr. Anthony T. Buckley, Attorney, or Ms. Margaret G. Perl, Attorney, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463,
(202)694-1650 or
(800)424-9530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is seeking public comment on proposed revisions to 11 CFR parts 100, 104 and 114 that would implement the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in *FEC* v. *Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.* , 127 S. Ct. 2652 (June 25, 2007), available at *http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/wrtl_sct_decision.pdf* . I. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Governing Electioneering Communications The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”) 1 amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended 2 (the “Act” or “FECA”), by adding a new category of political communications, “electioneering communications,” to those already governed by the Act. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3). Electioneering communications are broadcast, cable or satellite communications that refer to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office, are publicly distributed within sixty days before a general election or thirty days before a primary election, and are targeted to the relevant electorate. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(A)(i). Those who make electioneering communications are subject to certain reporting obligations. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(1) and (2). Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from using general treasury funds to finance electioneering communications, directly or indirectly. 2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2). 1 Pub. L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (2002). 2 2 U.S.C. 431 *et seq.* The Act exempts certain communications from the definition of “electioneering communication” found in 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(B)(i) to (iii), and specifically authorizes the Commission to promulgate regulations exempting other communications as long as the exempted communications do not promote, support, attack or oppose (“PASO”) a candidate. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(B)(iv), *citing* 2 U.S.C. 431(20)(A)(iii). The Commission promulgated regulations to implement BCRA's electioneering communications provisions. *Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for Regulations on Electioneering Communications* , 67 FR 65190 (Oct. 23, 2002) (“ *EC E&J* ”). 3 *See also* 11 CFR 100.29 (defining “electioneering communication”); 104.20 (implementing electioneering communications reporting requirements); 110.11(a) (requiring disclaimers in all electioneering communications); 114.2 (prohibiting corporations and labor organizations from making electioneering communications); 114.10 (allowing qualified non-profit corporations (“QNCs”) to make electioneering communications); 114.14 (restricting indirect corporate and labor organization funding of electioneering communications). Commission regulations exempt five types of communications from the definition of “electioneering communication.” *See* 11 CFR 100.29(c). 4 3 The Commission revised its electioneering communications regulations in 2005, in response to *Shays* v. *FEC* , 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004), *aff'd* , 414 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2005), *reh'g en banc denied* , No. 04-5352 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 21, 2005). *See Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for Regulations on Electioneering Communications* , 70 FR 75713 (Dec. 21, 2005). 4 The exemptions in 11 CFR 100.29(c)(1) (non-broadcast communications), 100.29(c)(2) (news stories, commentaries or editorials), 100.29(c)(3) (expenditures and independent expenditures) and 100.29(c)(4) (candidate debates or forums) are based on the express language of the Act. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(B)(i) to (iii). Section 100.29(c)(5) exempts communications paid for by State or local candidates that do not PASO any Federal candidate. B. U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Regarding Electioneering Communications In *McConnell* v. *FEC,* 540 U.S. 93
(2003)( *“McConnell”* ), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld BCRA's electioneering communication provisions against various constitutional challenges. *Id.* at 194, 201-02, 207-08. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition on the use of general treasury funds by corporations and labor organizations to pay for electioneering communications in 2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2) was not facially overbroad. *Id.* at 204-06. In *Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.* v. *FEC,* 546 U.S. 410
(2006)( *“WRTL I”* ), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that *McConnell's* upholding of section 441b(b)(2) against a facial constitutional challenge did not preclude further as-applied challenges to the corporate and labor organization funding prohibitions. *See WRTL I,* 546 U.S. at 411-12. Subsequently, in *FEC* v. *Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.,* 127 S. Ct. 2652
(2007)( *“WRTL II”* ), the Supreme Court reviewed an as-applied challenge brought by a non-profit corporation seeking to use its own general treasury funds, which included donations it had received from other corporations, to pay for broadcast advertisements referring to Senator Feingold and Senator Kohl during the electioneering communications period before the 2004 general election, in which Senator Feingold, but not Senator Kohl, was on the ballot. The plaintiff argued that these communications were genuine issue ads run as part of a grassroots lobbying campaign on the issue of Senate filibusters on judicial nominations. *WRTL II,* 127 S. Ct. at 2660-61. The Supreme Court held that section 441b(b)(2) was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff's advertisements because the advertisements were not the “functional equivalent of express advocacy.” *Id.* at 2670, 2673. A communication is the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” only if it “is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” *Id.* at 2667. The Commission is initiating this rulemaking to implement the Supreme Court's decision in *WRTL II.* The Commission seeks public comment generally regarding the effect of the *WRTL II* decision on the Commission's rules governing corporate and labor organization funding of electioneering communications, the definition of “electioneering communication,” and the rules governing reporting of electioneering communications. II. Proposed Rules on Electioneering Communications A. Scope of the Rulemaking 1. Scope of the Proposed Electioneering Communications Exemption The Commission is seeking public comment on two proposed alternative ways to implement the *WRTL II* decision in the rules governing electioneering communications. The first alternative would incorporate the new exemption into the rules prohibiting the use of corporate and labor organization funds for electioneering communications in 11 CFR part 114. The second alternative would incorporate the new exemption into the definition of “electioneering communication” in 11 CFR 100.29. *Alternative 1—Proposed revisions to the corporate and labor organization prohibition.* Under the Act, electioneering communications are subject to both funding restrictions and reporting requirements. Specifically, entities that spend a total of more than $10,000 on electioneering communications in a calendar year must file disclosure reports with the FEC. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(1). Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from using general treasury funds to pay for any electioneering communication. *See* 2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2). The plaintiff in *WRTL II* challenged only BCRA's corporate and labor organization funding restrictions and did not contest either the definition of “electioneering communication” in section 434(f)(3), or the reporting requirement in section 434(f)(1). *See WRTL II,* 127 S. Ct. at 2658-59; *see also* Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ¶ 36 (July 28, 2004) in *Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.* v. *FEC* (No. 04-1260), *available at http://fecds005.fec.gov/law/litigation_related.shtml#wrtl_dc* (“WRTL does not challenge the reporting and disclaimer requirements for electioneering communications, only the prohibition on using its corporate funds for its grass-roots lobbying advertisements.”) Accordingly, the Commission could construe the Supreme Court's holding that the Act's electioneering communication funding restrictions are unconstitutional as applied to certain advertisements as not extending to the reporting requirements for electioneering communications. BCRA added the electioneering communications reporting requirements to the Act through a different provision (section 201) than the BCRA provision containing the corporate prohibition on making electioneering communications (section 203). The Commission seeks comment as to whether the scope of the *WRTL II* decision is limited to an as-applied challenge to the section 203 prohibitions and whether the Commission has the authority to change its electioneering communications rules beyond what is required by the Supreme Court's decision. Does the holding in *WRTL II* depend on a finding that the prohibition on using corporate and labor organization funds for electioneering communications in section 203 is a direct limitation on speech? Do the reporting requirements in section 201 implicate the same concerns about direct restrictions on First Amendment rights, given that *McConnell* specifically upheld the electioneering communications reporting provisions as constitutional because they “d[o] not prevent anyone from speaking?” *McConnell,* 540 U.S. at 201 (quoting *McConnell* v. *FEC,* 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 241 (D.D.C. 2003)) (internal quotations omitted). *See also Alaska Right To Life Comm.* v. *Miles,* 441 F.3d 773, 788 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The [ *McConnell* ] Court was not * * * explicit about the appropriate standard of scrutiny with respect to disclosure requirements. However, in addressing extensive reporting requirements applicable to * * * ‘electioneering communications’ * * *, the Court did not apply ‘strict scrutiny’ or require a ‘compelling state interest.’ Rather, the Court upheld the disclosure requirements as supported merely by ‘important state interests.’ ”) (internal quotation omitted); *Buckley* v. *Valeo,* 424 U.S. 1, 60-84
(1976)(upholding FECA's reporting requirements); *cf. Brown* v. *Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio),* 459 U.S. 87, 98-99
(1982)(reporting requirements found unconstitutional when there was a “reasonable probability” that disclosure of information would lead to economic reprisals or physical threats). Therefore, under Alternative 1, the Commission proposes to implement the *WRTL II* decision by creating an exemption solely from the prohibition on the use of corporate and labor organization funds to finance electioneering communications. The proposed revisions to 11 CFR 114.2 and proposed new section 114.15 would not create an exemption from either the overall definition of “electioneering communication” in section 100.29 or from the reporting requirements in section 104.20. Thus, corporations and labor organizations would be permitted to use general treasury funds for electioneering communications that qualify for the proposed exemption, but would be required to file electioneering communications disclosure reports once they spend more than $10,000 in a calendar year on such communications. *See* proposed revision to 11 CFR 104.20. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. *Alternative 2—Proposed revisions to the definition of “electioneering communication.”* Under Alternative 2, the Commission proposes to place the new exemption in 11 CFR 100.29(c) as an additional exemption from the definition of “electioneering communication.” This alternative would construe the Supreme Court's decision in *WRTL II* to hold that communications that qualify for the *WRTL II* exemption may not be constitutionally regulated as electioneering communications ( *i.e.* , if a communication satisfies the Court's test, it is not an “electioneering communication,” as that term is used in the Act), meaning that the associated reporting requirements are no longer applicable. Placing the exemption within section 100.29(c) in the definition of “electioneering communication” would have at least two practical implications. First, if a communication satisfies the *WRTL II* exemption, and is therefore exempted from the definition of “electioneering communication,” the electioneering communications reporting requirements would not apply to the exempted communication. Second, an exemption from the definition of “electioneering communication” would extend beyond corporations and labor organizations to *all* “persons” paying for communications that satisfy the exemption articulated in *WRTL II. See* 11 CFR 104.20. The Commission understands this distinction would extend the Supreme Court's exemption to individuals, unincorporated entities, and QNCs, in addition to corporations and labor organizations. Would any other “persons” be affected? 5 The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the impact of these proposed regulations on “persons” under the Act. 5 Political committees are not currently subject to the Act's electioneering communications provisions because communications that constitute either expenditures or independent expenditures, provided that the expenditures or independent expenditures are required to be reported under the Act or Commission regulations, are exempt from the definition of “electioneering communication.” *See* 11 CFR 100.29(c)(3); *EC E&J,* 67 FR at 65197-98. Does *WRTL II* either permit or necessitate an exemption from the definition of “electioneering communication,” or give the Commission authority to create such an exemption? Would the Commission's statutory authority to create exemptions under 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(B)(iv) be sufficient to create an exemption that satisfies the requirements of *WRTL II* ? If the Commission were to use its statutory authority set forth at 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(B)(iv) to create exemptions, would the statutory provision's PASO requirement be applicable, or does *WRTL II* supersede that requirement with respect to a communication that qualifies for the *WRTL II* exemption? Would *WRTL II's* functional equivalent test be a reasonable statutory construction of PASO? The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the appropriate scope of, and authority for, a new exemption. The choice between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would also have implications for the coordinated communications rules, which rely in part on the definition of “electioneering communication” in section 100.29. *See* 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)(C); 11 CFR 109.21(c). The Commission's coordinated communications rule includes four different content standards:
(1)Electioneering communications;
(2)public communications that republish campaign materials;
(3)public communications that include express advocacy; and
(4)public communications that refer to a Federal candidate during certain time periods before an election. *See* 11 CFR 109.21(c)(1)-(4). The proposed rules in Alternative 1 do not affect the coordinated communications rules because communications that qualify for the proposed exemption in section 114.15 would still be considered “electioneering communications” and thus meet the “electioneering communication” content standard in 11 CFR 109.21(c)(1). By contrast, because Alternative 2 creates an exemption from the definition of “electioneering communication,” any communication that qualifies for the exemption in proposed section 100.29(c)(6) could no longer meet the “electioneering communication” content standard in section 109.21(c)(1). However, under both alternatives, a communication that qualifies for the proposed new exemption may still be a “coordinated communication” under one of the other three content standards in sections 109.21(c)(2)-(4). Thus, under both alternatives, exempt communications made by corporations or labor organizations may still be prohibited in-kind contributions as “coordinated communications.” The Commission seeks comment on the effects of each alternative on the coordinated communication rule. 2. Impact on the Definition of Express Advocacy *WRTL II* demarcated the constitutional reach of the Act's electioneering communications funding restrictions. Does *WRTL II* also provide guidance regarding the constitutional reach of other provisions in the Act? *WRTL II's* “functional equivalent of express advocacy” test limiting the electioneering communication prohibition draws upon the Supreme Court's express advocacy construction of “independent expenditure,” first appearing in *Buckley* v. *Valeo,* 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and later applied in the context of section 441b's corporate expenditure ban in *FEC* v. *Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.,* 479 U.S. 238 (1986). The Court's equating of the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” with communications that are “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate” bears considerable resemblance to components of the Commission's definition of express advocacy at 11 CFR 100.22. Section 100.22(a) deems communications that “in context can have no other reasonable meaning than to urge the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s)” to be express advocacy. Express advocacy may also be found under section 100.22(b) when, in context, a communication “could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s).” Does *WRTL II* require the Commission to revise or repeal any portion of its definition of express advocacy at section 100.22? Does the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” test from *WRTL II* also demarcate the constitutional reaches of Commission regulation of independent expenditures? Section 434(f)(3)(B)(ii) excludes “an expenditure or an independent expenditure” from the definition of “electioneering communication.” Would a definition of “express advocacy” (which, in turn, defines “independent expenditure”) that subsumes all electioneering communications effectively nullify section 434(f) by deeming all “functional equivalent” communications to be “expenditures” and thus by definition not electioneering communications? Would these coextensive definitions leave any independent meaning to the electioneering communications reporting requirements, because there would be no remaining class of electioneering communications to be reported? Would this combination of definitions likewise rob the electioneering communication prohibition in section 441b(b)(2) (and proposed new 11 CFR 114.15) of independent significance by construing the corporate expenditure prohibition as coextensive with the corporate electioneering communications prohibition? What are the implications of having different regulatory language defining the scope of the prohibitions? B. General Prohibition on Corporations and Labor Organizations Making Electioneering Communications Alternative 1—Proposed Revisions to 11 CFR 114.2 Section 114.2(b)(2)(iii) implements the funding restrictions of 2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2) by prohibiting corporations and labor organizations from “[m]aking payments for an electioneering communication to those outside the restricted class.” After the *WRTL II* decision, that section must be amended to reflect that corporations and labor organizations cannot constitutionally be prohibited from funding certain types of communications that fall within the statutory definition of electioneering communications. However, placing a detailed exemption based on the *WRTL II* decision within section 114.2(b) could be confusing and difficult for the reader to find. Thus, the Commission proposes to set out the *WRTL II* exemption in a new proposed section 114.15, and to amend section 114.2(b) by cross-referencing the exemption in section 114.15. *See* proposed 11 CFR 114.2(b)(3) (“Except as provided at 11 CFR 114.10 and 114.15 * * * ”). 6 6 To increase clarity and readability, the proposed rule would also revise the title of section 114.2 to include electioneering communications explicitly, and renumber paragraph (b)(2)(iii) as paragraph (b)(3) with conforming changes as necessary in the text of that paragraph. Alternative 2—No Proposed Changes Under Alternative 2, no revisions to section 114.2(b) are proposed. If a communication is exempted from the definition of “electioneering communication” at 11 CFR 100.29, it would not be subject to the prohibition set forth at current section 114.2(b). C. The WRTL II Exemption Alternative 1—Proposed 11 CFR 114.15—Permissible Use of Corporate and Labor Organization Funds for Certain Electioneering Communications The new exemption in proposed section 114.15 would only apply to certain types of communications that meet the current definition of “electioneering communication” in 11 CFR 100.29. Proposed paragraph
(a)would set forth the general standard for determining whether the use of corporate and labor organization funds for an electioneering communication is permissible under *WRTL II* . Proposed paragraph
(b)would include safe harbor provisions for two common types of communications: grassroots lobbying communications, and commercial or business advertisements. Proposed paragraph
(c)would address reporting obligations for corporations and labor organizations that choose to use general treasury funds to pay for permissible electioneering communications. Alternative 2—Proposed 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)—Exemption From the Definition of “Electioneering Communication” The new exemption in proposed section 100.29(c)(6) would apply to certain types of communications that otherwise meet the current definition of “electioneering communication” in 11 CFR 100.29(a). Proposed paragraph (c)(6) would set forth the general standard for determining whether a communication is exempt from the definition of “electioneering communication” pursuant to *WRTL II* . Proposed paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and
(ii)are identical to proposed section 114.15(b), and would include the same safe harbor provisions for two common types of communications: grassroots lobbying communications, and commercial or business advertisements. Alternative 2 does not include a paragraph that is equivalent to proposed section 114.15(c), because there would be no reporting requirements for communications that satisfy the proposed exemption. Because the substantive requirements of the proposed *WRTL II* exemption and the included safe harbors would be the same under either Alternative 1 or 2, the following discussion applies equally to both alternatives. 1. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(a) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)—Articulation of the WRTL II Exemption The Supreme Court in *WRTL II* held that the Act's prohibition on the use of corporate and labor organization funds to pay for electioneering communications is unconstitutional as applied to communications that are not the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy. *WRTL II* , 127 S. Ct. at 2659. Under *WRTL II* , “an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” *WRTL II* , 127 S. Ct. at 2667. Under Alternative 1, proposed section 114.15(a) would provide that corporations and labor organizations may make an electioneering communication (as defined in 11 CFR 100.29) without violating the prohibition in section 114.2(b)(3), “if the communication is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate.” Under Alternative 2, proposed section 100.29(c)(6) would provide that if the communication “is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate,” it is exempted from the definition of “electioneering communication” set forth at 11 CFR 100.29(a). The proposed exemptions in the two alternatives would be objective, “focusing on the substance of the communication rather than amorphous considerations of intent and effect.” *WRTL II* , 127 S. Ct. at 2666. In determining whether a particular communication is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate, the Commission may consider “basic background information that may be necessary to put an ad in context.” *Id.* at 2669. According to the *WRTL II* opinion, this information could include whether a communication “describes a legislative issue that is either currently the subject of legislative scrutiny or likely to be the subject of such scrutiny in the near future.” *Id.* (internal citation omitted). The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Should the Commission include in the Explanation and Justification or the rule itself a list of examples of information that would be included as “basic background information”? What information beyond the “four corners” of the communication may the Commission consider as “basic background information”? What examples should the Commission use? The Commission proposes, under both alternatives, to supplement the general exemption with two safe harbors. The safe harbors are identical under both alternatives. The two safe harbors would focus on the content of the communication rather than its intent and effect. Satisfying one of the safe harbor provisions would demonstrate that the communication is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a Federal candidate. A communication that qualifies for one of the safe harbors would be deemed to satisfy the general exemption set forth in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6). However, a communication that does not qualify for either of the safe harbors may still come within the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6). The Commission seeks comment on the proposed approach of creating safe harbors in addition to a general exemption. Do safe harbor provisions based on categorical content-based requirements provide useful additional guidance to entities applying the general exemption, or is the general exemption sufficiently clear so that further guidance is unnecessary? Should the Commission, instead of, or in addition to, creating safe harbors, provide an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered when determining whether a communication is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate? If the Commission provides a list of factors, should it include factors in addition to those listed in the proposed safe harbors and *WRTL II* ? Are there any factors that could support a conclusion that a communication is *per se* the functional equivalent of express advocacy? 2. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)—Safe Harbor for Grassroots Lobbying Communications Under both alternatives, proposed sections 114.15(b)(1) or 100.29(c)(6)(i) would establish identical safe harbors for grassroots lobbying communications based on *WRTL II's* analysis of the specific advertisements at issue in the case. The Supreme Court determined that WRTL's advertisements were not the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” because the communications’ content was “consistent with that of a genuine issue ad” and the communications lacked “indicia of express advocacy.” *WRTL II* , 127 S. Ct. at 2667. The Supreme Court concluded that the content of the communications was “consistent with that of a genuine issue ad” because they focused on a legislative issue, took a position on the issue, exhorted the public to adopt the position, and urged the public to contact public officials with respect to the issue. *Id.* The Court found that the communications lacked “indicia of express advocacy” because they did not mention any election, candidacy, political party, or challenger, and the communications did not take positions on a candidate's character, qualifications, or fitness for office. *Id.* Accordingly, the first two prongs of the proposed safe harbor for grassroots lobbying communications (proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(i) and
(ii)or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A) and (B)) would incorporate the factors the Court used to determine whether a communication's content is “consistent with that of a genuine issue ad.” The third and fourth prongs (proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iii) and
(iv)or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C) and (D)) would incorporate the factors the Court used to determine whether a communication lacks “indicia of express advocacy.” A communication would qualify for the proposed safe harbor for grassroots lobbying communications only if it satisfies all four prongs. The Commission invites comment on whether a showing that the communication meets all four prongs (and all elements of each prong) should be required to come within the safe harbor. If not all elements or prongs are essential, how should the safe harbor be constructed? What is the relationship between the first two positive content prongs (discussing a pending legislative matter and urging a position on an officeholder or the public) and the last two negative or exclusionary prongs (not mentioning certain topics and not taking a position on certain issues)? Should the safe harbors be described only by the “positive content prongs” and the exclusionary factors be used as tests for the “no other reasonable meaning” portion of the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a)? Should the grassroots lobbying communications safe harbor contain different requirements depending upon whether the Commission decides to implement the exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or proposed section 100.29(c)(6)? *a. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(i) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A) * The first prong of the safe harbor in proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(i) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A) would be that the communication “exclusively discusses a pending legislative or executive matter or issue.” A “pending legislative or executive matter or issue” includes: a legislative proposal introduced in Congress as a bill or resolution, or a pending proposal that has not yet been formally introduced as a bill; the confirmation of a nominee; or the use of legislative procedures such as filibustering, cloture votes, or earmarking. The proposed safe harbor would also include communications discussing pending “executive” matters because Federal candidates who are officeholders in the executive branch of Federal, State or local government also may be lobbied to take action on matters involving public policy. In addition, this prong would include current and pending matters of public debate that engage Congress or the Executive Branch. In describing the legislative focus of the advertisement, the *WRTL II* opinion does not use the term “exclusive.” If an advertisement is “exclusively” about a legislative issue (as proposed in the rule), are the exclusionary factors (limiting other content) necessary? The Commission is considering whether to include the following as examples of what would constitute a “legislative or executive matter or issue” under this proposed prong: • A bill designated “H.R.1” or “S.1”; • An initiative or undertaking proposed by the President of the United States; • An issue that rises to prominence through events occurring in the States, such as border control; • An issue that is given prominence by a Supreme Court decision, such as eminent domain. Should these examples appear in the Explanation and Justification that would accompany the final rule or should they be incorporated into the rule itself? Should this prong of the safe harbor be limited to pending State or local matters if the named Federal candidate is a State or local officeholder? Should further examples be added to the list or should some examples be removed from it? The safe harbor currently requires that a matter or issue be “pending.” How should the Commission determine whether a given matter or issue is “pending?” Should this requirement be removed, so that the safe harbor protects discussion of matters or issues, even if they are not “pending?” *b. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(ii) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(B) * The second prong of the proposed safe harbor in proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(ii) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(B) would be that the communication “urges an officeholder to take a particular position or action with respect to the matter or issue, or urges the public to adopt a particular position and to contact the officeholder with respect to the matter or issue.” In addition to communications that urge the public to contact a public official (such as those in *WRTL II* ), this requirement would also be met if the communication directly urges the officeholder to take a particular position or action regarding the legislative or executive matter or issue. Communications discussing a Federal candidate who is not a Federal, State or local officeholder would not come within the proposed safe harbor. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Should the safe harbor be so limited, or should communications discussing Federal candidates who are not officeholders also be eligible for the safe harbor? For example, could a communication that asks a Federal candidate who is not an officeholder to sign a pledge to support a particular issue if elected be reasonably construed as other than an appeal to vote for or against that candidate? Are there instances in which an entity has “lobbied” a Federal candidate to take a particular position or action once elected? The Commission is also considering whether to include the following as examples of what would constitute exhortations to the officeholder under the proposed prong: • “Congressman Smith, vote yes on H.R.1.” • “The Association of Local Merchants calls on Governor Smith to Sign the Tax Reduction Act of 2006.” • “We urge President Smith to stand with America's workers and support expanded health care coverage.” • “Congressman Smith, vote for the President's health care initiative.” Similarly, some examples of urging the general public to act under the proposed safe harbor would include the following: • “Call Congressman Smith at
(202)555-1234 and tell him to vote yes on H.R.1.” • “Write to Governor Smith at the address on the screen and ask him to sign the Tax Reduction Act of 2006.” • Send President Smith an e-mail to tell him that you hope he will stand with America's workers and support expanded health care coverage. His e-mail address is *Mr.Smith@whitehouse.gov.* ” • “Contact Congressman Smith and ask him to vote for the President's health care initiative [contact information on screen].” Should these examples appear in the Explanation and Justification that would accompany the final rule or should they be incorporated into the rule itself? Should further examples be added to the list or should some examples be removed from it? Should an advertisement that urges the public to “Call Congressman Smith and thank him for voting for H.R. 1” satisfy this prong of the safe harbor? The Commission seeks comment on whether the criteria for the safe harbor in proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(i) and
(ii)or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A) and
(B)accurately reflect the content of a “genuine issue ad” as noted by *WRTL II* . Should the Commission add further prongs to ensure that the content of the communication would be fully consistent with that of a grassroots lobbying communication? *c. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iii) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C)* The third prong of the proposed safe harbor in proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iii) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C) would be that the communication “does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public.” The proposed prong would include “voting by the general public” in addition to the terms listed in the *WRTL II* decision as further indicia of express advocacy. For example, a communication would not meet this prong if it discussed a Federal candidate's position on certain pending legislative issues, but concluded with the tag line “Vote. It's important to your future.” Should references to voting by the general public in an election be included as additional indicia of express advocacy? Could communications that provide the address of campaign headquarters as an officeholder's contact information satisfy this prong of the proposed safe harbor under either alternative, or would such communications be considered to be referring to the officeholder's candidacy? Should only communications that provide contact information at the incumbent officeholder's Federal or State government office or a district office qualify for the proposed safe harbors? The Commission invites comment on whether the following examples “mention” elections, candidacy, political parties or opposing candidates sufficient to transform a communication into the functional equivalent of express advocacy (if these factors are used to assess permissible electioneering communications) or to remove them from the proposed new safe harbors. Elections • Specific reference to a named election date, such as “Support gun rights this November 5” or “Perform your civic duty November 5 to protect the environment.” • Specific reference to elections in general, such as “Remember to vote to preserve private property come election time.” • Reference to election-related themes, such as pictures or text references to:
(1)a ballot,
(2)ballot box,
(3)polls,
(4)franchise,
(5)suffrage. Candidacy • Specific description of named candidate and the election, such as “Bob Jones is running for Senate;” or “Before Bob Jones ran for the House he never paid property taxes.” • Specific description of named candidate, such as “Tim Wirth has a right to run for Senate, but he doesn't have a right to * * *.” 7 7 *See FEC* v. *Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee,* 59 F.3d 1015, 1018 n.1 (10th Cir. 1995), *rev'd,* 518 U.S. 604 (1996). • Specific reference to office or candidacy, such as “Vote for liberty when picking your Senator!” or “There's an important choice for Senator this year.” • Reference to candidacy by unique events or actions related to office, such as “Remember the House Bank scandal? This November, let's do better.” • Implied references to candidacy, such as:
(1)Photo shots of candidate near Capitol;
(2)candidate appears in mock-setting of government office;
(3)other images reasonably suggesting candidacy. Political party • Specific reference to a recognized party, such as “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “Libertarians,” or “Greens.” • Reference to political parties by nickname or proxy description, “Remember to support the GOP!” or “liberals in Congress;” or “the War party in Washington;” or “Support the party of Lincoln and Reagan;” or graphics reasonably understood to reference the party ( *e.g.* elephants or donkeys). Opposing Candidate • Reference to incumbent and opposing candidate, such as “Bob Barry supports our troops; Bill Jones cut veterans' benefits by 20%.” • Reference to incumbent, implying opposing candidate, such as “It's time to take out the trash, select real change with Bob Barry.” • Generic references to opposing candidate, such as an advertisement in which the opposing candidate appears as “Rocky” the prizefighter. *d. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D).* The final prong of the proposed safe harbor would state that the communication “does not take a position on any candidate's or officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office.” *See* proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D). It may be argued, however, that effective lobbying may require reference to an officeholder's position or record on a particular issue. For example, an organization may find it difficult to convey its support for, or opposition to, an officeholder's prior position on a public policy issue unless that position is identified. Thus, a discussion of an officeholder's position on a public policy issue or legislative record may be consistent with the content of a genuine issue advertisement and may, therefore, not automatically render a communication ineligible for the proposed safe harbor. However, if a communication discusses an officeholder's past position on an issue in a way that implicates the officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office, then the communication would not meet this prong of the proposed safe harbor. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. How should the Commission determine if an officeholder's past position on an issue is discussed in a way that implicates the officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office? In *McConnell,* the Supreme Court used a hypothetical “Jane Doe” advertisement as an example of the type of advertisements that would be subject to the electioneering communications rules. This hypothetical advertisement “condemned Jane Doe's record on a particular issue before exhorting viewers to `call Jane Doe and tell her what you think.” ' *McConnell,* 540 U.S. at 127. The Justices in *WRTL II* disagreed as to whether this Jane Doe hypothetical would be considered “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” *See* 127 S. Ct. at 2667 n.6 (Roberts, C.J.) (distinguishing the Jane Doe hypothetical from the WRTL advertisements); 127 S. Ct. at 2683 n.7 (Scalia, J.) (contending that the new exemption covers the Jane Doe hypothetical); 127 S. Ct. at 2698-99 (Souter, J.) (arguing that the WRTL advertisements are indistinguishable from the Jane Doe hypothetical). The Commission seeks comment on how an advertisement similar to the Jane Doe hypothetical should be treated under the proposed rule. If an advertisement merely condemns a candidate's record on an issue would it fail to satisfy the fourth prong of the safe harbor? Would such an advertisement also fail to meet the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or 100.29(c)(6)? Would the outcome be different if the advertisement condemned a candidate's record but also included a discussion of the legislative issue itself? Does eligibility for the *WRTL II* exemption depend on the strength of the condemnation or on whether the condemnation is the sole or main content of the advertisement? Are there advertisements that describe issues in such inflammatory terms that merely to recite the candidate or officeholder's position is to comment on the individual's character, qualifications, or fitness for office? ( *E.g.,* “H.R. 6000 would legalize infanticide. Congressman Jones supports this bill. Call Congressman Jones and tell him to stop supporting baby killing and oppose H.R. 6000.”) Are there criteria the Commission could use to define such advertisements, or would any attempt by the Commission to devise such criteria risk impairing the speaker's “autonomy to choose the content of his own message?” *See WRTL II,* 127 S. Ct. at 2671 n.9. The Commission invites comment on whether the following examples of statements about a candidate take a position on a candidate's “character, qualifications, or fitness for office” sufficient to transform a communication into the functional equivalent of express advocacy. • The candidate is acting from an improper motive: favoring special interests, or specific interests for improper or insufficient reasons. • Defamatory statements about the candidate. • The candidate is failing to adhere to standards of a profession, trade or office. • The candidate is failing to abide by religious convictions. • The candidate is failing to fulfill family, personal, civil or legal obligations or duties ( *e.g.* divorce proceedings, family law matters, fidelity, bankruptcy, medical or professional malpractice proceedings, sexual harassment or employment-related litigation). • Allegations that the candidate has violated a law or ordinance. • The candidate has poor performance in job or school (based on official work/academic record or based on peer judgment of candidate's school and work record). • Allegations that the candidate misrepresented his own record or accomplishments. • Negative characterizations of a candidate's vote, voting record or position on an issue, such as “Congressman Rogers has the worst environmental voting record in the Calizona Congressional delegation.” • Peer's recollection of candidate's reputation ( *e.g.* “hardworking,” “scandalous,” “faithful public servant,” “philanderer,” “tenacious”). • The candidate's untruthfulness or untrustworthiness, truthfulness or reliability. • The candidate's patriotism or lack thereof. • The candidate's sound judgment or lack thereof. • The candidate's effectiveness in politics or professional endeavors (receipt of awards or recognition). • The candidate's history or absence of public, military, or community service. • The candidate's loyalty to political party. • The candidate's service to constituents. • Demonstration of the candidate's knowledge of requisite topics. • Medical, psychological or mental fitness of the candidate: Is the candidate in good medical standing for public service? *e. Examples.* The Commission is considering whether to include in the rule or the Explanation and Justification for the final rule examples of communications that would, and would not, satisfy the four prongs of the safe harbor for grassroots lobbying communications. These examples are drawn from actual communications evaluated by the courts in electioneering communications cases. The Commission is also considering whether to provide, in the rule or the Explanation and Justification for the final rule, examples of communications that would be the functional equivalent of express advocacy under the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6). The Commission seeks comment on whether such examples should be provided, and what types of communications would be appropriate examples. The following examples are illustrative only and are not intended to create a requirement for any particular words or phrases that must be included for a communication to qualify for the safe harbor. The Commission seeks comment on the application of the proposed safe harbor to these examples, and asks whether further examples would be helpful. Example 1 LOAN OFFICER: Welcome Mr. and Mrs. Shulman. We've reviewed your loan application, along with your credit report, the appraisal on the house, the inspections, and well * * * COUPLE: Yes, yes * * * we're listening. OFFICER: Well, it all reminds me of a time I went fishing with my father. We were on the Wolf River Waupaca * * * VOICE-OVER: Sometimes it's just not fair to delay an important decision. But in Washington, it's happening. A group of Senators is using the filibuster delay tactic to block federal judicial nominees from a simple “yes” or “no” vote. So qualified candidates aren't getting a chance to serve. It's politics at work, causing gridlock and backing up some of our courts to a state of emergency. Contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster. Visit: BeFair.org Paid for by Wisconsin Right to Life (befair.org), which is responsible for the content of this advertising and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. 8 8 “Loan,” *Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.* v. *FEC* , 466 F. Supp. 2d 195, 198 n.4 (D.D.C. 2006). The Supreme Court held that this advertisement was not the “functional equivalent of express advocacy. *WRTL II* , .127 S. Ct at 2670. This communication would come within the proposed safe harbor in either of the two alternatives. Its content is consistent with that of a genuine issue advertisement because it focuses exclusively on the pending legislative matter of Senate filibuster votes on judicial nominees (proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(i) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A)), and urges viewers to contact Senators Feingold and Kohl to take a position with respect to the filibuster issue (proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(ii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(B)). Further, the communication does not contain indicia of express advocacy: it does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public (proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(iii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C)), and it does not take a position on the character, qualifications, or fitness for office of Senators Feingold or Kohl (proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D)). Example 2 Who is Bill Yellowtail? He preaches family values but took a swing at his wife. And Yellowtail's response? He only slapped her. But “her nose was not broken.” He talks law and order * * * but is himself a convicted felon. And though he talks about protecting children, Yellowtail failed to make his own child support payments—then voted against child support enforcement. Call Bill Yellowtail. Tell him to support family values. 9 9 “Bill Yellowtail,” *McConnell* v. *FEC* , 540 U.S. 93, 193 n.78 (2003). The Court noted that this advertisement was “clearly intended to influence the election.” *Id* . This communication fails to satisfy the proposed safe harbor in either of the two alternatives in several ways. Although the advertisement mentions a past vote against child support enforcement, the communication does not exclusively discuss a pending legislative matter or issue. Instead, it discusses the candidate's own personal and legal history. Similarly, the exhortation, “Tell him to support family values,” does not urge the public to tell Yellowtail to take a specific position or action with respect to a pending legislative matter or issue. Therefore, the communication's content is not consistent with that of a genuine issue advertisement. Further, the communication attacks Bill Yellowtail's character by referring to alleged actions he took against his spouse, his delinquent child-support payments, and his past felony conviction (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D)). Thus, the communication also contains indicia of express advocacy. If the Commission decides to provide examples of communications that would be the functional equivalent of express advocacy under the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6), would the Yellowtail advertisement be an appropriate example? What considerations would support a conclusion that this communication is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote against Bill Yellowtail? If this communication is not the functional equivalent of express advocacy, of what reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote against Bill Yellowtail is the communication susceptible? Example 3 Our country stands at the crossroads—at the intersection of how marriage will be defined for future generations. Marriage between a man and a woman has been challenged across this country and could be declared unconstitutional at any time by rogue judges. We must safeguard the traditional definition of marriage by putting it beyond the reach of all judges—by writing it into the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, your senators voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment two years ago. Please call Sens. Snowe and Collins immediately and urge them to support the Marriage Protection Amendment when it comes to a vote in early June. Call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your senators. Again, that's 202-224-3121. Thank you for making your voice heard. Paid for by the Christian Civic League of Maine, which is responsible for the content of this advertising and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. 10 10 “Crossroads,” Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Exhibit A (Apr. 3, 2006), *Civic Christian League of Maine* v. *FEC* , 443 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2006) (No. 06-0614), *available at http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/christian_civic_league_complaint.pdf* . The Commission filed a joint motion asking the Court to hold this advertisement meets the *WRTL II* exemption. *See* “Joint Motion” (July 13, 2007), *Civic Christian League of Maine* v. *FEC* , (No. 06-0614). This communication would come within the proposed safe harbor in either of the two alternatives. Its content exclusively focuses on the pending legislative matter of the Marriage Protection Amendment (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(i) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A)), and urges viewers to contact Senators Snowe and Collins to urge them to support this pending legislation (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(ii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(B)). This communication does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(iii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C)). In contrast to Example 2 above, this communication criticizes the Senators' past voting records only as part of a broader discussion of particular legislation, and it does not include or function as an attack on their personal character, qualifications, or fitness for office (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D)). Therefore, this communication does not include indicia of express advocacy. Example 4 It's our land; our water. America's environment must be protected. But in just 18 months, Congressman Ganske has voted 12 out of 12 times to weaken environmental protections. Congressman Ganske even voted to let corporations continue releasing cancer-causing pollutants into our air. Congressman Ganske voted for the big corporations who lobbied these bills and gave him thousands of dollars in contributions. Call Congressman Ganske. Tell him to protect America's environment. For our families. For our future. 11 11 *See McConnell* v. *FEC* , 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 876 (D.D.C. 2003) (Leon, J.), *available at http://www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/mem_opinion_leon.pdf* . The Commission seeks comment on whether this communication should come within the proposed safe harbor in either of the two alternatives. Does its content exclusively discuss a pending legislative or executive matter or issue (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(i) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A))? Does the sentence “Tell him to protect America's environment” urge Congressman Ganske to take a particular position or action with respect to the matter or issue? Does the sentence “Congressman Ganske even voted to let corporations continue releasing cancer-causing pollutants into our air” discuss a past voting record as part of a broader discussion of a particular matter or issue, or does it serve to function as an attack on Congressman Ganske's character, qualifications, or fitness for office? If the sentence serves both purposes, should the advertisement come within the safe harbor? Does the sentence, “Congressman Ganske voted for the big corporations who lobbied these bills and gave him thousands of dollars in contributions,” function as an attack on Congressman Ganske's character, qualifications, or fitness for office (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D))? If this sentence is removed, does that change the analysis? If the communication does not fall within the safe harbor, does the communication fall within the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6)? If the sentence regarding corporate contributions is removed, does the communication fall within the general exemption? Example 5 What's important to America's families? [middle-aged man, interview style]: “My pension is very important because it will provide a significant amount of my income when I retire.” And where do the candidates stand? Congressman Charlie Bass voted to make it easier for corporations to convert employee pension funds to other uses. Arnie Arnesen supports the “Golden Trust Fund” legislation that would preserve pension funds for retirees. When it comes to your pension, there is a difference. Call or visit our website to find out more. 12 12 Adapted from *McConnell* v. *FEC* , 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 918 (D.D.C. 2003) ( Leon, J.), *available at http://www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/mem_opinion_leon.pdf* . The Commission seeks comment on whether this communication should come within the proposed safe harbor in either of the two alternatives. Does its content exclusively discuss a pending legislative or executive matter or issue (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(i) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A))? Does it contain an adequate call to action (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(ii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(B))? If the phrase “Call or visit our website to find out more” is replaced with “Contact Congressman Bass and tell him to support the Golden Trust Fund legislation,” does that change the analysis? Does the reference to two candidates competing for the same office constitute a reference to an “opposing candidate” (proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(iii) or 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C))? If the communication does not come within the safe harbor, does the communication fall within the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6)? Example 6 TOM KEAN, JR. No experience. Hasn't lived in New Jersey for 10 years. It takes more than a name to get things done. NEVER. Never worked in New Jersey. Never ran for office. Never held a job in the private sector. Never paid New Jersey property taxes. Tom Kean, Jr. may be a nice young man and you may have liked his dad a lot—but he needs more experience dealing with local issues and concerns. For the last 5 years he has lived in Boston while attending college. Before that, he lived in Washington. New Jersey faces some tough issues. We can't afford on-the-job training. Tell Tom Kean, Jr. * * * New Jersey needs New Jersey leaders. Example 7 [Superimposed over a photograph of Mr. Kean wearing a campaign button] For the last 5 years Tom Kean, Jr. has lived in Massachusetts. Before that, he lived in Washington, D.C. And all the time Tom Kean lived in Massachusetts and Washington, he never held a job in the private sector. And until he decided to run for Congress—Tom never paid property taxes. No experience. TOM KEAN MOVED TO NEW JERSEY TO RUN FOR CONGRESS. New Jersey faces some difficult problems. Improving schools, keeping taxes down, fighting overdevelopment and congestion. Pat Morrisey has experience dealing with important issues. It takes more than a name to get things done. Tell Tom Kean, Jr. * * * NEW JERSEY NEEDS NEW JERSEY LEADERS. 13 13 MUR 5024R, Factual and Legal Analysis for Council for Responsible Government, Inc. and its Accountability Project; Gary Glenn; William “Bill” Wilson, at 8-9 (approved by the Commission on April 11, 2005), available at *http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocs/00004C5E.pdf* . The Commission did not analyze the advertisements in Examples 6 and 7 with regard to the electioneering communications provisions because the advertisements appeared in printed flyers in an election held before BCRA was enacted. The application of the proposed exemption and safe harbor assumes that the examples are distributed as a broadcast advertisement. The Commission seeks comment on whether these two advertisements constitute the functional equivalent of express advocacy under either alternative. The Commission previously found reason to believe that both advertisements constituted express advocacy based on *McConnell.* Does the *WRTL II* decision change or strengthen that finding, given that both these advertisements comment on a candidate's qualifications or fitness for office? 3. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2) and 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(ii)—Safe Harbor for Commercial and Business Advertisements Under *WRTL II* , corporations and labor organizations may not be prohibited from funding an electioneering communication unless that communication is the functional equivalent of express advocacy, meaning that it is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate. The Court found that the advertisements at issue in *WRTL II* were not the functional equivalent of express advocacy because they could be reasonably viewed as issue advocacy. However, issue advocacy is not the only conceivable non-electoral “reasonable interpretation” to which a communication might be susceptible. For example, the Commission has in several instances applied the Act and Commission regulations to communications that advertise a business or a product. 14 Because some communications that meet the definition of “electioneering communication” could reasonably be interpreted as having a non-electoral, business or commercial purpose, the Commission is proposing a safe harbor for business and commercial advertisements. 14 *See, e.g.* , Advisory Opinions (“AOs”) 2004-31 (Darrow), 2004-30 (Citizens United), and 2004-15 (Hardy); Matters under Review (“MURs”) 5467 (Michael Moore) and 5410 (Oberweis Dairy, *et al.* ). *See also Notice of Availability of Rulemaking Petition: Exception for the Promotion of Political Documentary Films from ”Electioneering Communications,”* 69 FR 52461 (Aug. 26, 2004). The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Is the holding in *WRTL II* limited in application to communications that contain issue advocacy or grassroots lobbying, or does the holding extend to other types of communications such as business and commercial advertisements? *See Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp.* v. *Pub. Serv. Comm'n of New York* , 447 U.S. 557
(1980)(refusing to apply strict scrutiny First Amendment analysis to commercial advertisements, instead using four-part intermediate scrutiny test); *44 Liquormart, Inc* . v. *Rhode Island* , 517 U.S. 484 (1996); *Lorillard Tobacco Co.* v. *Reilly* , 533 U.S. 525
(2001)(same). The Supreme Court in Buckley stated: “The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order ‘to assure
(the)unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.' ” *Buckley* , 424 U.S. at 14 (quoting *Roth* v. *United States* , 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957)). Does *WRTL II* modify the long-standing jurisprudence that commercial speech is entitled to less Constitutional protection than political speech? The *WRTL II* decision addressed commercial speech, stating: At the outset, we reject the contention that issue advocacy may be regulated because express election advocacy may be, and “the speech involved in so-called issue advocacy is [not] any more core political speech than are words of express advocacy.” *McConnell, supra* , at 205. This greater-includes-the-lesser approach is not how strict scrutiny works. A corporate ad expressing support for the local football team could not be regulated on the ground that such speech is less “core” than corporate speech about an election, which we have held may be restricted. A court applying strict scrutiny must ensure that a compelling interest supports each application of a statute restricting speech. That a compelling interest justifies restrictions on express advocacy tells us little about whether a compelling interest justifies restrictions on issue advocacy; the *McConnell* Court itself made just that point. *See* 540 U. S., at 206, n. 88. Such a greater-includes-the-lesser argument would dictate that virtually all corporate speech can be suppressed, since few kinds of speech can lay claim to being as central to the First Amendment as campaign speech. That conclusion is clearly foreclosed by our precedent. *See, e.g., Bellotti,* supra, at 776-777. *WRTL II* , 127 S. Ct. at 2671-72. The safe harbor in both alternatives would employ the same two-step approach that the Court used in *WRTL II* to determine whether a communication is a “genuine issue ad.” The first two prongs of the safe harbor would ensure that the content of the communication is fully consistent with that of a genuine commercial advertisement, based on the Commission's experience applying the electioneering communications rule to commercial advertising in the past two election cycles. *See* proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(i) and
(ii)or proposed 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(A) and (B). The third and fourth prongs would incorporate the factors the *WRTL II* Court used to determine whether a communication lacks “indicia of express advocacy.” *See* proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(iii) and
(iv)and proposed section 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(C) and (D). A communication would qualify for the proposed safe harbor for genuine business advertisements only if it satisfies all four prongs. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is appropriate to include a proposed safe harbor for commercial advertisements. If so, are the proposed prongs appropriate? Should the commercial advertisements safe harbors contain different requirements depending upon whether the Commission decides to implement the exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or proposed section 100.29(c)(6)? As discussed above, a communication that qualifies for the proposed new safe harbor may still be a “coordinated communication” if it satisfies the content and conduct prongs in section 109.21. Thus, exempt communications made by corporations or labor organizations may still be prohibited in-kind contributions as “coordinated communications.” The Commission seeks comment on the effects of the commercial safe harbor on the coordinated communication rule. *a. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(i) or 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(A)* The first prong of this proposed safe harbor in proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(i) or 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(A) would be that the communication “exclusively advertises a Federal candidate's or officeholder's business or professional practice or any other product or service.” This prong would be satisfied both by advertisements in which a Federal candidate or officeholder appears to promote a business, product for sale, or other commercial service, and by advertisements in which a Federal candidate or officeholder is referred to as the subject of a book or movie. This prong would apply to businesses owned or operated by, or employing, the candidate or officeholder, and publishers, distributors or promoters of books, films or plays that refer to the candidate or officeholder. *b. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(ii) or 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(B)* The second prong of the proposed safe harbor in proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(ii) or 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(B) would be that the communication “is made in the ordinary course of business of the entity paying for the communication.” For example, a restaurant owned by a Federal candidate could use its corporate general treasury funds to pay for advertisements featuring the owner/candidate. Similarly, an incorporated publisher or distributor of a book about a Federal candidate would be able to pay for an advertisement for that book. How should the Commission determine what constitutes an entity's “ordinary course of business”? Should the Commission review the advertising history or advertising patterns of the entity paying for the communication in order to evaluate this prong of the safe harbor? If the entity in question is a newly established business, should the fact that it has never before distributed broadcast advertisements indicate that it is not operating in the “ordinary course of business”? *c. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(iii) and
(iv)or 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(C) and (D)* The third and fourth prongs of the proposed safe harbor for commercial and business advertisements (proposed sections 114.15(b)(2)(iii) and
(iv)or sections 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(C) and (D)) would be identical to prongs three and four of the proposed safe harbor for grassroots lobbying communications in both alternatives. Accordingly, a commercial or business advertisement would qualify for the safe harbor only if it “does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public” and “does not take a position on any candidate's or officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office.” *See* proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(iii) and
(iv)or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(C) and (D). *d. Example* The Commission is considering whether to include in the Explanation and Justification examples of communications that would satisfy all four prongs of the safe harbor for commercial and business advertisements. The following example is based on an actual communication in a past advisory opinion request. It is illustrative only and is not intended to create a requirement for any particular words or phrases that must be included for a communication to qualify for the safe harbor. The Commission seeks comment on this example and asks whether further examples would be helpful. [VOICE OVER SPEAKING WHILE SHOWING VARIOUS FOOTAGE OF DEALERSHIP]: Cadillac. Style. luxury. Visit Joe Smith Cadillac in Waukesha. Where we uphold the Cadillac legacy of style, luxury and performance everyday. At Joe Smith Cadillac, you'll find a huge selection of Cadillacs and receive award-winning service every time you bring your Cadillac in. Whether you're in the market for a classic sedan or SUV, you can be sure Joe Smith Cadillac has it. And while shopping for your Cadillac, a single detail won't be missed. We know the importance of taking care of our customers. That's why you'll always find incredible service specials to help to maintain your Cadillac. When it comes to care for your Cadillac, you shouldn't settle for anything less than the best. We're Wisconsin's all-time sales leader and we want to be your Cadillac dealership. [VOICE OVER SPEAKING WHILE VIDEO OF INSIDE DEALERSHIP ZOOMS IN ON FRAMED PICTURE ON WALL OF JOE SMITH]: Stop into Joe Smith Cadillac, on Highway 18 in Waukesha, and see what Cadillac style really is all about. 15 15 This example is drawn from one of the advertisements in AO 2004-31 (Darrow), Attachment A at 3 (Sept. 10, 2004), in which the Commission found that under the particular facts of this advisory opinion, the advertisements did not meet the definition of “electioneering communication” because the use of the name “Russ Darrow” referred to a business or another individual (in this case, the candidate's son) who was not a Federal candidate. This communication could satisfy the proposed safe harbor in either alternative. 16 The communication advertises a business owned by candidate Joe Smith (proposed section 114.15(b)(2)(i) or section 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(A)). Assuming the communication was paid for in the ordinary course of business by a car dealership to advertise its business, it would satisfy proposed section 114.15(b)(2)(ii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(B). Finally, the communication does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public (proposed section 114.15(b)(2)(iii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(C)), and it does not take a position on the candidate's character, qualifications, or fitness for office (proposed section 114.15(b)(2)(iv) or section 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(D)). 16 As discussed above, even if the advertisement qualifies for the safe harbor for commercial advertisements, the advertisement could still implicate the coordinated communication rules. 4. Other Types of Communications Are there other common categories of broadcast communication that often involve Federal candidates, yet would be reasonably interpreted as something other than as an appeal to vote, such as public service announcements or promotions of charities or charitable events? 17 Do other categories of communication warrant safe harbors similar to those proposed for lobbying and commercial communications? What elements would such a safe harbor contain? 17 See, for example, the communications at issue in AO 2006-10 (EchoStar) and AO 2004-14 (Davis). D. Reporting Requirements for Electioneering Communications Under Alternative 1 Any person that has made electioneering communications aggregating in excess of $10,000 in a calendar year must file a statement that discloses, *inter alia* , the names and addresses of each donor who donated an amount aggregating $1,000 or more during the period beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar year and ending on the disclosure date. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(1)-(2); 11 CFR 104.20(b)-(c). However, the Act and Commission regulations provide the option that persons making electioneering communications may create a segregated bank account for funding electioneering communications in order to limit reporting to the donors for that account. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(2)(E); 11 CFR 104.20(c)(7). The segregated bank account may only include funds contributed by individuals who are U.S. citizens or nationals, or permanent residents. *Id* . If a person does not create a segregated bank account and funds electioneering communications from its general account, that person must disclose *all* donors of over $1,000 to the entity during the current and preceding calendar year. *See* 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(2)(F); 11 CFR 104.20(c)(8). Moreover, persons that do not use a segregated bank account must be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that no corporate or labor organization's funds were used to pay any portion of an electioneering communication. *See* 11 CFR 114.14(d)(1). The Commission is proposing to revise its rules on reporting and establishing segregated bank accounts for electioneering communications to accommodate reporting by corporations and labor organizations that choose to make electioneering communications that are permissible under proposed section 114.15. 1. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(c)—Corporate and Labor Organization Reporting Requirement Proposed section 114.15(c) would provide that corporations and labor organizations that make electioneering communications permissible under the *WRTL II* exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) totaling over $10,000 in a calendar year must file reports like other entities that make electioneering communications. This proposed section would include a cross reference to the electioneering communications reporting requirements in 11 CFR 104.20. 2. Proposed Revisions to 11 CFR 104.20 and 114.14—Using Segregated Bank Accounts For Electioneering Communications Current section 104.20(c)(7) only addresses segregated bank accounts containing funds solely from individuals who are “United States citizens, United States nationals, or who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20).” These provisions would continue to be applicable to a segregated bank account used to pay for any electioneering communications that do not come within the new *WRTL II* exemption under proposed 11 CFR 114.15. However, a new provision may be needed regarding reporting the receipt of corporate or labor organization funds to pay for electioneering communications coming under the new *WRTL II* exemption in proposed section 114.15. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to divide paragraph 104.20(c)(7) into paragraphs (c)(7)(i) and (c)(7)(ii). Paragraph (c)(7)(i) would address the segregated bank account used to pay for electioneering communications that would not come under new 11 CFR 114.15. It would follow current paragraph (c)(7) by barring corporations and labor organizations from donating to such an account. In contrast, paragraph (c)(7)(ii) would permit a segregated bank account to be used to pay for electioneering communications that are permissible under the new *WRTL II* exemption in 11 CFR 114.15. This second type of account could contain corporate and labor organization funds. The Commission is not proposing revisions to paragraph (c)(8), which provides for the reporting of “donors” when electioneering communications are not made using a segregated bank account. Under the proposed regulations, how would a corporation or labor organization report an electioneering communication funded with general treasury funds? If the corporation or labor organization does not pay for the electioneering communication from an account described in proposed sections 104.20(c)(7)(ii) and 114.14(d)(2)(i), would the corporation or labor organization be required to report “the name and address of each donor who donated an amount aggregating $1,000 or more” to the corporation or labor organization during the relevant reporting period, as required by 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(2)(F) and 11 CFR 104.20(c)(8)? If so, how would a corporation or labor organization determine which receipts qualify as “donations”? Should the Commission limit the “donation” reporting requirement to funds that are donated for the express purpose of making electioneering communications? Additionally, the Commission proposes to make conforming changes to 11 CFR 114.14(d)(2), which applies to the use of segregated bank accounts by persons that receive funds from corporations or labor organizations. Section 114.14(d)(2) would be divided into two paragraphs consistent with the proposed changes to section 104.20(c)(7). Paragraph (d)(2)(i) would allow any person (including corporations and labor organizations) wishing to make electioneering communications permissible under 11 CFR 114.15 to establish a segregated bank account for that exclusive purpose, and to limit reporting to donations to that account. In this circumstance, a corporation or labor organization that established such an account would report only donations made to the account for the purpose of electioneering communications, pursuant to 11 CFR 104.20(c)(7)(ii). Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) would continue to allow persons (other than corporations and labor organizations) to establish a segregated bank account to be used to exclusively pay for electioneering communications that do not come under the new exception in proposed 11 CFR 114.15. New paragraph (d)(2)(i) contains the same allowances and restrictions as old paragraph (d)(2), but clarifies that this option is not available to corporations and labor organizations. The Commission believes that if organizations intend to make some electioneering communications that comply with the new *WRTL II* exemption and other electioneering communications that do not, or might not, come within the exemption, they would be well-advised to establish two separate bank accounts to ensure that corporate and labor organization funds are only accepted and used to fund exempt electioneering communications. Please note, however, that separate bank accounts would not be mandatory because organizations need only show that they used a reasonable accounting method to separate corporate and labor organization funds under 11 CFR 114.14(d)(1). 18 The Commission seeks comment on this approach. 18 Upon issuance of final rules, the Commission intends to review FEC Form 9 to ensure that it conforms to whatever changes are contained in the final rules. E. Reporting Requirements for Electioneering Communications Under Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2, a communication that qualifies for the *WRTL II* exemption in proposed section 100.29(c)(6) would be exempted from the definition of “electioneering communication.” Provisions of the Commission's regulations imposing reporting requirements on persons making “electioneering communications” are inapplicable where the communication is exempted from the definition of “electioneering communication.” Under Alternative 2, the reporting requirements applicable to all communications that continue to meet the definition of “electioneering communication” would remain unchanged. F. Revisions to Other Provisions Under Alternative 1 1. Proposed Revisions to 11 CFR 114.4—Communications Beyond the Restricted Class Section 114.4(c) sets out the types of communications that corporations and labor organizations may make either to the general public or to all employees and members. Such communications include registration and voting communications, official registration and voting information, voting records, and voting guides. Alternative 1 proposes adding new paragraph (c)(8) to state that any corporation or labor organization may make electioneering communications to the general public that fall within the new exemption in proposed section 11 CFR 114.15. Proposed paragraph (c)(8) would also make clear that QNCs may make electioneering communications regardless of whether they are permissible under 11 CFR 114.15. The Commission is not proposing any changes to its regulations concerning QNCs at section 114.10. 19 19 The Commission is also proposing a conforming change to paragraph 114.4(c)(1). The statement listing the paragraphs that describe communications that corporations and labor organizations may make to the general public would be amended to include paragraph 114.4(c)(8). 2. Proposed Revisions to 11 CFR 114.14—Further Restrictions on the Use of Corporate and Labor Organization Funds for Electioneering Communications Current section 114.14 prohibits corporations and labor organizations from providing general treasury funds to pay for any electioneering communications whatsoever. The Commission's proposed revisions to this section under Alternative 1 would limit this prohibition to electioneering communications that do not come within the new *WRTL II* exemption in proposed section 114.15, consistent with the proposed changes to the general prohibition on the use of corporate and labor organizations funds in section 114.2. Current paragraph (a)(1) of this section contains a general ban on corporations and labor organizations providing funds to any other person for the purpose of financing an electioneering communication. Likewise, current paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2)of this section prohibit persons that accept funds from corporations and labor organizations from using those funds to pay for electioneering communications, or from providing those same funds to any other person for the purpose of paying for an electioneering communication. Current paragraph (d)(1) of this section requires any person that receives funds from corporations and labor organizations, and that makes electioneering communications, to demonstrate by a reasonable accounting method that no corporate or labor organization funds were used to pay for the electioneering communication. The proposed rule would modify paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1) and (2), and (d)(1) by adding the phrase “that is not permissible under 11 CFR 114.15” after the word “communication” in each paragraph. These proposed changes would implement *WRTL II* by limiting the prohibition on the use of corporate and labor organization funds to those electioneering communications that are the functional equivalent of express advocacy, and therefore would not be permissible under proposed new 11 CFR 114.15. Paragraph (d)(1) would be further revised by adding the phrase “other than corporations and labor organizations” after the word “Persons.” The Commission is proposing this change to avoid any suggestion that corporations and labor organizations may make electioneering communications that do not come within the new exception articulated in *WRTL II.* The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (Regulatory Flexibility Act) The Commission certifies that the attached proposed rules, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this certification is that any small entities affected would not feel a significant economic impact from the proposed rule. Overall, the proposed rules would relieve a funding restriction that the current rules place on corporations and labor organizations and would therefore have a positive economic impact for any affected small entities. The proposed rules would allow small entities to engage in activity they were previously prohibited from funding with corporation or labor organization funding. Moreover, this activity (making and funding electioneering communications) is entirely voluntary, and any reporting obligations would only be triggered based on entities choosing to engage in this activity above a threshold of $10,000 per calendar year. In addition, there are few “small entities” that would be affected by these proposed rules. The Commission's proposed revisions could affect for-profit corporations, labor organizations, individuals and some non-profit organizations. Individuals and labor organizations are not “small entities” under 5 U.S.C. 601(6), and most, if not all, for-profit corporations that would be affected by the proposed rule are not “small businesses” under 5 U.S.C. 601(3). Large national and state-wide non-profit organizations that might produce electioneering communications are not “small organizations” under 5 U.S.C. 601(4) because they are not independently owned and operated and they are dominant in their field. In addition, the factual record developed by the Commission in past electioneering proceedings indicates that few, if any, section 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations make broadcast, cable or satellite communications that refer to Federal candidates during the electioneering communication time frames to the targeted audience. List of Subjects 11 CFR Part 100 Elections. 11 CFR Part 104 Campaign funds, political committees and parties, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 11 CFR Part 114 Business and industry, Elections, Labor. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission proposes to amend Subchapter A of Chapter 1 of Title 11 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* as follows: Alternative 1 PART 104—REPORTS BY POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND OTHER PERSONS (2 U.S.C. 434) 1. The authority citation for part 104 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(1), 431(8), 431(9), 432(i), 434, 438(a)(8) and (b), 439a, 441a, and 36 U.S.C. 510. 2. In § 104.20, paragraph (c)(7) would be revised to read as follows: § 104.20 Reporting electioneering communications (2 U.S.C. 434(f)).
(c)* * *
(i)If the disbursements were paid exclusively from a segregated bank account established to pay for electioneering communications not permissible under 11 CFR 114.15, consisting of funds provided solely by individuals who are United States citizens, United States nationals, or who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20), the name and address of each donor who donated an amount aggregating $1,000 or more to the segregated bank account, aggregating since the first day of the preceding calendar year; or
(ii)If the disbursements were paid exclusively from a segregated bank account established to pay for electioneering communications permissible under 11 CFR 114.15, the name and address of each donor who donated an amount aggregating $1,000 or more to the segregated bank account, aggregating since the first day of the preceding calendar year. PART 114—CORPORATE AND LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTIVITY 3. The authority citation for part 114 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(8), 431(9), 432, 434, 437d(a)(8), 438(a)(8), 441b. 4. In § 114.2, the section heading and paragraph (b)(2) would be revised and paragraph (b)(3) would be added to read as follows: § 114.2 Prohibitions on contributions, expenditures and electioneering communications.
(b)* * *
(2)Except as provided at 11 CFR 114.10, corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from:
(i)Making expenditures as defined in 11 CFR part 100, subpart D; or
(ii)Making expenditures with respect to a Federal election (as defined in 11 CFR 114.1(a)), for communications to those outside the restricted class that expressly advocate the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or the candidates of a clearly identified political party.
(3)Except as provided at 11 CFR 114.10 and 114.15, corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from making payments for an electioneering communication to those outside the restricted class. However, this paragraph (b)(3) shall not apply to State party committees and State candidate committees that incorporate under 26 U.S.C. 527(e)(1), provided that:
(i)The committee is not a political committee as defined in 11 CFR 100.5;
(ii)The committee incorporated for liability purposes only;
(iii)The committee does not use any funds donated by corporations or labor organizations to make electioneering communications; and
(iv)The committee complies with the reporting requirements for electioneering communications at 11 CFR part 104. 5. In § 114.4, paragraph (c)(1) would be amended by adding the phrase “and (c)(8)” after “(c)(5),” and paragraph (c)(8) would be added as follows: § 114.4 Disbursements for communications beyond the restricted class in connection with a Federal election.
(c)* * *
(8)*Electioneering communications.* Any corporation or labor organization may make electioneering communications to the general public that are permissible under 11 CFR 114.15. Qualified nonprofit corporations, as defined in 11 CFR 114.10(c), may make electioneering communications in accordance with 11 CFR 114.10(d), regardless of whether they are permissible under 11 CFR 114.15. 6. In § 114.14, paragraphs (a),
(b)and
(d)would be revised to read as follows: § 114.14 Further restrictions on the use of corporate and labor organization funds for electioneering communications. (a)(1) Corporations and labor organizations shall not give, disburse, donate or otherwise provide funds, the purpose of which is to pay for an electioneering communication that is not permissible under 11 CFR 114.15, to any other person.
(2)A corporation or labor organization shall be deemed to have given, disbursed, donated, or otherwise provided funds under paragraph (a)(1) of this section if the corporation or labor organization knows, has reason to know, or willfully blinds itself to the fact, that the person to whom the funds are given, disbursed, donated, or otherwise provided, intended to use them to pay for such an electioneering communication.
(b)Persons who accept funds given, disbursed, donated or otherwise provided by a corporation or labor organization shall not:
(1)Use those funds to pay for any electioneering communication that is not permissible under 11 CFR 114.15; or
(2)Provide any portion of those funds to any person, for the purpose of defraying any of the costs of an electioneering communication that is not permissible under 11 CFR 114.15. (d)(1) Persons other than corporations and labor organizations who receive funds from a corporation or a labor organization that do not meet the exceptions of paragraph
(c)of this section, must be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that no such funds were used to pay any portion of any electioneering communication that is not permissible under 11 CFR 114.15. (2)(i) Any person who wishes to pay for electioneering communications permissible under 11 CFR 114.15 may, but is not required to, establish a segregated bank account into which it deposits only funds donated or otherwise provided for the purpose of paying for such electioneering communications as described in 11 CFR part 104. Persons who use funds exclusively from such a segregated bank account to pay for any electioneering communication permissible under 11 CFR 114.15 shall be required to only report the names and addresses of those persons who donated or otherwise provided an amount aggregating $1,000 or more to the segregated bank account, aggregating since the first day of the preceding calendar year.
(ii)Any person, other than corporations and labor organizations, who wishes to pay for electioneering communications not permissible under 11 CFR 114.15 may, but is not required to, establish a segregated bank account into which it deposits only funds donated or otherwise provided by individuals as described in 11 CFR part 104. Persons who use funds exclusively from such a segregated bank account to pay for any electioneering communication shall satisfy paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Persons who use funds exclusively from such a segregated bank account to pay for any electioneering communication shall be required to only report the names and addresses of those persons who donated or otherwise provided an amount aggregating $1,000 or more to the segregated bank account, aggregating since the first day of the preceding calendar year. 7. Section 114.15 would be added to read as follows: § 114.15 Permissible use of corporate and labor organization funds for certain electioneering communications.
(a)*Permissible electioneering communications.* Corporations and labor organizations may make an electioneering communication, as defined in 11 CFR 100.29, to those outside the restricted class without violating the prohibition contained in 11 CFR 114.2(b)(3) if the communication is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate.
(b)*Safe Harbors for certain types of electioneering communications.* An electioneering communication shall satisfy paragraph
(a)of this section if it meets the requirements of either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section:
(1)*Grassroots lobbying communications.* Any communication that:
(i)Exclusively discusses a pending legislative or executive matter or issue;
(ii)Urges an officeholder to take a particular position or action with respect to the matter or issue, or urges the public to adopt a particular position and to contact the officeholder with respect to the matter or issue;
(iii)Does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public; and
(iv)Does not take a position on any candidate's or officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office.
(2)*Commercial and business advertisements.* Any communication that:
(i)Exclusively advertises a Federal candidate's or officeholder's business or professional practice or any other product or service;
(ii)Is made in the ordinary course of business of the entity paying for the communication;
(iii)Does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public; and
(iv)Does not take a position on any candidate's or officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office.
(c)*Reporting requirement* . Corporations and labor organizations that make electioneering communications under paragraph
(a)aggregating in excess of $10,000 in a calendar year shall file statements as required by 11 CFR 104.20. End of Alternative 1 Alternative 2 PART 100—SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS (2 U.S.C. 431) 8. The authority citation for part 100 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431, 434 and 438(a)(8). 9. Section 100.29 would be amended by adding new paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows: § 100.29 Electioneering communication (2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)).
(c)* * *
(6)Is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate. A communication shall satisfy this section if it meets the requirements of either paragraph (c)(6)(i) or
(ii)of this section:
(i)*Grassroots lobbying communications* . Any communication that:
(A)Exclusively discusses a pending legislative or executive matter or issue;
(B)Urges an officeholder to take a particular position or action with respect to the matter or issue, or urges the public to adopt a particular position and to contact the officeholder with respect to the matter or issue;
(C)Does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public; and
(D)Does not take a position on any candidate's or officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office.
(ii)*Commercial and business advertisements* . Any communication that:
(A)Exclusively advertises a Federal candidate's or officeholder's business or professional practice or any other product or service;
(B)Is made in the ordinary course of business of the entity paying for the communication;
(C)Does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public; and
(D)Does not take a position on any candidate's or officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office. End of Alternative 2 Dated: August 24, 2007. Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner, Federal Election Commission. [FR Doc. E7-17184 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29064; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-128-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: One Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operator reported that during maintenance in the APU (auxiliary power unit) compartment, a disconnected nut was discovered on one of the shuttle valves in the deployment lines of the engine fire-extinguishing system. An additional check by the operator revealed that on more aircraft in its fleet, the nuts of the shuttle valves were incorrectly tightened. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure or deteriorated functioning of the engine fire-extinguishing system in case of an engine fire. 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 October 1, 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: 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-2007-29064; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-128-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion *The Civil Aviation Authority* —The Netherlands (CAA-NL), which is the aviation authority for the Netherlands, has issued Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2006-002, dated January 24, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: One Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operator reported that during maintenance in the APU (auxiliary power unit) compartment, a disconnected nut was discovered on one of the shuttle valves in the deployment lines of the engine fire-extinguishing system. An additional check by the operator revealed that on more aircraft in its fleet, the nuts of the shuttle valves were incorrectly tightened. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure or deteriorated functioning of the engine fire-extinguishing system in case of an engine fire. Since a potentially unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other aircraft of this type design, this Airworthiness Directive requires a one-time inspection of the nuts and shuttle valves in the deployment lines of the engine fire-extinguishing system in the APU compartment and corrective actions, as necessary. The one-time inspection is intended to find discrepancies, including incorrectly installed or tightened nuts, and signs of leakage, damage, or corrosion. Corrective actions include tightening or replacing discrepant nuts or shuttle valves, as applicable. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-26-019, dated January 6, 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 13 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 $1,040, 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-2007-29064; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-128-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by October 1, 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. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 26: Fire protection. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: One Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) operator reported that during maintenance in the APU (auxiliary power unit) compartment, a disconnected nut was discovered on one of the shuttle valves in the deployment lines of the engine fire-extinguishing system. An additional check by the operator revealed that on more aircraft in its fleet, the nuts of the shuttle valves were incorrectly tightened. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure or deteriorated functioning of the engine fire-extinguishing system in case of an engine fire. Since a potentially unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other aircraft of this type design, this Airworthiness Directive requires a one-time inspection of the nuts and shuttle valves in the deployment lines of the engine fire-extinguishing system in the APU compartment and corrective actions, as necessary. The one-time inspection is intended to find discrepancies, including incorrectly installed or tightened nuts, and signs of leakage, damage or corrosion. Corrective actions include tightening or replacing discrepant nuts or shuttle valves, as applicable. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the nuts on the affected shuttle valves in accordance with Section 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-26-019, dated January 6, 2006.
(2)When discrepancies are found during the inspection as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before next flight, tighten or replace the affected nuts, or replace the shuttle valves; as applicable; in accordance with Section 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker SBF100-26-019, dated January 6, 2006. Note 1: Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Manual Task 26-21-03-400-814A also pertains to this subject. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No difference. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, 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 Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2006-002, dated January 24, 2006, and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF 100-26-019, dated January 6, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17296 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29063; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-049-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection to determine the material of the forward and aft gray water drain masts. For airplanes having composite gray water drain masts, this proposed AD would also require installation of a ground bracket and a copper bonding jumper between a ground bracket and the clamp on the tube of the forward and aft gray water composite drain masts. This proposed AD results from a report of charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast found during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment. We are proposing this AD to prevent a fire near a composite drain mast and possible disruption of the electrical power system caused by a lightning strike on a composite drain mast, which could result in the loss of several functions essential for safe flight. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M- 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6484; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29063; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-049-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that, during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment on a Model 767-300F airplane, an operator found charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast. Additional charring on the insulation blankets was noticed several feet away along the routing of the drain mast's ground wire and power wires. Analysis of the damaged parts revealed that a lightning strike on the composite drain mast caused the damage to the wires and insulation blankets. This condition, if not corrected, could cause disruption of electrical power and fire and heat damage to equipment in the event of a lightning strike on the composite drain mast, which could result in the potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight. A design review of the gray water composite drain mast installation on Model 737, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes revealed that the installation of a heavier bonding jumper is necessary to provide adequate lightning protection to the gray water composite drain mast installation. We are currently considering additional rulemaking to address the identified unsafe condition on Model 737, 757, and 777 airplanes. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-30-0047, dated January 25, 2007 (for Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-30-0048, dated January 25, 2007 (for Boeing Model 767-400ER series airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for installing a new ground bracket and a 135-ampere copper bonding jumper between the ground bracket and the clamp on the tube of the forward and aft gray water composite drain masts. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 86 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection to determine gray water drain mast material 1 $80 None $80 41 $3,280. Installation of bonding jumper 4 80 Up to $654 Up to $974 Up to 41 Up to $39,934. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-29063; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-049-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 15, 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 results from a report of charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast found during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire near a composite drain mast and possible disruption of the electrical power system caused by a lightning strike on a composite drain mast, which could result in the loss of several functions essential for safe flight. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection To Determine Material of Gray Water Drain Mast
(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the forward and aft gray water drain masts to determine whether the drain mast is made of aluminum or composite. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the material of the forward and aft gray water drain masts can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1)For any aluminum gray water drain mast identified during the inspection or records check required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, no further action is required by this AD for that drain mast only.
(2)For any composite gray water drain mast identified during the inspection or records check required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Installation of New Ground Bracket and Bonding Jumper
(g)For any composite gray water drain mast identified during the inspection or records check required by paragraph
(f)of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install a 135-ampere copper bonding jumper between the new ground bracket and the clamp on the tube of the gray water composite drain mast, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-30-0047, dated January 25, 2007 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-30-0048, dated January 25, 2007 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes). Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17294 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29062; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-020-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would require replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting and certain adjacent components of the main landing gear
(MLG)support beam. This proposed AD would also require repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the outboard stabilizing fitting, walking beam hanger, and rear spar attachment, and corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would provide an alternative one-time inspection of the outboard stabilizing fitting for discrepancies and corrective actions if necessary, which would extend the compliance time for the replacement of the outboard stabilizing fitting. For certain other airplanes, this proposed AD would also require performing a torque check of the aft pin of the outboard stabilizing fitting, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of findings of fatigue cracking of the outboard stabilizing fitting and stress corrosion cracking of the bolts attaching the fitting to the wing rear spar. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct that cracking, which could result in disconnection of the MLG actuator from the rear spar and support beam, and consequent damage to the hydraulic system causing hydraulic fluid leakage and loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)917-6440; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29062; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-020-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received several reports indicating findings of fatigue cracking of the outboard stabilizing fitting and stress corrosion cracking of the bolts attaching the fitting to the wing rear spar and certain adjacent components of the main landing gear
(MLG)support beam on Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Those reports include the following: Cracking of the outboard stabilizing fitting attributed to fatigue, loose or missing forward pins that attach the stabilizing fitting to the stud assembly; a fractured aft pin that attaches the tube assembly to the aft stabilizing fitting, and fractured H-11 bolts that attach the inboard and outboard stabilizing fittings to the wing rear spar. These failures could result in disconnection of the MLG actuator from the rear spar and support beam, and consequent damage to the hydraulic system fluid supply tube causing hydraulic fluid leakage and loss of control of the airplane. Other Relevant Rulemaking On December 30, 1998, we issued AD 98-11-04 R1, amendment 39-10984 (64 FR 987, January 7, 1999), for all Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes. That AD supersedes AD 91-14-20 to continue to require that the FAA-approved maintenance program be revised to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating for each Structural Significant Item (SSI). AD 98-11-04 R1 also requires additional and expanded inspections, and repair of cracked structure. That AD was prompted by a structural re-evaluation by the manufacturer which identified additional structural elements where, if damage were to occur, supplemental inspections may be required for timely detection. We issued that AD to ensure the continued structural integrity of the Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 fleet. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2007. For certain airplanes, the service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting and certain adjacent components of the MLG support beam. The replacement procedures and configuration group to which the airplane belongs, are as follows. • For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the procedures describe replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting with a new titanium fitting and replacing the H-11 bolts that attach the fitting to the wing rear spar with new Inconel 718 bolts. In addition, the procedures describe replacing the aft pin that attaches the tube assembly to the aft outboard stabilizing fitting with a titanium bolt, replacing the forward pin, and replacing the H-11 bolts for the inboard stabilizing fitting with new Inconel 718 bolts. As part of the replacement of the H-11 bolts, the service bulletin recommends contacting Boeing if corrosion damage is found which cannot be removed. The service bulletin also recommends prior or concurrent accomplishment of Part IV of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1052, Revision 4, dated October 24, 1980, for Group 1 and 3 airplanes. Part IV describes procedures for replacing the existing tube assembly of the MLG support beam with a new assembly. For airplanes that had the aft pin of the aft outboard stabilizing fitting replaced per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, dated May 8, 2003, the procedures specify performing a torque check of the aft pin of the aft outboard stabilizing fitting and corrective actions if necessary. If the torque is greater than 570 in. lbs., the corrective action is replacing the aft pin and aft outboard stabilizing fitting. If the torque is less than 570 in. lbs., the corrective action is replacing the aft pin. • For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Groups 6 and 7, the procedures describe replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting with a titanium fitting and replacing the H-11 bolts that attach the fitting to the wing rear spar with new Inconel 718 bolts. In addition, the procedures describe replacing the forward pin that attaches the stud assembly to the outboard stabilizing fitting with a titanium pin. The procedures also describe replacing the H-11 bolts for the inboard stabilizing fitting with new Inconel 718 bolts for Group 6 only. • For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Group 8, the procedures describe replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting with a titanium fitting, and replacing the forward pin that attaches the stud assembly to the outboard stabilizing fitting with new components. • For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Group 9, the procedures describe doing a general visual inspection of the outboard stabilizing fitting and fasteners for discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective action is contacting Boeing if any discrepancies are found. For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Group 8, and Groups 1 through 7 on which the existing H-11 bolts were previously replaced with Inconel 718 bolts, the procedures describe an alternative magnetic test of the attach bolts to determine if inspections could be done that may extend the compliance time for the replacement of the outboard stabilizing fitting. If any bolt is magnetic, do not do the alternative inspection. If none of the bolts are magnetic, do a one-time general visual inspection of the stabilizing fitting for discrepancies (damage, failure, or irregularity), and a high frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspection for cracking of the fitting inboard and outboard lug faces, the fillet radii, and the fitting lug hole, and verify the fitting hole is within limits, and corrective actions if necessary. Performing the alternative inspection extends the compliance time from 36 to 60 months for replacing the fitting if no cracking is found. The corrective actions for the alternative inspections are as follows: • If cracking is found during the alternative inspection, the service bulletin specifies doing the replacement of the fitting as specified in Part II of the service bulletin. If no cracking is found, the service bulletin specifies doing an installation of replacement bushings and reaming the bushing holes to final size, replacing the forward pin, and for Groups 1 through 5, replacing the aft pin. If any other damage is found or if the fitting hole is beyond the hole size limits, the service bulletin recommends contacting Boeing for repair instructions. For all airplanes, the service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the outboard stabilizing fitting, walking beam hanger, and rear spar attachment fitting, and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective action is contacting Boeing if any discrepancies are found. Service Bulletin 737-57A1266 refers to the following service bulletins as acceptable sources of service information: Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1231, dated December 1, 1994, is an acceptable source of service information for accomplishment of the replacement of the H-11 attachment bolts of the inboard stabilizing fitting with new components for some airplane groups. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1073, Revision 4, dated April 12, 1985, is an acceptable source of service information for previous accomplishment of the replacement of the MLG support beam. We have determined that accomplishment of the actions specified in Service Bulletin 737-57A1266 will adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, Revision 1, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266 For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Groups 1 through 5 on which the aft pin of the outboard stabilizing fitting has been replaced in accordance with the original issue of the service bulletin: The service bulletin recommends accomplishing the torque check of the aft pin within 36 months after the original issue date of the service bulletin, and, if the aft pin does not pass the torque check, replacing the aft pin and aft outboard stabilizing fitting within an additional 36 months after the torque check. However, we have determined that interval would not address the identified unsafe condition soon enough to ensure an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. We find that a compliance time of within 36 months after accomplishing the replacement, or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, for doing the torque check and doing all applicable corrective actions before further flight, represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. This difference has been coordinated with the manufacturer. Certain sections in Parts I, II, and V of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specify “For 737-100 and -200 airplanes” and “For 737-300 and -500 airplanes.” Those sections are applicable to Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes, and Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes, respectively. Model 737-200C and -400 airplanes were inadvertently excluded from those sections. The service bulletin also specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance There are about 3,130 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 1,380 airplanes of U.S. registry. For all airplanes: The proposed replacement would take between 20 and 24 work hours per airplane to do, depending on the airplane's configuration, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost between $3,658 and $4,272 per airplane, depending on the airplane's configuration. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed replacement is estimated to be up to between $7,256,040 and $8,544,960, or between $5,258 and $6,192 per airplane, depending on the airplane's configuration. For Groups 1 through 8 airplanes: The alternative inspection, if done, would take about 12 work hours per airplane to do, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the alternative inspection is estimated to be up to $1,324,800, or $960 per airplane. For Group 9 airplanes: The general visual inspection would take about 2 work hours per airplane to do, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the general visual inspection is estimated to be up to $220,800, or $160 per airplane. For Groups 1 through 5 airplanes that had steel pins replaced per the original issue of the service bulletin: The torque check would take about 7 work hours per airplane to do, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the torque check is estimated to be up to $772,800, or $560 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-29062; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-020-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 15, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of findings of fatigue cracking of the outboard stabilizing fitting and stress corrosion cracking of the bolts attaching the fitting to the wing rear spar. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct that cracking, which could result in disconnection of the main landing gear
(MLG)actuator from the rear spar and support beam, and consequent damage to the hydraulic system causing hydraulic fluid leakage and 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. Service Bulletin Reference
(f)The term “alert service bulletin” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2007. Replacement/Repetitive Inspections
(g)For airplanes identified as Groups 1 through 8, as specified in the alert service bulletin, except as provided by paragraphs
(h)and
(k)of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the outboard stabilizing fitting, H-11 bolts, forward pin, and aft pin, as applicable, with new components by doing all the applicable actions in accordance with Part II of the alert service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD. Within 120 months after accomplishing the replacement, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies of the outboard stabilizing fitting, walking beam hanger, and rear spar attachment fitting, and do all applicable corrective actions, by doing all the actions, except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD, in accordance with Part V of the alert service bulletin. Do all corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 120 months. Alternative Inspection
(h)For airplanes identified as Groups 1 through 8, as specified in the alert service bulletin, on which the existing H-11 bolts were replaced before the effective date of this AD with Inconel 718 bolts, in lieu of doing the actions required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Within 4,500 flight cycles or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, do a magnetic test of the attach bolts in accordance with the alert service bulletin. If any bolt is magnetic, discontinue the alternative inspection specified in the alert service bulletin and accomplish the actions required by paragraph
(g)before further flight. If none of the bolts are magnetic, do all the applicable actions in accordance with Part I of the alert service bulletin before further flight.
(1)If any crack is found: Stop the inspection and before further flight do the actions required by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Repetitive inspections must be done after replacing the fitting at the interval specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD.
(2)If no crack is found: Before further flight, replace the forward pin and aft pin, as applicable, in accordance with the alert service bulletin, and within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the remaining replacement required by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Repetitive inspections must be done after replacing the fitting at the interval specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD.
(3)If damage other than cracking is found, or if the fitting lug hole is beyond hole size limits, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(p)of this AD. General Visual Inspection
(i)For airplanes identified as Group 9, as specified in the alert service bulletin: Within 36 months or 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a general visual inspection of the outboard stabilizing fitting and fasteners for discrepancies, and do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with Part IV of the alert service bulletin, except as provided by paragraphs
(j)and
(k)of this AD. Within 120 months after the inspection specified in Part IV has been done, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies of the outboard stabilizing fitting, walking beam hanger and rear spar attachment fitting in accordance with Part V of the alert service bulletin, and do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with Part V of the alert service bulletin, except as provided by paragraphs
(j)and (k). Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the Part V inspection at intervals not to exceed 120 months. Exceptions to Alert Service Bulletin Specifications
(j)During any inspection required by this AD, if any corrosion damage is found that cannot be removed, or if any damage is found that is outside the limits specified in the alert service bulletin, or if any discrepancy is found and the alert service bulletin specifies contacting the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(p)of this AD.
(k)Certain sections in Parts I, II, and V of the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin specify “For 737-100 and -200 airplanes” and “For 737-300 and -500 airplanes.” However, those sections are applicable to Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes, and Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes, respectively. Torque Check
(l)For airplanes identified as Groups 1 through 5, as specified in the alert service bulletin, on which the aft pin of the aft outboard stabilizing fitting was replaced before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, dated May 8, 2003: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do a torque check to determine whether the aft pin is correctly installed. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Do the actions in accordance with Part III of the alert service bulletin. Concurrent Requirements
(m)For airplanes identified as Groups 1 and 3, as specified in the alert service bulletin: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishment of paragraph
(g)of this AD, do the replacement of the existing tube assembly of the outboard stabilizing fitting as specified in Part IV of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1052, Revision 4, dated October 24, 1980. Credit for Previously Accomplished Actions
(n)Replacement of the tube assembly before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1073, Revision 4, dated April 12, 1985, is acceptable for compliance with the replacement specified in paragraph
(l)of this AD.
(o)For Groups 1 through 4, as specified in the alert service bulletin: Replacement of the H-11 bolts for the inboard stabilizing fitting before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1231 dated December 1, 1994, is acceptable for compliance with the replacement specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (p)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17290 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29065; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-142-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting the trunnion fork assembly of the wing landing gears to determine the part number and serial number and to determine the category of the trunnion fork assemblies. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD also would require, if necessary, various inspections to detect discrepancies of the trunnion fork assemblies, related investigative/corrective actions, and a terminating action. This proposed AD results from a report of a fractured trunnion fork assembly. We are proposing this AD to prevent a fractured trunnion fork assembly, which could result in the collapse of a wing landing gear on the ground and possible damage to hydraulic equipment and the aileron and spoiler cables. Such damage could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6577; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29065; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-142-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that a fractured trunnion fork assembly was found during push back and tow of an airplane. Analysis showed that a crack was initiated by fatigue on the inner surface and eventually fractured by ductile rupture. The analysis also showed that the crack most likely initiated as a result of two manufacturing anomalies. A fractured trunnion fork assembly could result in the collapse of a wing landing gear on the ground and possible damage to hydraulic equipment and the aileron and spoiler cables. Such damage could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-32A2482, dated June 14, 2007. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the pad-up area on the forward upper inboard surface of the trunnion fork assembly of both the left and right wing landing gears to determine the part number and serial number and to determine the category of the trunnion fork assemblies. For certain airplanes, the service information describes the following procedures, as applicable: • Doing an initial detailed inspection for damage to the protective finish and for corrosion of the trunnion fork assembly, and an initial high frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspection to detect cracks of the trunnion fork assembly (Part 2). • Doing an ultrasonic inspection to determine the wall thickness in the area forward of the outer cylinder attach lugs in 8 zones, and a hardness measurement if the wall thickness is less than the specified value (Part 3). • Doing related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. The related investigative actions include repetitive detailed and HFEC inspections (Part 2). The corrective actions include overhauling the trunnion fork assembly (Part 4), and replacing the trunnion fork assembly (Part 5); as applicable. • Replacing the trunnion fork assembly of the wing landing gear with a certain trunnion fork assembly (Part 5). Accomplishing the replacement ends the need for the actions specified in the service information. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The compliance time for the initial detailed, HFEC, and ultrasonic inspections and replacement specified in the service information is either 18 months or 6 years, depending on the category of the trunnion fork assembly. The compliance time for the related investigative/corrective actions specified in the service information ranges between before further flight and 10 years, depending on the condition of the trunnion fork assembly. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,055 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 215 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection for part number, serial number, and category 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 this inspection proposed by this AD for U.S. operators is $17,200, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-29065; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-142-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 15, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-32A2482, dated June 14, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of a fractured trunnion fork assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fractured trunnion fork assembly, which could result in the collapse of a wing landing gear on the ground and possible damage to hydraulic equipment and the aileron and spoiler cables. Such damage could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Bulletin
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-32A2482, dated June 14, 2007. Initial Inspection for Part Number, Serial Number, and Category
(g)Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the pad-up area on the forward upper inboard surface of the trunnion fork assembly of both the left and right wing landing gears to determine the part number and serial number and to determine the category of the trunnion fork assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Follow-On Actions for Category A, B, C, or D Trunnion Fork Assemblies
(h)If any part number and serial number identified as Category A, B, C, or D in Tables 2 and 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin is found installed during the inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: At the applicable compliance time(s) listed in Table 4 or 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph
(i)of this AD, do the applicable action(s) in Table 1 of this AD and applicable related investigative/corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Table 1.—Requirements for Category A, B, C, or D Trunnion Fork Assemblies For— Do— And— Or—
(1)Categories A and D trunnion fork assemblies A detailed inspection for damage to the protective finish and for corrosion of the trunnion fork assembly and a high frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspection to detect cracks (Part 2) An ultrasonic inspection to determine the wall thickness in the area forward of the outer cylinder attach lugs in 8 zones, and a hardness measurement if applicable (Part 3) Do the terminating action (Part 5).
(2)Categories B and C trunnion fork assemblies An ultrasonic inspection to determine the wall thickness in the area forward of the outer cylinder attach lugs in 8 zones, and a hardness measurement (Part 3) None None.
(i)Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. Terminating Action
(j)Replacing the trunnion fork assembly of the wing landing gear with a trunnion fork assembly identified in Part 5 of the service bulletin, in accordance with and at the applicable time specified in Table 4 or 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin, constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD for that side only. 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 August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17284 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29061; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-243-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43 Airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; Model DC-8-50, -60, -60F, -70, and -70F Series Airplanes; Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) Airplanes; and Model MD-88 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain McDonnell Douglas airplanes. The existing AD currently requires an initial general visual or dye penetrant inspection, repetitive dye penetrant inspections, and replacement, as necessary, of the rudder pedal bracket. The existing AD also requires, for certain airplanes, replacing the rudder pedal bracket assemblies with new, improved parts, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD would, for certain airplanes, reduce initial inspection thresholds, remove an inspection option, and lengthen the repetitive inspection intervals. This proposed AD results from reports of failures of the captain's rudder pedal brackets before reaching the initial inspection threshold identified in the existing AD. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the rudder pedal bracket assembly, which could result in the loss of rudder and braking control at either the captain's or first officer's position. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024) for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5324; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-29061; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-243-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or may can visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On March 31, 2006, we issued AD 2006-07-25, amendment 39-14552 (71 FR 18201, April 11, 2006), for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43 airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 airplanes; Model DC-8-50, -60, -60F, and -70 series airplanes; Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes. That AD requires an initial general visual or dye penetrant inspection, repetitive dye penetrant inspections, and replacement, as necessary, of the rudder pedal bracket. The existing AD also requires, for certain airplanes, replacing the rudder pedal bracket assemblies with new, improved parts, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. That AD resulted from a report of numerous cracked rudder pedal brackets found during inspections of certain affected airplanes. We issued that AD to prevent failure of the rudder pedal bracket assembly, which could result in the loss of rudder and braking control at either the captain's or first officer's position. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2006-07-25, two Model MD-80 operators have reported failures of the captain's rudder pedal brackets before reaching the initial inspection threshold of 40,000 total landings specified in AD 2006-07-25. One operator reported finding a crack in the first officer's rudder pedal bracket at 34,000 landings. Lab analysis of these parts verified that fatigue was the cause of the failure. Boeing re-evaluated the current inspection interval and determined that lowering the initial threshold to 25,000 total landings is necessary for operators of Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes. Boeing also determined that the general visual inspection for cracks is no longer necessary because the eddy current and dye penetrant inspections are adequate for Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes. In addition, Boeing has lengthened the repetitive inspection interval for the eddy current and any applicable dye penetrant inspection (also called “special detailed inspections”) for these airplanes from intervals not to exceed 2,500 landings to intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings. Clarification of Applicability We have also clarified the applicability to include Model DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC8-73F airplanes. These models were inadvertently omitted from Table 1, paragraph (c), “Applicability,” of AD 2006-07-25. However, these models were included in the effectivity of McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Alert Service Bulletin A27-273, dated May 16, 1989, which we referred to in AD 2006-07-25 as a source for identifying airplanes affected by that AD. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A307, Revision 7, dated August 29, 2006. We referred to an earlier revision of this same service bulletin (McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-307, Revision 6, dated December 19, 1994) as the appropriate source of service information for doing certain actions in AD 2006-07-25. The actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A307, Revision 7, are essentially the same as those in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-307, Revision 6. However, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A307, Revision 7, revises certain inspection thresholds and intervals. Revision 7 also removes a general visual inspection for certain airplanes and, instead, specifies a special detailed inspection. The special detailed inspection consists of either doing an eddy current inspection for cracking of the rudder pedal bracket assemblies and, if any crack is found, doing a penetrant inspection for cracking; or doing the penetrant inspection for cracking of the rudder pedal bracket assemblies. Revision 7 includes a definition of a special detailed inspection. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2006-07-25 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also, for certain airplanes, reduce certain initial inspection thresholds, remove an inspection option, and lengthen certain repetitive inspection intervals. Explanation of Changes to Existing AD We have changed the parts cost for the replacement to reflect the cost information in the current Boeing service information. 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. We have revised references to certain service information to more accurately reflect the reference as cited on the service information itself. We have added a new paragraph
(f)titled “Service Information and Airplane Categories” to reduce the length of the references to both in the AD itself. We have re-identified the paragraphs accordingly, and revised this action to refer to the airplane categories rather than list the models individually. We have also removed Note 2 of the existing AD because the new paragraph
(f)makes the contents of the note unnecessary. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,840 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The replacements are applicable only to Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost General visual inspection (required by AD 2006-07-25) 3 $80 None $240, per inspection cycle 250 $60,000, per inspection cycle. Dye penetrant (special detailed) inspection (required by AD 2006-07-25) 5 80 None $400, per inspection cycle 946 $378,400, per inspection cycle. Replacements (required by AD 2006-07-25) 9 80 $9,466 $10,186 up to 946 up to $9,635,956. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14552 (71 FR 18201, April 11, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-29061; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-243-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 15, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-07-25. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category. Table 1.—Applicability McDonnell Douglas— As identified in— Model DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43 airplanes; Model DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, and DC-8-55 airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 airplanes; Model DC-8-61, DC-8-62, and DC-8-63 airplanes; Model DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, and DC-8-63F airplanes; Model DC-8-71, DC-8-72, and DC-8-73 airplanes; Model DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Alert Service Bulletin A27-273, Revision 5, dated February 18, 1993. Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F airplanes; Model DC-9-21 airplanes; Model DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, and DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B) airplanes; Model DC-9-41 airplanes; Model DC-9-51 airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A307, Revision 7, dated August 29, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of failures of the captain's rudder pedal brackets before reaching the initial inspection threshold identified in AD 2006-07-25. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the rudder pedal bracket assembly, which could result in the loss of rudder and braking control at either the captain's or first officer's position. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Information and Airplane Categories
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 2 of this AD. The term “airplane category,” as used in this AD, means the category identified in Table 2 of this AD. Table 2.—Service Information and Airplane Categories For Model— Called airplane category— Use this service bulletin—
(1)DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43 airplanes; Model DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, and DC-8-55 airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 airplanes; Model DC-8-61, DC-8-62, and DC-8-63 airplanes; Model DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, and DC-8-63F airplanes; Model DC-8-71, DC-8-72, and DC-8-73 airplanes 1 McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Alert Service Bulletin A27-273, Revision 1, dated May 16, 1989; or Revision 5, dated February 18, 1993.
(2)DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes 2
(3)DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F airplanes; Model DC-9-21 airplanes; Model DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, and DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B) airplanes; Model DC-9-41 airplanes; Model DC-9-51 airplanes 3 McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-307, Revision 1, dated May 16, 1989; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A307, Revision 7, dated August 29, 2006 (after the effective date of this AD, only Revision 7 may be used).
(4)DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes 4 Requirements of AD 2006-07-25 Initial Inspection Threshold
(g)For airplane categories 1, 3, and 4, prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total landings or within 30 days after July 5, 1989 (the effective date of AD 89-14-02, amendment 39-6245, which was superseded by AD 2006-07-25), whichever occurs later: Perform either a general visual inspection, dye penetrant inspection, or special detailed inspection (eddy current with dye penetrant or just dye penetrant), as applicable, for cracking of the captain's and first officer's rudder pedal bracket, part numbers (P/N) 5616067 and 5616068, respectively, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 2 of this AD. After the effective date of this AD, only the special detailed inspection specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A307, Revision 7, may be used for airplanes identified in Revision 7. For airplane category 4: Do the inspection required by this paragraph until the inspection required by paragraph
(j)of this AD is accomplished. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(1)If an initial general visual inspection is accomplished, and no crack is found, perform a dye penetrant inspection of the rudder pedal bracket assembly within 180 days after the general visual inspection, and thereafter accomplish dye penetrant inspections at intervals not to exceed 12 months or 2,500 landings, whichever occurs earlier. For airplane categories 3 and 4, repeat at this interval until the inspection required by paragraph
(k)of this AD is accomplished.
(2)If an initial dye penetrant inspection is accomplished, and no crack is found, accomplish repetitive dye penetrant inspections at intervals not to exceed 12 months or 2,500 landings, whichever occurs earlier. For airplane categories 3 and 4, repeat at this interval until the inspection required by paragraph
(k)of this AD is accomplished.
(3)If an initial special detailed inspection is accomplished after the effective date of this AD, and no crack is found, repeat the inspection in accordance with paragraph
(k)of this AD. Corrective Action
(h)Except as provided by paragraph
(l)of this AD: If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph
(g)or
(j)of this AD, before further flight, remove and replace the rudder pedal bracket assembly in accordance with the service bulletin. Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total landings after replacement with the new part, resume the repetitive inspections in accordance with paragraph
(g)or
(k)of this AD, as applicable. Doing the action required by paragraph
(l)of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph for airplane category 4. Terminating Action for Certain Airplanes
(i)For airplane categories 3 and 4: Do the actions in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(1)Before the accumulation of 75,000 total landings on the captain's rudder pedal bracket assembly, P/N 5616067-501, or within 60 months after May 16, 2006, whichever occurs later: Remove the rudder pedal bracket assembly and replace it with new, improved P/N 5962903-501. Accomplishment of the replacement terminates the repetitive inspections of the captain's rudder pedal bracket assembly required by paragraphs (g), (h), (j), (k), and
(l)of this AD.
(2)Before the accumulation of 75,000 total landings on the first officer's rudder pedal bracket assembly, P/N 5616068-501, or within 60 months after May 16, 2006, whichever occurs later: Remove the rudder pedal bracket assembly and replace it with new, improved P/N 5962904-501. Accomplishment of the replacement terminates the repetitive inspections of the first officer's rudder pedal bracket assembly required by paragraphs (g), (h), (j), (k), and
(l)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD Revised Initial Inspection at Reduced Threshold for Certain Airplanes
(j)For airplane categories 2 and 4, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2) or (j)(3) of this AD: Do a special detailed inspection for cracking of the captain's and first officer's rudder pedal bracket, part numbers (P/N) 5616067 and 5616068, respectively, in accordance with the service bulletin. Doing this inspection terminates the inspection requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD for airplane category 4.
(1)For category 2 airplanes: Before the accumulation of 40,000 total landings or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2)For category 4 airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 25,000 total landings as of the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 25,000 total landings, or within 3,000 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(3)For category 4 airplanes that have accumulated 25,000 or more total landings as of the effective date of this AD, do the next inspection at the applicable time in paragraph (j)(3)(i) or (j)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i)For category 4 airplanes on which the corrective action specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD has not been accomplished, do the inspection within 3,000 landings after the effective date of this AD.
(ii)For category 4 airplanes on which the corrective action required by paragraph
(h)of this AD has been accomplished, do the inspection at the earlier of the following: The next repetitive interval required by paragraph
(h)of this AD; 40,000 total landings after doing the corrective action required by paragraph
(h)of this AD; or 3,000 landings after the effective date of this AD. Repetitive Inspections at Revised Interval for Certain Airplanes
(k)For airplane categories 3 and 4: Repeat the special detailed inspection required by paragraph
(g)or
(j)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings. Doing the first repetitive inspection required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph
(g)of this AD for airplane categories 3 and 4. Corrective Action Including Reduced Inspection Threshold for Certain Airplanes
(l)For airplane category 4: If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (j), or
(k)of this AD: Before further flight, remove and replace the rudder pedal bracket assembly in accordance with the service bulletin. Before the accumulation of 25,000 total landings after replacement with the new part, resume the repetitive inspections in accordance with paragraph
(k)of this AD. Doing the action in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph
(h)of this AD for airplane category 4. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)AMOCs, approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-07-25, amendment 39-14552; and AD 89-14-02, amendment 39-6245; are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17287 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29066; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-147-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been discovered in several cases that clamp bolts of the elevator spring tab mechanism were not installed in the correct orientation. Bolts have been found installed with bolt heads on the lower position and in two cases, some bolts, nuts and washers [hardware] were found to be loose or missing. Detachment of an elevator spring tab mechanism clamp bolt could lead to jamming of the elevator control system and reduced controllability of the aircraft. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7305; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2007-29066; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-147-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 Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-08, dated June 4, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been discovered in several cases that clamp bolts of the elevator spring tab mechanism were not installed in the correct orientation. Bolts have been found installed with bolt heads on the lower position and in two cases, some bolts, nuts and washers [hardware] were found to be loose or missing. Detachment of an elevator spring tab mechanism clamp bolt could lead to jamming of the elevator control system and reduced controllability of the aircraft. The MCAI requires a one-time inspection of the left- and right-hand elevator spring tab mechanism hardware for correct installation, and prior to further flight, installing new hardware for any hardware that is incorrectly installed. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-27-106, dated February 7, 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 150 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. 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 $36,000, or $240 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: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2007-29066; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-147-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by October 1, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 611 inclusive. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 27: Flight controls. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been discovered in several cases that clamp bolts of the elevator spring tab mechanism were not installed in the correct orientation. Bolts have been found installed with bolt heads on the lower position and in two cases, some bolts, nuts and washers [hardware] were found to be loose or missing. Detachment of an elevator spring tab mechanism clamp bolt could lead to jamming of the elevator control system and reduced controllability of the aircraft. The MCAI requires a one-time inspection of the left- and right-hand elevator spring tab mechanism hardware for correct installation, and prior to further flight, installing new hardware for any hardware that is incorrectly installed. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Carry out a one-time inspection of the left- and right-hand elevator spring tab mechanism hardware for correct installation according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-106, dated February 7, 2006.
(2)If any hardware is found incorrectly installed during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, prior to further flight, install new hardware according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-106, dated February 7, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7305; fax
(516)794-5531. 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 Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-08, dated June 4, 2007, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-106, dated February 7, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17282 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29067; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-148-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require doing a detailed inspection for damage of the wire bundle of the right recirculation fan, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also require re-routing the wire bundle of the right recirculation fan. This proposed AD results from a report indicating that, during landing of a Model 757 airplane, an overheat warning and smoke occurred in the main cabin, and the right recirculation fan stopped operating. We are proposing this AD to prevent damage of the wiring bundle of the right recirculation fan. Such damage could result in a short circuit and possible fire in the mix bay or smoke in the main cabin. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide Rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Sheridan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6441; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29067; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-148-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive
(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that, during landing of a Model 757 airplane, an overheat warning and smoke occurred in the main cabin, and the right recirculation fan stopped operating. Investigation revealed fire damage to the right recirculation fan, the fan wiring bundle and electrical connector, and the insulation blankets in the mix bay. A fire, which extinguished without aid, had ignited in the top layer of the insulation blanket. The fire might have resulted from lint or dust touching a short circuit in the fan wiring bundle caused by chafing of the wire bundle against adjacent structure. This condition, if not corrected, could result in fire in the mix bay or smoke in the main cabin. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 757-21-0109, dated December 15, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a detailed inspection for damage of the wire bundle of the right recirculating fan and repair if necessary. The service bulletin also describes procedures, including re-orienting the electrical connector, for re-routing the wire bundle of the right recirculating fan. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 920 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 560 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $81 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $134,960, or $241 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-29067; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-148-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 15, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-21-0109, dated December 15, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report indicating that, during landing of a Model 757 airplane, an overheat warning and smoke occurred in the main cabin, and the right recirculation fan stopped operating. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage of the wiring bundle of the right recirculation fan. Such damage could result in a short circuit and possible fire in the mix bay or smoke in the main cabin. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection and Corrective Actions
(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do all actions required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757-21-0109, dated December 15, 2006.
(1)Do a detailed inspection for damage of the wire bundle of the right recirculation fan, and repair any damage before further flight.
(2)Re-route the wire bundle and re-orient the electrical connector of the right recirculation fan. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17280 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29087; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-094-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive lubrication of the left and right main landing gear
(MLG)forward trunnion pins. This proposed AD would also require an inspection for discrepancies of the transition radius of the MLG forward trunnion pins, and repair or replacement if necessary. This proposed AD would also require a one-time inspection for discrepancies of the lead-in chamfer and cross-bolt bore, and repair or replacement if necessary. Doing the applicable inspections and repairs/replacements, or overhauling the trunnion pins ends the repetitive lubrication requirements of this proposed AD. This proposed AD results from a report that the protective finishes on the forward trunnion pins for the left and right MLG might have been damaged during final assembly. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the forward trunnion pin, which could result in fracture of the pin and consequent collapse of the MLG. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6440; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29087; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-094-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that the protective finishes on the forward trunnion pins for the main landing gear
(MLG)might have been damaged during final assembly of Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes. The protective coating could be damaged at two locations because of the use of an unauthorized process, and damaged at one location because the pin was not handled correctly. Therefore, it is possible that these trunnion pins have been delivered to operators with compromised corrosion protection in these critical areas: • The cross-bolt bore and outer diameter surface. • The lead-in chamfer and outer diameter surface. • The transition radius between the chrome-plated outer diameter and the spherical ball bearing surface. Damage to the protective finish puts the base metal of the trunnion pin at risk from corrosion pitting. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to cracking of the forward trunnion pin, which could result in fracture of the pin and consequent collapse of the MLG. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive lubrication of the MLG forward trunnion pins. The service bulletin states that accomplishing the inspections and applicable repairs/replacements described below, or overhauling the trunnion pins in accordance with Boeing 737 Component Maintenance Manual 57-15-01, eliminates the need for the repetitive lubrication. The service bulletin also describes procedures for an inspection for discrepancies (corrosion, finish damage, surface deformation, or scratches) of the transition radius. If any discrepancy is found, the service bulletin specifies repairing or replacing the trunnion pin, as applicable, depending on the type of discrepancy found. The repair includes blending and restoring the protective finish. If the trunnion pin is not replaced, the service bulletin specifies an additional inspection for discrepancies of the lead-in chamfer and the cross-bolt bore. If any discrepancy is found, the service bulletin specifies repairing or replacing the trunnion pin, as applicable, depending on the type of discrepancy found. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin Although Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007, specifies to send inspection reports to the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not require that action. Costs of Compliance There are about 890 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Repetitive lubrication 1 $0 $80, per lubrication cycle 300 $24,000, per lubrication cycle. Inspections 4 0 320 300 $96,000. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-29087; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-094-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 15, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that the protective finishes on the forward trunnion pins for the left and right main landing gear
(MLG)might have been damaged during final assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the forward trunnion pin, which could result in fracture of the pin and consequent collapse of the MLG. 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. Lubrication or Overhaul
(f)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Lubricate the left and right MLG forward trunnion pins in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007. Repeat the lubrication at intervals not to exceed 30 days until all applicable requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD have been accomplished. Overhauling the trunnion pin as given in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, Revision 1, ends the repetitive lubrication requirements of this paragraph for that pin. Inspection and Corrective Actions
(g)Within 60 months after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original standard export certificate of airworthiness, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies (corrosion, finish damage, surface deformation, or scratches) of the transition radius of the left and right MLG trunnion pin; and if any discrepancy is found, repair or replace the trunnion pin before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007.
(h)For any airplane on which a trunnion pin is not replaced in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD, within 96 months after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original standard export certificate of airworthiness, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the lead-in chamfer and cross-bolt bore; and if any discrepancy is found, repair or replace the trunnion pin before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007. No Report Required
(i)Although Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007, specifies to send inspection reports to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Issue of Service Information
(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, dated May 12, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17285 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29069; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-176-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating for each structural significant item (SSI), doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, and repairing cracked structure. This proposed AD results from a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking and corrosion in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service goal. We are proposing this AD to ensure the continued structural integrity of the entire fleet of Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6440; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29069; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-176-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion In the early 1980's, as part of its continuing work to maintain the structural integrity of older transport category airplanes, we concluded that the incidence of fatigue cracking may increase as these airplanes reach or exceed their design service objective (DSO). In light of this, and as a result of increased utilization, and longer operational lives, we determined that a supplemental structural inspection program
(SSIP)was necessary to maintain the continued structural integrity for all airplanes in the transport fleet. Issuance of Advisory Circular
(AC)As a follow-on from that determination, we issued AC No. 91-56, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large Transport Category Airplanes,” dated May 6, 1981. That AC provides guidance material to manufacturers and operators for use in developing a continuing structural integrity program to ensure safe operation of older airplanes throughout their operational lives. This guidance material applies to transport airplanes that were certified under the fail-safe requirements of part 4b (“Airplane Airworthiness, Transport Categories”) of the Civil Air Regulations or damage tolerance structural requirements of part 25 (“Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR)(14 CFR part 25), and that have a maximum gross weight greater than 75,000 pounds. The procedures set forth in that AC are applicable to transport category airplanes operated under subpart D (“Special Flight Operations”) of part 91 of the FAR (14 CFR part 91); part 121 (“Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations”); part 125 (“Certification and Operations: Airplanes having a Seating Capacity of 20 or More Passengers or a Maximum Payload of 6,000 Pounds or More”); and part 135 (“Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operations”) of the FAR (14 CFR parts 121, 125, and 135). The objective of the SSIP was to establish inspection programs to ensure timely detection of fatigue cracking. Development of the SSIP In order to evaluate the effect of increased fatigue cracking with respect to maintaining fail-safe design and damage tolerance of the structure of Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, Boeing conducted a structural reassessment of those airplanes, using damage tolerance evaluation techniques. Boeing accomplished this reassessment using the criteria contained in AC No. 91-56, as well as Amendment 25-45 of section 25.571 (“Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure”) of the FAR (14 CFR 25.571). During the reassessment, members of the airline industry participated with Boeing in working group sessions and developed the SSIP for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. Engineers and maintenance specialists from the FAA also supported these sessions. Subsequently, based on the working group's recommendations, Boeing developed the Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID). Other Related Rulemaking We previously issued AD 98-11-04 R1, amendment 39-10984 (64 FR 987, January 7, 1999), applicable to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes (which refers to Boeing Document No. D6-37089, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document” (SSID), Revision D, dated June 1995, as the appropriate source of service information for doing the required actions). That AD requires that the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program be revised to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating
(DTR)for each structural significant item (SSI), and repair of cracked structure. The affected SSIs include, but are not limited to, the wing, fuselage, empennage, and strut. For Model 737-200C series airplanes, that AD requires inspecting SSIs affected by cargo configuration changes only. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Document No. D6-37089, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Revision E, dated May 2007 (hereafter “Revision E”); and “Appendix A Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Original Release, dated May 2007, of Revision E (hereafter “Appendix A”). Revision E and Appendix A describe procedures for revising the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than the required DTR for each SSI, doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, and repairing cracked structure. The inspections specified in Revision E are essentially identical to those in Revision D, except for Appendix A. Appendix A adds inspection procedures for SSIs on the wing trailing edge flap structure, which were not included previously in any revision of the SSID. Accomplishing the actions specified in Revision E and Appendix A is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require the following actions: Paragraph
(h)of the proposed AD would require incorporation of a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that provides no less than the required DTR for each SSI listed in Appendix A. Paragraph
(i)of the proposed AD would require repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs. Paragraph
(j)of the proposed AD would require repairing any cracked structure in accordance with a method approved by the FAA or an Authorized Representative
(AR)for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the FAA to make those findings. Paragraph
(k)of the proposed AD specifies the requirements of the inspection program for transferred airplanes. Before any airplane that is subject to this proposed AD can be added to an air carrier's operations specifications, a program for doing the inspections required by this proposed AD must be established. Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information For Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes, and Model 737-200C series airplanes on which details are not affected by the cargo configuration, Section 3.0, “Structural Significant Items (SSIs),” of Revision E specifies a threshold of 66,000 flight cycles for accomplishing the initial inspections; however, it does not specify a grace period for airplanes that are near or exceeded that threshold. This proposed AD would allow a grace period of 12 months after the effective date of the AD to incorporate Appendix A into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program. This proposed AD also would allow a grace period of 4,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of the AD to initiate the applicable inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs. Revision E does not specify instructions on how to repair certain conditions. This proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that have been approved by an AR for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance There are about 676 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Revision of maintenance inspection program 200 per operator (23 U.S. operators) $80 $16,000 per operator 118 $368,000. Inspections 150 per airplane 80 $12,000, per airplane, per inspection cycle 118 $1,416,000 per inspection cycle. The number of work hours, as indicated above, is presented as if the accomplishment of the actions in this proposed AD is to be conducted as “stand alone” actions. However, in actual practice, these actions for the most part will be done coincidentally or in combination with normally scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of necessary additional work hours will be minimal in many instances. Additionally, any costs associated with special airplane scheduling will be minimal. Further, compliance with this proposed AD would be a means of compliance with the aging airplane safety final rule (AASFR) for the baseline structure of Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. The AASFR final rule requires certain operators to incorporate damage tolerance inspections into their maintenance inspection programs. These requirements are described in 14 CFR 121.370(a) and 129.16. Accomplishment of the actions required by this proposed AD will meet the requirements of these CFR sections for the baseline structure. The costs for accomplishing the inspection portion of this proposed AD were accounted for in the regulatory evaluation of the AASFR final rule. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-29069; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-176-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 15, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking and corrosion in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective. We are issuing this AD to maintain the continued structural integrity of the entire fleet of Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Information
(f)The term “Revision E,” as used in this AD, means Boeing Document No. D6-37089, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Revision E, dated May 2007.
(g)The term “Appendix,” as used in this AD, means “Appendix A Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Original Release, dated May 2007, of Revision E. Revision of the FAA-Approved Maintenance Inspection Program
(h)Before the accumulation of 66,000 total flight cycles, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, incorporate a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that provides no less than the required damage tolerance rating
(DTR)for each structural significant item
(SSI)listed in Section 3.0, “Flap and Support Structure (Flap Structure) SSI Information,” of Appendix A. (The required DTR value for each SSI is listed in the Appendix.) The revision to the maintenance inspection program must include and must be implemented in accordance with the procedures in Section 3.0 of the Appendix, and in accordance with the procedures in Section 5.0, “Damage Tolerance Rating
(DTR)System Application,” and Section 6.0, “SSI Discrepancy Reporting” of Revision E. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Initial and Repetitive Inspections
(i)Before the accumulation of 66,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the applicable initial inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, in accordance with Appendix A. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the intervals necessary to obtain the required DTR specified in Appendix A. Repair
(j)If any cracked structure is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(i)of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracked structure using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(l)of this AD. Inspection Program for Transferred Airplanes
(k)Before any airplane that is subject to this AD and that has exceeded the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD can be added to an air carrier's operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the inspections required by this AD must be established in accordance with paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1)For airplanes that have been inspected in accordance with this AD: The inspection of each SSI must be done by the new operator in accordance with the previous operator's schedule and inspection method, or the new operator's schedule and inspection method, at whichever time would result in the earlier accomplishment for that SSI inspection. The compliance time for accomplishment of this inspection must be measured from the last inspection accomplished by the previous operator. After each inspection has been done once, each subsequent inspection must be performed in accordance with the new operator's schedule and inspection method.
(2)For airplanes that have not been inspected in accordance with this AD: The inspection of each SSI required by this AD must be done either before adding the airplane to the air carrier's operations specification, or in accordance with a schedule and an inspection method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. After each inspection has been done once, each subsequent inspection must be done in accordance with the new operator's schedule. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17283 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Alexandria Aircraft, LLC (Type Certificate No. 1A3 and A18CE Formerly Held by Bellanca, Inc.) Models 17-30, 17-31, 17-30A, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive
(AD)76-23-03-R1, which applies to certain Alexandria Aircraft, LLC (Bellanca) Models 17-30, 17-31, 17-30A, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC airplanes. AD 76-23-03-R1 currently requires you to inspect the muffler and tailpipe assemblies for cracks and inspect the exhaust assembly for freedom of movement at the ball joints. Since we issued AD 76-23-03-R1, we have received additional reports of in-flight exhaust system failures. Consequently, this proposed AD would reduce the exhaust system inspection interval; require a more detailed inspection of the muffler; and require replacement, reconditioning, or repair of the exhaust system if cracks or defects are found. This proposed AD would also require rerouting of the magneto “P” leads. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the exhaust system, which could result in heat damage to magneto electrical wiring and smoke in the cockpit. This failure could lead to loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine compartment. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 30, 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: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC, 2504 Aga Drive, Alexandria, MN 56308; phone:
(320)763-4088; fax:
(320)763-4095; Internet: *www.bellanca-aircraft.com.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Downs, Aerospace Engineer, ACE-118C, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, phone:
(847)294-7870, fax:
(847)294-7834. 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-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-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 Several reports of exhaust system failures, which led to smoke in the cockpit and heat damage to components in the engine compartment, on Bellanca Model 17-30 and 17-30A airplanes caused us to issue AD 76-23-03-R1, Amendment 39-5454. AD 76-23-03-R1 currently requires you to do the following on Bellanca 17-30, 17-31, 17-30A, and 17-31A airplanes: • Visually inspect the muffler and tailpipe assemblies for cracks, paying particular attention to the ball joint welds, the outlets of the muffler and resonator, and the support for the tailpipe assembly; and • Inspect the exhaust system for freedom of movement at the ball joints by removing the tailpipe support bolts. Since issuing AD 76-23-03-R1, we have received additional reports of in-flight exhaust system failures. Typically, the muffler fails at the weld which holds the ball joint to the muffler. The hot exhaust gases then escape and melt insulation on the wire bundle that includes the magneto “P” leads. When both the left and right magneto “P” leads short to ground, the engine stops. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine compartment. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007, and Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC drawing SK 1072, dated April 2, 2007. The service information describes procedures for: • Inspecting the exhaust system; • replacing and/or repairing exhaust system parts; and • rerouting the magneto “P” leads. 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 supersede AD 76-23-03 R1 with a new AD that would reduce the exhaust system inspection interval; require a more detailed inspection of the muffler; and require replacement, reconditioning, or repair of the exhaust system if cracks or defects are found. This proposed AD would also require rerouting of the magneto “P” leads. This proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,350 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the proposed inspection of the exhaust system would affect 1,200 airplanes with the following costs: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 N/A $320 $384,000 We estimate the proposed rerouting of the magneto “P” wires would affect 1,050 airplanes with the following costs: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 $500 $820 $861,000 We estimate the following costs to replace the exhaust system based on the results of the proposed inspection. The estimate is based on updating the entire exhaust system to the current production exhaust system. This proposed AD allows other means to do the required repairs/replacement which could cost less. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this repair/replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 8 work-hours × $80 per hour = $640 $4,000 $4,640 The estimated costs represented in the above actions include the costs associated with AD 76-23-03 R1 and the costs of this proposed AD. The added cost impact this AD imposes upon an owner/operator over that already required by AD 76-23-03 R1 is a more detailed inspection which requires more work-hours to accomplish and rerouting of the magneto “P” wires on certain models. 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)647-5227) 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 removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD)76-23-03 R1, Amendment 39-5454, and adding the following new AD: **Alexandria Aircraft, LLC (Type Certificate No. 1A3 and A18CE formerly held by Bellanca, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by October 30, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 76-23-03 R1, Amendment 39-5454. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Model Serial numbers 17-30 all serial numbers. 17-30A 30263 through 301030. 17-31 all serial numbers. 17-31A all serial numbers. 17-31ATC all serial numbers. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from several accidents caused by exhaust system failures. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the exhaust system, which could result in heat damage to magneto electrical wiring and smoke in the cockpit. This failure could lead to loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine compartment. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)For aircraft models and serial numbers listed below, inspect the exhaust system for cracks or other defects such as excessive wear
(i)Model 17-30, all serial numbers;
(ii)Model 17-30A, serial numbers 30263 through 301030;
(iii)Model 17-31, all serial numbers; and
(iv)Model 17-31A, all serial numbers Initially within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD or within 25 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Then repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months or 50 hours TIS, whichever occurs first. Accomplishment of the actions in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this AD terminates the recurring inspections required in this paragraph for the replaced/reconditioned exhaust system (left and/or right side). Follow Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007.
(2)Repair or replace the exhaust system using any of the options listed below
(i)Option #1—replace the entire defective left and/or right muffler and tailpipe assembly(ies) with new parts as specified in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007
(ii)Option #2—replace the entire defective left and/or right muffler and tailpipe assembly(ies) with parts reconditioned to the new parts as specified in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007; or
(iii)Option #3—recondition or repair the defective left and/or right muffler and tailpipe assembly(ies) to their original configuration using FAA-approved methods and materials Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where a crack or other defect is found. The actions in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this AD terminates the recurring inspections required in paragraph (e)(1) this AD for the replaced/reconditioned exhaust system (left and/or right side) Follow Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007
(3)For aircraft models and serial numbers listed below that do not have Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Kit 1067: Rerouting Right Magneto “P” Lead installed, reroute the magneto “P” leads
(i)Model 17-30A, serial numbers 30263 through 30998
(ii)Model 17-31A, all serial numbers; and
(iii)Model 17-31ATC, all serial numbers Within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD or within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first Follow Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Kit 1072 instructions located on drawing SK 1072, dated April 2, 2007, as referenced in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 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: Michael Downs, Aerospace Engineer, ACE-118C, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; phone:
(847)294-7870; fax:
(847)294-7834. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC, 2504 Aga Drive, Alexandria, MN 56308; phone:
(320)763-4088; fax:
(320)763-4095; Internet: *www.bellanca-aircraft.com.* To view the AD docket, go to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 24, 2007. Brian A. Yanez, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17289 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28633; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-7] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area 3405; Sullivan, IN AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Restricted Area 3405 (R-3405) at Sullivan, IN. The United States (U.S.) Navy requests that the FAA take action to establish R-3405 for the protection of nonparticipating aircraft from a tethered aerostat balloon used to deploy radar, electro-optic, camera, and other sensor packages at Naval Support Activity
(NSA)Crane's Glendora Lake Test Facility. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-28633 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Rohring, Airspace and Rules Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-8783. 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-2007-28633 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-7) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (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-2007-28633 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-7.” 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 NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **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 at the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for 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 office of the Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193-0500. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs 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. History On January 31, 2007, the U.S. Navy requested that the FAA take action to establish R-3405 at Sullivan, IN. The requested action would provide airspace needed to separate nonparticipating aircraft from a tethered aerostat balloon. The balloon is used at various locations within NSA Crane's Lake Glendora Test Facility to deploy radar, electro-optic, camera, and other sensor packages. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to establish R-3405 over an area near Sullivan, IN. The restricted area would enhance safety by separating nonparticipating aircraft from tethered balloon operations conducted by the Lake Glendora Test Facility. The restricted area would be relatively small, covering less than 1 square nm and extending from the surface up to 2,000 feet MSL. Section 73.34 of Title 14 CFR part 73 was republished in FAA Order 7400.8N, dated February 16, 2007. 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 Department of Transportation
(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, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes restricted airspace at Sullivan, IN. Environmental Review This proposal will be subjected to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas. The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 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. § 73.34 [Amended] 2. Section 73.34 is amended as follows: R-3405 Sullivan, IN [New] *Boundaries.* Beginning at lat. 39°07′41″ N., long. 87°22′02″ W.; to lat. 39°07′41″ N., long. 87°21′29″ W.; to lat. 39°07′39″ N., long. 87°21′29″ W.; to lat. 39°07′39″ N., long. 87°21′26″ W.; to lat. 39°07′41″ N., long. 87°21′25″ W.; to lat. 39°07′41″ N., long. 87°21′12″ W.; to lat. 39°07′00″ N., long. 87°21′08″ W.; to lat. 39°07′00″ N., long. 87°21′46″ W.; to lat. 39°06′36″ N., long. 87°21′47″ W.; to lat. 39°06′36″ N., long. 87°22′03″ W.; to the point of beginning. *Designated altitudes.* Surface up to and including 2,000 feet MSL. *Times of Designation.* By NOTAM 24 hours in advance. *Controlling Agency.* FAA, Terre Haute ATCT. *Using Agency.* U.S. Navy, Naval Support Activity Crane Issued in Washington, DC, August 24, 2007. Edith V. Parish, Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. [FR Doc. E7-17361 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917 and 1918 [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0044] RIN 1218-AC08 Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus Standards; Personal Protective Equipment; Notice of Informal Public Hearing AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Proposal; notice of informal public hearing. SUMMARY: This notice schedules an informal public hearing on OSHA's proposed rule updating its personal protective equipment
(PPE)design standards, which was published on May 17, 2007. It also establishes a date to file notices of intention to appear at the informal public hearing and sets requirements for submitting hearing testimony and documentary evidence in advance of the hearing. DATES: *Informal public hearing* . OSHA will hold an informal public hearing in Washington, DC, beginning at 9 a.m. on December 4, 2007. *Notices of intention to appear* . Parties who intend to present testimony at the informal public hearing must notify OSHA in writing of their intention to do so no later than October 1, 2007. *Hearing testimony and documentary evidence* . Parties who request more than 10 minutes for their presentations at the informal public hearing and parties who will submit documentary evidence at the hearing must submit the full text of their testimony and all documentary evidence no later than November 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit notices of intention to appear, hearing testimony, and documentary evidence—identified by docket number (OSHA-2007-0044) or RIN number (1218-AC08)—by any of the following methods. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax: If your written submission is 10 pages or fewer, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. • Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and courier service: Submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0044, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is
(877)889-5627.) OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. All submissions received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting notices of intention to appear, the text of testimony, and documentary evidence, see the Informal Public Hearing heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read comments and background documents that can be posted go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Written comments received, notices of intention to appear, and all other material related to the development of the proposed standard will be available for inspection and copying in the public record in the Docket Office at the address listed previously. *Hearing:* The hearing will be held in the auditorium of the U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press inquiries: Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, Office of Communications, Room N3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-1999. Technical information: Mr. Ted Twardowski, Office of Systems Safety, Room N3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2070 or fax
(202)693-1663. Hearings: Ms. Veneta Chatmon, Office of Communications, Room N3647; OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-1999. Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as news, are available at OSHA's Web page on the Internet at *http://www.osha.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 17, 2007, OSHA published a proposal that would update OSHA standards related to certain types of personal protective equipment (72 FR 27771). Interested parties were given until July 16, 2007, to submit comments on the proposal. The 3M Company, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International, and the International Safety Equipment Association
(ISEA)all requested an informal public hearing on the proposal. 1. Issues OSHA has proposed to update its standards requiring that certain types of personal protective equipment
(PPE)meet specifically identified ANSI standards. OSHA proposed deleting the references to the ANSI standards from the regulatory text, replacing them with a requirement to use PPE constructed in accordance with good design standards, and adding criteria for determining what constitutes a good design standard within the meaning of the proposed standard. The proposed rule also included a non-mandatory appendix listing those national consensus standards that OSHA has determined meet the criteria of a good design standard. ISEA has objected to OSHA's proposal because they believe that modifying the PPE design standards in this way would eliminate baseline performance requirements for PPE, potentially reducing employee protection and making compliance more difficult for employers. The 3M Company, ANSI and ASTM International also requested an informal public hearing. 2. Informal Public Hearing In response to the objections received, OSHA is convening an informal public hearing on the proposed rule. The hearing will convene at 9 a.m. on December 4, 2007. OSHA invites interested parties to provide oral testimony and documentary evidence at the informal public hearing. This section describes the procedures the public must use to participate in the hearing. The legislative history of section 6 of the OSH Act, as well as OSHA's regulation governing public hearings (29 CFR 1911.15), establish the purpose and procedures of informal public hearings. Although the presiding officer of such hearings is an ALJ, and questioning by interested parties is allowed on crucial issues, the proceeding is informal and legislative in purpose. Therefore, the hearing provides interested parties with an opportunity to make effective and expeditious oral presentations in the absence of procedural restraints or rigid procedures that could impede or protract the rulemaking process. In addition, the hearing is an informal administrative proceeding, rather than adjudicative one in which the technical rules of evidence would apply, because its primary purpose is to gather and clarify information. The regulations that govern public hearings, and the prehearing guidelines issued for this hearing, will ensure participants fairness and due process, and also will facilitate the development of a clear, accurate, and complete record. Accordingly, application of these rules and guidelines will be such that questions of relevance, procedure, and participation generally will favor development of the record. Conduct of the hearing will conform to the provisions of 29 CFR part 1911, “Rules of Procedure for Promulgating, Modifying, or Revoking Occupational Safety and Health Standards.” The regulation at 29 CFR 1911.4, “Additional or Alternative Procedural Requirements,” specifies that the Assistant Secretary may, on reasonable notice, issue alternative procedures to expedite proceedings or for other good cause. Although the ALJs who preside over these hearings make no decision or recommendation on the merits of OSHA's proposal, they do have the responsibility and authority to ensure that the hearing progresses at a reasonable pace and in an orderly manner. To ensure that interested parties receive a full and fair informal hearing as specified by 29 CFR part 1911, the ALJ has the authority and power to: Regulate the course of the proceedings; dispose of procedural requests, objections, and comparable matters; confine the presentations to matters pertinent to the issues raised; use appropriate means to regulate the conduct of the parties who are present at the hearing; question witnesses, and permit others to question witnesses; and limit the time for such questioning. At the close of the hearing, the ALJ will establish a post-hearing comment period for parties who participated in the hearing. During the first part of this period, the participants may submit additional data and information to OSHA; during the second part of this period, they may submit briefs, arguments, and summations. *Notice of Intention to Appear to Provide Testimony at the Informal Public Hearing* . Interested parties who intend to provide oral testimony at the informal public hearings must file a written notice of intention to appear by October 1, 2007. In addition to containing the information required by the ADDRESSES section above, this notice must also provide the: name, address, and telephone number of each individual who will provide testimony; capacity (for example, the name of the establishment or organization the individual is representing and the individual's occupational title and position) in which each individual will testify; approximate amount of time required for each individual's testimony; a brief statement of the position that the individual will take with respect to the issue identified in this Notice; and a brief summary of any documentary evidence the individual intends to present. OSHA emphasizes that the hearings are open to the public, and that interested parties are welcome to attend. However, only a party who files a complete notice of intention to appear may ask questions and participate fully at the hearing. If time permits and at the presiding ALJ's discretion, a party who did not file a notice of intention to appear may be allowed to testify at the hearing. *Hearing Testimony and Documentary Evidence* . Parties who request more than 10 minutes for their presentations at the informal public hearing and parties who will submit documentary evidence at the hearing must submit the full text of their testimony and all documentary evidence no later than November 1, 2007. The Agency will review each submission and determine if the information it contains warrants the amount of time requested. If OSHA believes the requested time is excessive, it will allocate an appropriate amount of time to the presentation, and will notify the participant of this action, and the reasons for the action, before the hearing. The Agency may limit to 10 minutes the presentation of any participant who fails to comply substantially with these procedural requirements; in such instances, OSHA may request the participant to return for questioning at a later time. *Certification of the Record and Final Determination after the Informal Public Hearing* . Following the close of the hearing and post-hearing comment period, the presiding ALJ will certify the record to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health; the record will consist of all of the written comments, oral testimony, and documentary evidence received during the proceeding. However, the ALJ does not make or recommend any decisions as to the content of the final standard. Following certification of the record, OSHA will review the proposed provisions in light of all the evidence received as part of the record, and then will issue the final rule based on the entire record. Authority and Signature This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. This action is taken pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), and 29 CFR part 1911. Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of August 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-17183 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 334 Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, Island of Oahu, HI AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments. SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to amend the regulations at 33 CFR 334.1380 for the existing danger zone in the vicinity of Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. The proposed amendment will reflect the current operational and safety procedures at the Ulupau Crater Weapons Training Range and highlight a change in the hours that weapons firing may occur. These regulations are necessary to protect the public from potentially hazardous conditions which may exist as a result from use of the areas by the United States Marine Corps. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2007-0027, by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail: david.b.olson@usace.army.mil.* Include the docket number, COE-2007-0027, in the subject line of the message. *Mail:* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO (David B. Olson), 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000. *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to docket number COE-2007-0027. All comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the commenter indicates that the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov web site is an anonymous access system, which means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail directly to the Corps without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your comment because of technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic comments should avoid the use of any special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* All documents in the docket are listed. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Consideration will be given to all comments received within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David B. Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, D.C. at 202-761-4922, or Ms. Susan A. Meyer, Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, Regulatory Branch, at 808-438-2137. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps proposes to amend the danger zone regulations at 33 CFR 334.1380 to reflect current operational and safety procedures at the Ulupau Crater Weapons Training Range, Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH), Kaneohe Bay, Island of Oahu, Hawaii and highlight a change in the hours that weapons firing may occur. The proposed amendment will also provide more detailed times, dates, and extents of restrictions. Procedural Requirements a. Review under Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply. b. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act These proposed rules have been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). Unless information is obtained to the contrary during the public notice comment period, the Corps expects that the economic impact of the amendment to this danger zone would have practically no impact on the public, no anticipated navigational hazard, or no interference with existing waterway traffic. This proposed rule, if adopted, will have no significant economic impact on small entities. c. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act Due to the administrative nature of this action and because there is no intended change in the use of the area, the Corps expects that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. An environmental assessment will be prepared after the public notice period is closed and all comments have been received and considered. It may be reviewed at the District office listed at the end of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above. d. Unfunded Mandates Act This proposed rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under Section 203 of the Act that small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334 Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334, as follows: PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 334 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3). 2. Revise § 334.1380 to read as follows: § 334.1380 Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH), Kaneohe Bay, Island of Oahu, Hawaii—Ulupau Crater Weapons Training Range; danger zone.
(a)*The danger zone* . The waters within a sector extending seaward a distance of 3.8 nautical miles between radial lines bearing 001° true and 129° true, respectively, from a point on Mokapu Peninsula at latitude 21° 27′ 10″ N, longitude 157° 43′ 45″ W, exclusive of the existing 500-yard wide prohibited area. The interface between the existing 500-yard prohibited area and this danger zone is defined by five points having the following coordinates: Point A: Latitude 21° 29′ 53″ N, Longitude 157° 43′ 37″ W Point B: Latitude 21° 30′ 39″ N, Longitude 157° 42′ 30″ W Point C: Latitude 21° 28′ 34″ N, Longitude 157° 40′ 04″ W Point D: Latitude 21° 28′ 10″ N, Longitude 157° 41′ 05″ W Point E: Latitude 21° 35′ 31″ N, Longitude 157° 41′ 23″ W
(b)*The regulations.*
(1)Weapons firing at the Ulupau Crater Weapons Training Range may occur at any time between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m., Monday through Sunday. Specific dates and hours for weapons firing, along with information regarding onshore warning signals, will be promulgated by the U.S. Coast Guard's Local Notice to Mariners. Information on weapons firing schedules may also be obtained by calling the MCBH Range Manager, AC/S G-3 (telephone number 808-257-8816/17).
(2)Whenever live firing is in progress during daylight hours, two large red triangular warning pennants will be flown at each of two highly visible and widely separated locations on the shore at Ulupau Crater.
(3)Whenever any weapons firing is scheduled and in progress during periods of darkness, flashing red warning beacons will be displayed on the shore at Ulupau Crater.
(4)Boaters will have complete access to the danger zone whenever there is no weapons firing scheduled, which will be indicated by the absence of any warning flags, pennants, or beacons displayed ashore.
(5)The danger zone is not considered safe for boaters whenever weapons firing is in progress. Boaters shall expeditiously vacate the danger zone at best speed and by the most direct route whenever weapons firing is scheduled. Passage of vessels through the danger zone when weapons firing is in progress will be permitted, but boaters shall proceed directly through the area at best speed. Weapons firing will be suspended as long as there is a vessel in the danger zone. Whenever a boater disregards the publicized warning signals that hazardous weapons firing is scheduled, the boater will be personally requested to expeditiously vacate the danger zone by MCBH Kaneohe Bay military personnel utilizing a bull-horn from a Marine helicopter, hailing the vessel via VHF channel 16 or U.S. Navy surface craft.
(6)Observation posts will be manned whenever any weapons firing is scheduled and in progress. Visibility will be sufficient to maintain visual surveillance of the entire danger zone and for an additional distance of 5 miles in all directions whenever weapons firing is in progress.
(c)*The Enforcing Agency.* The foregoing regulations shall be enforced by the Commanding General, MCBH Kaneohe Bay and such agencies as he/she may designate. Dated: August 23, 2007. Mark F. Sudol, Acting Chief, Operations, Directorate of Civil Works. [FR Doc. E7-17155 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-92-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0399; FRL-8462-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; State Implementation Plan Revision To Implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Connecticut State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submitted on April 26, 2007. This revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005 and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006 and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Connecticut. Therefore, as a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA will also withdraw the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (CAIR FIP) concerning NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions for Connecticut. The CAIR FIPs for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006 and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0399, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*
(617)918-0047. 4. *Mail:* “FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0399”, Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. “FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0399”. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. In addition to publicly available docket materials available electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* , the hard copy of these materials, including the state submittal, is available at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning today's proposal, please contact Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number
(617)918-1684, fax number
(617)918-0684, e-mail *simcox.alison@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? V. Analysis of Connecticut's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGU NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call Sources D. NO <sup>X</sup> Allowance Allocations E. Individual Opt-in Units VI. Proposed Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Connecticut's SIP, submitted on April 26, 2007. This SIP revision includes a new regulation, Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies
(RCSA)section 22a-174-22c, “The Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)Nitrogen Oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) Ozone Season Trading Program” (herein called “Connecticut's proposed CAIR program”), repeal of RCSA section 22a-174-22a (“The Connecticut NO <sup>X</sup> Budget Program”), as of May 1, 2009, and repeal of RCSA section 22a-174-22b, “The Connecticut Post-2002 NO <sup>X</sup> Budget Program” (herein called the “Connecticut NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program”), as of May 1, 2010. In its SIP revision, Connecticut would meet CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units
(EGUs)to participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade program addressing NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions. EPA is proposing to determine that the Connecticut SIP as revised will meet the applicable requirements of CAIR. Any final action approving the SIP will be taken by the Regional Administrator for Region 1. As a consequence of the SIP Approval, the Administrator of EPA will also issue a final rule to withdraw the FIP concerning NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions for Connecticut. This action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.386. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIP for Connecticut is a conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because EPA's authority to issue the FIP was premised on a deficiency in the SIP for Connecticut. Once the SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority for the FIP. Thus, EPA will not have the option of maintaining the FIP following the full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIP. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP)has requested that EPA “parallel process” Connecticut's proposed CAIR SIP revision. Under this procedure, EPA prepared this action before the State's final adoption of the regulations included in the SIP revision. The DEP held a public hearing on its proposed CAIR SIP revision on October 19, 2006. The DEP has prepared a response to the comments received on its proposal and has developed a “post-hearing final draft” version of the regulations dated April 10, 2007. This is the version of the regulations included in Connecticut's April 26, 2007 SIP submittal to EPA and the subject of EPA's proposal. On June 19, 2007, the Connecticut DEP received adverse comments regarding the allocation methodology in its proposed CAIR program. Consequently, the DEP may revise its proposed regulations before final promulgation. After the DEP submits its final adopted regulations, EPA will review these final regulations to determine whether they differ from the “post-hearing final draft” version that is the subject of this proposal. If Connecticut's final regulations do in fact differ from the “post-hearing final draft” version, then EPA would need to determine whether any of the changes are significant. Ordinarily, changes that are limited to the allocation methodology would not be deemed significant for SIP approval purposes, assuming the methodology does not lead to allocations in excess of the total state budget. Based on EPA's determination regarding the significance of any changes in the final regulations, EPA would then decide whether it is appropriate to prepare a final rule and describe the changes in the final rulemaking action, or re-propose action based on the state's final adopted regulations. II. What Is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? The Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM <sup>2.5</sup> ) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures that reduce emissions of SO <sup>2</sup> , which is a precursor to PM <sup>2.5</sup> formation, and/or NO <sup>X</sup> , which is a precursor to both ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> formation. For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM <sup>2.5</sup> nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO <sup>2</sup> and annual State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO <sup>X</sup> . Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO <sup>X</sup> for the ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under CAIR, States may implement these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control measures. CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective on May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3 years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS. These findings started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP)to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are made and must do so within two years unless a SIP revision correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated. On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are achieved on schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading programs, as appropriate. The CAIR FIP SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as, and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. The integration of the FIP and SIP trading programs means that these trading programs will work together to create effectively a single trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season) in all States covered by the CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that, if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement certain CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating NO <sup>X</sup> allowances to sources in the State), while the CAIR FIP remains in place for all other provisions. On April 28, 2006, EPA published two additional CAIR-related final rules that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of States subject to CAIR for PM <sup>2.5</sup> and announced EPA's final decisions on reconsideration of five issues, without making any substantive changes to the CAIR requirements. III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO <sup>2</sup> and NO <sup>X</sup> and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of NO <sup>X</sup> reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO <sup>2</sup> reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both NO <sup>X</sup> and SO <sup>2</sup> starts in 2015 and continues thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1)Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs; or
(2)adopting other control measures of the State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State SO <sup>2</sup> and NO <sup>X</sup> budgets. The May 12, 2005 and April 28, 2006 CAIR rules provide model rules that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all units from their NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading programs. IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that most States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade programs. For such States, EPA has provided two approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these SIP revisions will fully replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, States may submit abbreviated SIP revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however, the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in conjunction with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs (e.g., the NO <sup>X</sup> allowance allocation methodology). A State submitting a full SIP revision may either adopt regulations that are substantively identical to the model rules or incorporate by reference the model rules. CAIR provides that States may only make limited changes to the model rules if the States want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. A full SIP revision may change the model rules only by altering their applicability and allowance allocation provisions to: 1. Include NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading sources that are not EGUs under CAIR in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program; 2. Provide for State allocation of NO <sup>X</sup> annual or ozone season allowances using a methodology chosen by the State; 3. Provide for State allocation of NO <sup>X</sup> annual allowances from the compliance supplement pool
(CSP)using the State's choice of allowed, alternative methodologies; or 4. Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt individually into the CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, or NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading programs under the opt-in provisions in the model rules. An approved CAIR full SIP revision addressing EGUs' SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, or NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions will replace the CAIR FIP for that State for the respective EGU emissions. V. Analysis of Connecticut's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations The CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone-season budgets were developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data, EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values, which were multiplied by 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/mmBtu), for phase 1 of the CAIR program (2009-2014) and by 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for phase 2 of the CAIR program (2015 and thereafter) to obtain regional NO <sup>X</sup> budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone-season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat input data adjusted by fuel factors. Connecticut, however, is only required to participate in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season program and not the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual or SO <sup>2</sup> trading programs. Therefore, only CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season budgets apply to the Connecticut CAIR program. In today's action, EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's SIP revision, which will be codified at RCSA section 22a-174-22c. This SIP revision adopts the budget established for the State in CAIR, i.e., 2,559 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions for CAIR phases 1 and 2, plus an additional 132 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions for both phases 1 and 2 to account for NO <sup>X</sup> emissions from “non-EGUs” from the Connecticut NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program (see section V.B. below). The total NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season budget is therefore 2,691 tons of NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions for CAIR phases 1 and 2. Connecticut's SIP revision sets this budget as the total number of allowances (with each allowance authorizing one ton of NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions) available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade program. B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs The CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone-season model trading rules both largely mirror the structure of the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone-season model rules are similar, there are some differences. For example, the NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program replaces the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call program. The NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program. In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program and including all their NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading sources in that program. Connecticut has decided to exercise the option of including all its NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call units in its State CAIR program. Therefore, the Connecticut CAIR SIP revision includes amendments to the Connecticut NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program (RCSA section 22a-174-22b) such that the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program applies for the control periods from 2003 through 2008, but is then superseded by the Connecticut CAIR program beginning with the control period in 2009. EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to work together as integrated SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading programs. In the SIP revision, Connecticut proposes to implement its CAIR budgets by requiring EGUs (as well as “non-EGUs” from its NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program, as discussed below) to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions. Connecticut is proposing a full SIP revision that adopts, with certain allowed changes discussed below, the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions. C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NO X SIP Call Sources In general, the CAIR model trading rules apply to any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990 or the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale. States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season program only, those units in the State's NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR (herein called “non-EGUs”). EPA advises States exercising this option to add the applicability provisions in the State's NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading rule for “non-EGUs” to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 in order to include in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program all units required to be in the State's NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program that are not already included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this option, the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season program must cover all large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less) that the State currently requires to be in the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program. In the SIP revision, Connecticut proposes to expand the applicability provisions of the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program to include all units in the State's NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program, plus Exeter Energy, which is a waste-tire-fired unit that EPA has determined meets the definition of a NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call unit and a CAIR unit. Units in the Connecticut NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program include EGUs of 15 MW or more and non-EGUs (such as industrial boilers and combustion turbines) with a maximum design heat input of 250 MMBtu/hr or more. These units will be included in the Connecticut CAIR program beginning with the control period in 2009. EPA has determined that Connecticut's proposed SIP revision includes the allowable CAIR applicability provisions relating to adding all NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading-program units to the Connecticut CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season program. D. NO X Allowance Allocations *Deadlines:* There is one technical flaw in the SIP revision, but EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision despite this flaw. CAIR requires states to submit to EPA the initial allocations for EGUs that started operation before 2001 by October 31, 2006. Connecticut's proposed SIP revision does not meet this requirement, nor did the state in fact submit those allocations by this date. However, the purpose of this date was to allow EPA sufficient time to process the allocations data. EPA now has the allocations, and no outside party was prejudiced by Connecticut's failure to meet this date. Specifically, according to 40 CFR 51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(C), for a full SIP revision, “[t]he State's methodology must require that, for EGUs commencing operation before January 1, 2001, the State will determine, and notify the Administrator of, each unit's allocation of CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> allowances by October 31, 2006 for the ozone seasons 2009, 2010, and 2011.” Connecticut's proposed SIP revision does not meet this requirement because it does not require that the State submit the 2009-2011 allocations for pre-2001 EGUs by October 31, 2006. Instead, Connecticut's SIP revision requires that it submit, and in fact it did submit, these allocations by April 30, 2007, the deadline that is applicable to abbreviated SIP revisions under 40 CFR 51.123(ee)(2)(ii)(C). Since Connecticut has submitted a full SIP revision, not an abbreviated SIP revision, this failure to require that the State will submit allocations by October 31, 2006 is technically a deficiency in the SIP. However, this does not render the SIP unapprovable. The purpose of the October 31, 2006 deadline, as mentioned above, was to allow EPA's Clean Air Markets Division sufficient time to process the allocations. At this point, the deadline has elapsed; Connecticut has, in fact, submitted its allocations; and the Clean Air Markets Division is fully able to process the allocations despite having received them later than CAIR envisions. Potentially regulated entities received ample notice of Connecticut's plan for allocations when the State's program was submitted for public comment on the state level. Furthermore, in the context of this action, it makes no difference whether EPA would have received the 2009-2011 allocations in April of this year or October of last year, since EPA has, in fact, received them well before the date of this document. No party is prejudiced by the deficiency, since the deadline has passed, and any interested party has a full opportunity to comment on any aspect of this proposed action. Moreover, with Connecticut's April 2007 submission of the allocations, EPA will still be able—after final approval of the SIP revision—to record them in 2007 and, thereby, provide the allowances to owners and operators sufficiently in advance of the 2009-2011 control periods. In sum, EPA has determined that the interests of the public, potentially regulated entities, and EPA itself, including those interests which 40 CFR 51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(C) sought to protect, have been adequately met by the proposed SIP revision's adoption and, more importantly, actual submission of 2009-2011 allocation data by April 30, 2007. Consequently, EPA proposes to approve this SIP revision despite Connecticut's failure to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.123(aa)(2)(iii)(C). *NO* X *allowance-allocation methodology:* Under the NO <sup>X</sup> allowance-allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone-season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for five years (i.e., “existing units”), based on heat input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions. States may establish in their SIP submissions a different NO <sup>X</sup> allowance-allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the States if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative NO <sup>X</sup> allowance-allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to: 1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned; 2. The frequency of allocations; 3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output; and 4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size. In the SIP revision, Connecticut proposes to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season model trading rule concerning allowance allocations with its own methodology. For most fossil-fuel-fired units, Connecticut proposes to allocate NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season allowances largely based on electric and thermal output, rather than heat input. For cogeneration units, certain industrial boilers or indirect heat exchangers, and waste-tire-fired units, Connecticut proposes to allocate allowances based on the unit's actual or permitted NO <sup>X</sup> emission rate. Connecticut also provides a percentage of allowances for an energy efficiency/renewable energy set-aside and a new unit set-aside.
(1)What Types of Set-Asides Are Included in Connecticut CAIR? In the SIP revision, Connecticut proposes to include in its CAIR program both an energy efficiency/renewable energy set-aside (EERESA) to encourage Energy Efficiency Projects (EEPs), Renewable Energy Projects (REPs), and Qualifying Other Project (QOPs), and a new unit set-aside to allow for addition of new units. Connecticut defines a new unit as any fossil-fuel-fired unit that began operating on or after January 1, 2006 and that serves a generator that produces electricity at an output of 15 MWe or more. A unit is considered to be a new unit for 6 ozone-season control periods (or portion thereof) following the date of initial operation. This change in status means that a Connecticut CAIR “new unit” will then become a Connecticut CAIR “existing unit.” Connecticut proposes to establish a new unit set-aside at 7 percent of the State's CAIR budget during CAIR phase 1 (2009-2014), and at 5 percent of the State's CAIR budget during CAIR phase 2 (2015 and thereafter). Therefore, the new unit set-aside would include 200 CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season allowances during CAIR phase 1, and 134 allowances during CAIR phase 2. Connecticut proposes to establish an EERESA at 10 percent of the State's CAIR budget for both phases of the CAIR program. Therefore, the EERESA would include 268 CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> allowances for the 2009 and subsequent ozone-season control periods.
(2)Methodology for Allocating CAIR Allowances Connecticut is proposing to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season model trading rule concerning allowance allocations with a largely output-based methodology. Under Connecticut's proposed SIP revision, most fossil-fuel-fired units would receive allocations based on their average net electricity output, without adjustments for fuel type. For cogeneration, industrial, and waste-tire-fired units, Connecticut proposes to allocate allowances based on the units' actual or permitted NO <sup>X</sup> emission rates and average heat input. EPA has identified two potential ambiguities in the allocation provisions of Connecticut's proposed CAIR program, and asked the Connecticut DEP for its interpretations. The Connecticut DEP (Wendy Jacobs, Bureau of Air Management) responded by electronic mail on June 20, 2007. After reviewing the Connecticut DEP's interpretations as stated in that electronic mail message, EPA interprets the provisions involved as follows. First, the proposed regulation uses the term “NO <sup>X</sup> allowance” in three places. See RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(c)(2), 22a-174-22c(c)(3)(B), 22a-174-22c(g)(4). However, this term is defined neither in the proposed SIP revision nor in the CAIR model rule. According to the Connecticut DEP, the term “NO <sup>X</sup> allowance” when used in RCSA section 22a-174-22c is identical to the term “CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> Ozone Season allowance” as defined at 40 CFR 96.302. EPA adopts this interpretation. Second, under RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(7)(A) and
(B)and 22a-174-22c(e)(8)(A), there is no limit to the number of allowances that can be allocated to cogeneration units, industrial units, waste-tire-fired units, or Phase I units in any control period. In theory, these provisions could operate to allocate more allowances to cogeneration units, industrial units, waste-tire-fired units, or Phase I units than are available in Connecticut's CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season budget. That said, RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(2) and 22a-174-22c(e)(3), which authorize the Connecticut DEP to allocate CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season allowances, state the maximum number of allowances available for allocation for all units other than new units. According to the Connecticut DEP, RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(7)(A) and 22a-174-22c(e)(8)(A) are modeled after analogous provisions in the Connecticut NO <sup>X</sup> Budget Program and the Connecticut NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program, and under those programs, the allocations for cogeneration units and industrial units have never resulted in a shortage of allowances for units in other categories. The DEP suggests that if the data support allocating allowances to cogeneration units, industrial units and waste-tire-fired units on an output basis, or if there are a significant number of new entrants into these categories, DEP may revise its CAIR program to allocate to these categories on an output basis. For purposes of construing Connecticut's proposed SIP revision, EPA interprets RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(2) and 22a-174-22c(e)(3) to prohibit the Connecticut DEP from allocating allowances in excess of the total state budget, and to control in any conflict with RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(7)(A) and
(B)and 22a-174-22c(e)(8)(A). Thus, if the operation of RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(7)(A)-(B) and/or 22a-174-22c(e)(8)(A) were to yield allowances for cogeneration units, industrial units, waste-tire-fired units, or Phase I units in excess of the state budget, either by themselves or in combination with allocations to other categories, then RCSA sections 22a-174-22c(e)(2) and 22a-174-22c(e)(3) would require the Connecticut DEP to recalculate or reallocate allowances so as not to exceed the state budget. EPA is relying on this interpretation of Connecticut's proposed SIP revision for the purposes of approving it as meeting the requirements of the Act and the CAIR program. If EPA does not receive comments to the contrary from the Connecticut DEP or any other party during the public comment period, the interpretations stated above will represent EPA's formal interpretations of the SIP provisions at issue for purposes of federal law.
(3)NO <sup>X</sup> Reporting Requirements Under the CAIR model rule, facilities that are subject to the Acid Rain Program or the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> and SO <sup>2</sup> annual trading programs must report emissions data year-round, but facilities that are only subject to the NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program need only submit NO <sup>X</sup> emission data to the State during the ozone season. As noted above, Connecticut is only required to participate in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season program. However, Connecticut's proposed CAIR program requires additional data reporting beyond that required by the model CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season rule. Specifically, all units would be required to provide annual reports of net electricity output and useful steam output (or an estimate of this steam output) for each control period. New CAIR units would be required to provide annual estimates of the total number of hours of operation for each control period. Units that are not subject to an Acid Rain emissions limitation and that are monitoring NO <sup>X</sup> emissions using a CEMS (but not those that are not monitoring using a CEMS) would be required to report emissions on a year-round basis. EPA has determined that these modifications of the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading rule in regard to reporting of output data are acceptable.
(4)Submittal of CAIR Allocations to EPA In the SIP revision, Connecticut requires the State to provide EPA with existing-unit CAIR allocations for each control period beyond 2011 by October 31st of each year beginning in 2008. For units starting operation after January 1, 2001 that are treated as new units, the State would notify EPA of each unit's allocation by July 31st of the year for which the CAIR allowances are allocated. EPA has determined that these proposed reporting deadlines are acceptable. E. Individual Opt-In Units The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015. States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all. The Connecticut CAIR SIP does not include opt-in provisions. Under the model CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading rule, the energy-output methodology that Connecticut proposes to use to allocate allowances cannot be used for opt-in sources. VI. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's full CAIR SIP revision submitted on April 26, 2007, including new RCSA section 22a-174-22c (“The Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)Nitrogen Oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) Ozone Season Trading Program”), repeal of existing RCSA section 22a-174-22a (“The Connecticut NO <sup>X</sup> Budget Program”), as of May 1, 2009, and repeal of existing RCSA section 22a-174-22b (“The Connecticut Post-2002 NO <sup>X</sup> Budget Program”), as of May 1, 2010. Under this SIP revision, Connecticut is choosing to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program for NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions. Connecticut's proposed SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP as revised will meet the requirements of CAIR. As a consequence of the SIP approval, the Administrator of EPA will also issue, without providing an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment, a final rule to withdraw the CAIR FIP concerning NO <sup>X</sup> ozone-season emissions for Connecticut. This action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.386. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and would not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This proposal also does not have tribal implications 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard and will result, as a consequence of that approval, in the Administrator's withdrawal of the CAIR FIP. It does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it would approve a State rule implementing a Federal Standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule would not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide. Dated: August 22, 2007. Ira Leighton, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. E7-17196 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7733 and FEMA-D-7816] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFEs modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety
(90)days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation Elevation in feet(NGVD)+Elevation in feet(NAVD)#Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Lowndes County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas Sugar Creek At Baytree Road None *145 City of Remerton. Approximately 1,100 feet downstream of the confluence of One Mile Branch None *148 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Remerton Maps are available for inspection at 1757 Poplar Street, Remerton, GA 31601. Send comments to The Honorable Peggy Seifert, Mayor, City of Remerton, 1757 Poplar Street, Remerton, GA 31601. Stanly County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Big Bear Creek At the confluence with Long Creek None +295 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of State Highway 49 None +645 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +369 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +384 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +395 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +426 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +441 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 710 feet upstream of Peaceful Lane None +483 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +580 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Ridenhour Road (State Road 1433) None +606 Big Cedar Creek At the confluence with Rocky River None +227 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1,240 feet upstream of West Whitley Street (State Road 1933) None +283 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Big Cedar Creek None +229 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Big Cedar Creek None +241 Camp Branch At the confluence with Rocky River None +449 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 60 feet downstream of Tite Road (State Road 1152) None +455 Cedar Creek At the confluence with Pee Dee River (Lake Tillery) None +279 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Norwood. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Railroad None +422 Coldwater Branch At the confluence with Rocky River None +327 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 340 feet upstream of Old Sandbar Road (State Road 1100) None +330 Coopers Creek At the confluence with Rocky River None +254 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Old Davis Road (State Road 1943) None +328 Curl Tail Creek At the confluence with Riles Creek None +572 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Richfield, Village of Misenheimer. Approximately 510 feet downstream of Merner Terrace None +655 East Prong Rock Hole Creek At the confluence with Rock Hole Creek None +488 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Stanfield. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of West Stanly Street None +569 Hardy Creek At the confluence with Rocky River None +240 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 150 feet upstream of the confluence of Ugly Creek None +383 Island Creek At the confluence with Rocky River None +354 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, City of Locust. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Pless Mill Road (State Road 1136) None +537 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Island Creek None +368 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 520 feet downstream of Drye-Hill Road (State Road 1120) None +412 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Island Creek None +388 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Island Creek None +412 Jacks Branch At the confluence with Rocky River None +252 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Rocky River None +281 Jacobs Creek At the confluence with Pee Dee River (Lake Tillery) None +279 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, City of Albemarle. Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of Indian Mound Road (State Road 1740) None +379 Little Bear Creek (North) At the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +470 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 450 feet upstream of NC 73 Highway None +523 Little Bear Creek (South) At the confluence with Long Creek None +334 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of Canton Road (State Road 1249) None +524 South Tributary 1 At the confluence with Little Bear Creek (South) None +417 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of NC 24-27 Highway None +443 South Tributary 2 At the confluence with Little Bear Creek (South) None +452 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1,170 feet upstream of Canton Road (State Road 1249) None +510 Little Cedar Creek At the confluence with Rocky River None +226 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Norwood. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of U.S. Highway 52 None +266 Little Creek (North) At the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +444 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1,220 feet upstream of Old Concord Road (State Road 1236) None +551 Little Creek (South) At the confluence with Long Creek None +302 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 900 feet upstream of Western Road (State Road 1959) None +425 Little Long Creek Approximately 450 feet downstream of Efird Street +428 +429 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, City of Albemarle, Town of New London. Approximately 1,480 feet upstream of Railroad None +569 Little Meadow Creek Approximately 1.1 miles downstream of State Highway 200 None +551 City of Locust. Approximately 1,200 feet downstream of Mauney Road (State Road 2625) None +581 Little Mountain Creek At the confluence with Mountain Creek None +384 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Badin. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Barnhardt Road (State Road 1545) None +588 Long Creek At the confluence with Rocky River None +284 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, City of Albemarle, Town of Richfield, Village of Misenheimer. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Matton Grove Church Road (State Road 1454) None +637 Tributary 1 Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence with Long Creek None +484 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1,170 feet upstream of Pennington Road (State Road 1401) None +509 Tributary 2 Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Long Creek None +485 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Long Creek None +508 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Long Creek None +530 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 650 feet downstream of Sunnybrook Road None +553 Meadow Creek At the upstream side of Reed Mine Road (State Road 1100) None +495 City of Locust. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Reed Mine Road (State Road 1100) None +511 Melchor Branch At the confluence with Little Long Creek +446 +448 City of Albemarle. Approximately 480 feet upstream of North Sixth Street +487 +486 Tributary 1 Just upstream of Fox Run Drive +514 +524 City of Albemarle. Approximately 160 feet upstream of Montgomery Avenue None +557 Tributary 1A At the confluence with Melchor Branch Tributary 1 None +536 City of Albemarle. Approximately 550 feet upstream of Montgomery Avenue None +554 Mountain Creek At the confluence with Pee Dee River None +284 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, City of Albemarle. Approximately 60 feet upstream of State Highway 740 None +708 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Mountain Creek None +377 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Stony Hill Road (State Road 1729) None +407 Pee Dee River At the Anson/Montgomery/Richmond/Stanly County boundary None +220 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Norwood. At the confluence of Yadkin River and Uwharrie River None +287 Tributary 6 At the confluence with Pee Dee River None +229 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Railroad None +264 Pole Bridge Creek At the confluence with Little Bear Creek (North) None +477 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Lambert Road (State Road 1231) None +570 Poplin Creek At Aquadale Road +428 +429 City of Albemarle. Approximately 630 feet upstream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive None +501 Tributary 1 Approximately 250 feet upstream of the confluence with Poplin Creek None +428 City of Albemarle. Approximately 300 feet upstream of East North Street None +483 Pumpkin Creek At the confluence with Rocky River None +426 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Rocky River None +444 Ramsey Creek At the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +369 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1,270 feet upstream of Canton Road (State Road 1249) None +543 Riles Creek Approximately 500 feet upstream of Rowan/Stanly County boundary None +572 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Richfield. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Willie Road None +590 Rock Creek At the upstream side of Rock Creek Park Drive +429 +430 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, City of Albemarle. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Railroad None +446 Rock Hole Branch At the confluence with Rock Hole Creek None +458 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Stanfield. Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Rock Hole Creek None +544 Rock Hole Creek At the confluence with Rocky River None +367 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Stanfield. Approximately 480 feet upstream of Polk Ford Road None +489 Rocky River At the confluence with Pee Dee River None +220 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence of Muddy Creek +482 +481 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Rocky River None +220 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Rocky River None +245 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Rocky River None +237 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 710 feet upstream of Loop Road (State Road 1982) None +248 Tributary 8 At the confluence with Rocky River None +350 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Rocky River None +364 Running Creek At the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +467 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Five Point Road (State Road 1206) None +540 Scaly Bark Creek At the confluence with Long Creek None +384 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of St. Martin Road (State Road 1963) None +416 South Ugly Creek At the confluence with Hardy Creek None +268 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Hardy Creek None +311 Stony Run At the confluence with Big Bear Creek None +339 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Oakboro, Town of Red Cross. Approximately 140 feet upstream of Running Creek Church Road (State Road 1134) None +636 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Stony Run None +445 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1,120 feet upstream of Liberty Hill Church Road (State Road 1115) None +469 Town Creek At the confluence with Little Long Creek +446 +448 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, City of Albemarle, Town of New London. Approximately 1,890 feet upstream of Henderson Road (State Road 1436) None +530 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Town Creek None +516 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1,060 feet upstream of Burris-Burleson Road (State Road 1437) None +546 Ugly Creek At the confluence with Hardy Creek None +380 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of South Stanly School Road (State Road 1922) None +407 Yadkin River At the confluence with Pee Dee River and Uwharrie River None +287 Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County, Town of Badin. Approximately 500 feet downstream of State Highway 49/8 None +566 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground + North American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES City of Albemarle Maps are available for inspection at City of Albemarle Engineering Department, 157 North Second Street, Albemarle, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Elbert Whitley, Mayor of the City of Albemarle, P.O. Box 190, Albemarle, North Carolina 28001. City of Locust Maps are available for inspection at Locust City Hall, 211 Town Centre, Locust, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Harold Greene, Mayor of the City of Locust, P.O. Box 190, Locust, North Carolina 28097. Town of Badin Maps are available for inspection at Badin Town Hall, 36 Falls Road, Badin, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable James L. Harrison, Mayor of the Town of Badin, P.O. Box 707, Badin, North Carolina 28009. Town of Norwood Maps are available for inspection at Norwood Town Hall, Zoning Department, 116 South Main Street, Norwood, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Larry McMahon, Mayor of the Town of Norwood, P.O. Box 697, Norwood, North Carolina 28128. Town of Oakboro Maps are available for inspection at Oakboro Town Hall, 109A North Main Street, Oakboro, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Joe Lowder, Mayor of the Town of Oakboro, P.O. Box 610, Oakboro, North Carolina 28129. Town of Red Cross Maps are available for inspection at Red Cross Town Clerk's Residence, 680 West Red Cross Road, Oakboro, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Ray Quick, Mayor of the Town of Red Cross, 231 East Red Cross Road, Oakboro, North Carolina 28129. Town of Richfield Maps are available for inspection at Richfield Town Hall, 138 Highway 49 North, Richfield, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Wade Barbee, Mayor of the Town of Richfield, P.O. Box 158, Richfield, North Carolina 28137. Town of Stanfield Maps are available for inspection at Stanfield Town Hall, 203 West Stanly Street, Stanfield, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Kevin Barbee, Mayor of the Town of Stanfield, P.O. Box 699, Stanfield, North Carolina 28163. Unincorporated Areas of Stanly County Maps are available for inspection at Stanly County Planning and Zoning Department, 1000 North First Street, Albemarle, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. Jerry Myers, Stanly County Manager, 1000 North First Street, Albemarle, North Carolina 28001. Village of Misenheimer Maps are available for inspection at Misenheimer Town Hall, 48384 U.S. Highway 52 North, Misenheimer, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Peter Edquist, Mayor of the Village of Misenheimer, P.O. Box 100, Misenheimer, North Carolina 28109. Williamson County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas Campground Creek Where Main Street crosses over Campground Creek None +423 Unincorporated Areas of Williamson County. 490 feet upstream of Main Street None +424 1090 feet upstream of Edgewood Park None +428 1160 feet upstream of Edgewood Park None +428 Crab Orchard Creek 200 feet upstream of Fosse Road None +417 Unincorporated Areas of Williamson County. Just Downstream of State Highway 13 None +430 East Fork Campground Creek Where Main Street crosses East Fork Campground Creek None +423 Unincorporated Areas of Williamson County 865 feet upstream of Belinda Road. 865 feet upstream of Belinda Road None +426 Lake Creek Where Prosperity Road crosses Lake Creek None +402 Unincorporated Areas of Williamson County. 650 feet upstream of Newton Avenue None +410 West Fork Campground Creek Confluence with Campground Creek None +424 Unincorporated Areas of Williamson County. 25 feet downstream of Honeysuckle Lane None +424 West Fork Westernaire Creek Confluence with Westernaire Creek None +423 Unincorporated Areas of Williamson County. 700 feet Downstream of Bainbridge Trail None +426 Westernaire Creek Where Main Street crosses over Westernaire Creek None +421 Unincorporated Areas of Williamson County. 750 feet upstream of DeYoung Street None +432 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Williamson County Maps are available for inspection at Supervisor of Assessments Office, 200 West Jefferson, Marion, IL 62959. Send comments to The Honorable Brent Gentry, County Board Chairman, Williamson County Courthouse, 200 West Jefferson, Marion, IL 62959. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: August 21, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-17346 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7732] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFEs modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety
(90)days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation *Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+Elevation in feet
(NAVD)#Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Mobile County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Branch B Approximately 2,900 feet downstream of Golfway Street None +87 City of Mobile, City of Prichard. Approximately 3,300 feet downstream of Golfway Street None +172 Branch C Approximately 50 feet downsteam of U.S. 45 None +42 City of Prichard. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of West Meyers Road None +91 Branch D Approximately 100 feet downstream of West Meyers Road None +56 City of Prichard. Approximately 500 feet upstream Cochran Road None +117 Branch D Tributary Confluence with Branch D None +88 City of Prichard. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Confluence with Branch D None +127 Branch E Approximately 2,100 feet above confluence with Eightmile Creek None +18 City of Prichard. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Aldock Road None +35 Branch F Approximately 1,100 feet above confluence with Eightmile Creek None +15 City of Prichard. Approximately 3,800 feet above confluence with Eightmile Creek None +32 Branch G Approximately 800 feet downstream of West Main Street None +28 City of Prichard. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Wolf Ridge Road None +44 Gum Tree Branch Approximately 100 feet upstream of Turner Road None +25 City of Prichard. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Caledonia Street None +29 Miller Creek Approximately 2,600 feet upstream of Snow Road None +153 Unincorporated Areas of Mobile County. Aproximately 12,420 feet upstream of Snow Road None +183 Unnamed Branch Approximately 100 feet downstream of Bear Fork Road None +88 City of Prichard. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Forrest Park Road None +149 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Mobile Maps are available for inspection at 205 Government Street, 3rd Floor, Mobile, AL 36602. Send comments to The Honorable Samuel L. Jones, Mayor, City of Mobile, P.O. Box 1827, Mobile, AL 36633. City of Prichard Maps are available for inspection at 216 East Prichard Avenue, Mobile, AL 36610. Send comments to The Honorable Ron Davis, Mayor, City of Prichard, P.O. Box 10427, Prichard, AL 36610. Unincorporated Areas of Mobile County Maps are available for inspection at 1110 Schillinger Road, Suite 100, Mobile, AL 36608. Send comments to The Honorable Stephen Nodine, Chairman, Mobile County, P.O. Box 1443, Mobile, AL 36633. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: August 21, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-17352 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28140 Notice 1] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: Based on the agency's evaluation, the NHTSA denies a petition for rulemaking from Ricon Corporation (Ricon) to amend S6.1/S7.4 (threshold warning signal requirement and related test procedure), S6.10.2.3 (anti-stow interlock requirement) and S6.10.2.7/S7.6 (occupied inner roll stop interlock requirement and related test procedure) of FMVSS No. 403. The NHTSA believes that the rulemaking is unnecessary because granting the proposed amendments would not result in a substantial increase in the effectiveness and safety benefit of the requirements and related test procedures. The NHTSA also believes that the current requirements and test procedures are appropriate and objective ways of ensuring compliance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For Non-Legal Issues:* Contact Mr. William D. Evans, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:
(202)366-2272, Facsimile:
(202)366-7002. *For Legal Issues:* Contact Mr. Ed Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:
(202)366-2992, Facsimile:
(202)366-3820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* On December 27, 2002 NHTSA published in the **Federal Register** a final rule, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403 (67 FR 79416), Platform Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles. The purpose of FMVSS No. 403 is to prevent injuries and fatalities to passengers and bystanders during the operation of platform lifts installed in motor vehicles. The standard is written to protect standing passengers who may be aided by canes and walkers, as well as persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility aids. FMVSS No. 403 became effective on April 1, 2005. On October 1, 2004, in response to petitions for reconsideration of its December 27, 2002 final rule, the agency published a final rule in the **Federal Register** revising FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. Among the changes made by the October 1, 2004 final rule, the agency amended the requirements for lighting on public use lifts, edge guard requirements and the wheelchair test device specifications (69 FR 58843). Requirements in FMVSS No. 403 include S6.1/S7.4 (Threshold warning signal requirement and related test procedure), S6.10.2.3 (Anti-stow interlock requirement) and S6.10.2.7/S7.6 (Occupied inner roll stop interlock requirement and related test procedure) which are the subject of Ricon's petition for rulemaking. Summary of Petition (S6.1/S7.4 Threshold Warning Signal Requirement and Related Test Procedure) The first issue addressed is Ricon's request to alter the test procedures used to test the threshold warning signal requirement. According to the petitioner, the changes to the test procedure would better serve the intent of the regulation. Ricon states that the purpose of the threshold warning system is to provide an audible and visual warning signal when the lift platform is in an unsafe position for boarding and that the threshold warning signal is intended to alert passengers but does not physically restrain them. Ricon further states that the threshold warning requirements in FMVSS No. 403 are based on previous industry guidelines established by the California Department of Rehabilitation and the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE)Standards J2092 and J2093. Ricon states that the California requirement was established as a result of accidents involving wheelchair-bound passengers backing out of the vehicle when the lift platform was not at vehicle floor level. Ricon notes that the threshold warning test in SAE J2092 emphasizes active verbs and phrases, which stress the dynamic nature of the test and make it clear that the recommendation's intent is to detect unsafe movement through the threshold area. It is Ricon's opinion that these tests contain an implied element of timeliness of the warning so that the threshold warning system can detect, activate, and warn with sufficient speed to protect the wheelchair passenger in the worst-case situation of a wheelchair moving through the threshold area. Therefore, Ricon requests that the FMVSS No. 403 test procedure for the threshold warning signal requirement be changed to a dynamic procedure to address this worst-case situation rather than consisting of the static multi-step test that presently appears in S7.4. Ricon also requests that the wheelchair test device include a simulated passenger (anthropomorphic dummy) which would have significant impact on how quickly the threshold warning signal reacts. Analysis of Petition (S6.1/S7.4 Threshold Warning Signal Requirement and Related Test Procedure) The petitioner suggests that the intent of the threshold warning system would best be served by using a dynamic, rather than static, test, in order to test the detection of unsafe movement. However, we note that while the concept of the threshold warning system can be attributed to both the California and SAE standards, the NHTSA chose not to adopt either of these requirements verbatim. The threshold warning signal requirements in FMVSS No. 403, S6.1 and its related test procedure in S7.4 are intended to warn standing passengers who may be aided by canes and walkers, as well as persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility aids that are within the threshold warning area when the lift platform is greater than 25 mm (1 in) below the vehicle floor and the associated testing procedures serve those ends. The current requirements and test procedure dictate that the warning signal must actuate if portions of a passenger and/or their mobility aid is already within the threshold area when the lift platform moves lower than 25 mm (1 in) below the vehicle floor and if the lift platform is already 25 mm (1 in) below the vehicle floor when a wheelchair rolls or a passenger steps onto any portion of the threshold warning area. In order to comply with these requirements, sensor coverage in the threshold warning area must be such that a warning signal is actuated when one front wheel of the wheelchair test device
(WTD)is placed on any portion of the threshold warning area. The warning must remain continuously actuated until the wheel is removed from the threshold warning area or the platform is adjusted up to within 25 mm (1 in) of the vehicle floor level. One front wheel of the WTD is used because it exerts a downward force to trigger pressure sensitive mats and the WTD has structure to trigger light beam type systems. In addition, wheelchairs are the most common mobility aid used on platform lifts. The matrix of sensors in a pressure sensitive mat must be such that it triggers off of the contact area between the WTD front wheel and the mat, and the matrix of light beams in a light beam type system must be such that the WTD structure continually obstructs at least one of the light beams while the WTD's front wheel is moved to all portions of the threshold warning area. Such systems will not allow a standing passenger or a passenger in a mobility aid to be partially or completely within the threshold area or roll/move within the threshold area when the platform is greater than 25 mm (1 in) below the vehicle floor without actuation of the threshold warning. Ricon's suggestion of a dynamic test has the practical effect of reducing the proximity sensing range to a single line under the assumption that the passenger will cross the line slowly after the platform has already been lowered. It may not warn a passenger already on the threshold when the platform is lowered subsequently. The threshold warning requirements in FMVSS No. 403, as well as prior threshold warning standards do not protect fast-moving passengers moving through the threshold area. In order to do so, requirements would have to specify a maximum threshold warning reaction time, would most likely require a deeper threshold warning area and the degree of protection would still significantly depend on the reaction time of the passenger. However, comments to the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, the response to which was published in the final rule (67 FR 79416) included requests from Ricon, as well as others, to *reduce* the depth of the threshold warning area beyond its current 457 mm (18 in) depth due to limited space in the vehicle. FMVSS No. 403 currently maintains the 457 mm (18 in) depth requirement for the threshold warning area. However, with limited space in the vehicle for the existing threshold warning area, there is also limited space for a walking or wheelchair-bound passenger to build enough speed to move extremely fast through the threshold area. The current threshold warning area is of adequate size to warn passengers moving slowly through the threshold area and passengers stationary on any portion of the threshold area. The NHTSA believes that the current threshold warning signal requirements and test procedures in FMVSS No. 403 are appropriate and objective ways of ensuring compliance and protection to passengers in these situations. If there is no room in the vehicle to expand the threshold area, then improving protection for fast-moving passengers (if such situations exist) is not practical and the need to add or substitute a dynamic test is moot. Therefore, Ricon's petition to adopt a dynamic test for the threshold warning signal is denied. Regarding Ricon's request that the WTD include a simulated passenger (anthropomorphic dummy) which would have significant impact on how quickly the threshold warning signal reacts, the NHTSA does not agree that placing a load in the WTD will have a significant impact on the timeliness of threshold warning actuation relative to weight-based or light beam type systems. However, the NHTSA is already considering allowing a human representative of a 5th percentile female to be present in the WTD during the threshold warning signal test in FMVSS No. 403, S7.4. This consideration has no relationship to threshold warning signal response times but is related to a petition from Lift-U (Docket: NHTSA-2005-20286-30) concerning the use of infrared threshold warning detection. Information relative to this petition will be published in the near future in the form of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Summary of Petition (S6.10.2.3 Anti-Stow Interlock Requirement) In its petition, Ricon recognizes that the purpose of the Anti-Stow Interlock is to prevent the accidental stowage of an occupied lift and that the anti-stow interlock requirement in FMVSS No. 403 was carried over from the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA)Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles (hereafter “ADA”). 1 Ricon also agrees that the 50-pound weight used in FMVSS No. 403 is intended to simulate an unattended standing passenger. However, Ricon states that it disagrees with the FMVSS No. 403 version of the interlock requirement which states that the interlock must prevent stowing of the lift platform when the 50-pound weight is placed on “ *any portion* ” of the platform. Ricon believes that the interlock should only be tested with the 50-pound weight at the center of the lift platform instead of on “ *any portion* ” of the lift platform. Ricon cites the following reasons for its position: 1 *See* 49 CFR Part 38. • Under 49 CFR Part 38.23 Section (12), Use by Standees, it states that lifts shall accommodate persons using walkers, crutches, canes or braces or who otherwise have difficulty using steps. *The platform may be marked to indicate a preferred standing position.* • Ricon lifts have the standing position clearly marked on the lift platform. The standing position is also described in the operating instructions. • Canadian Motor Vehicle standards place the test weight at the “centroid” position of the lift platform in its anti-stow interlock requirement. • The required placement of the handrails required by FMVSS No. 403 dictate that the passenger stand in the approximate center of the platform. • NHTSA's “Final Regulatory Evaluation
(FRE)and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis—Platform Lift” does not include the anti-stow interlock in its discussion of hardware improvements necessary for existing lift designs to comply with FMVSS No. 403. Therefore, designs previous to the FRE must be acceptable. Such designs only trigger the interlock and prevent stowing of an occupied lift when the 50-pound weight is placed in the center of the platform. Ricon claims that with respect to active lifts, it has met the anti-stow interlock requirement by incorporating a pressure control switch in the hydraulic circuit. The switch is designed to detect weight on the platform by reading pressure settings. In this case, pressure is a function of weight and the location of the weight on the platform. The further the weight is placed from the pivot center the higher the pressure reading. The Ricon system was designed to detect the 50-pound weight placed at the centroid (standee) position. Ricon said that based on its industry experience and observation of competitor's products, this same design feature is used on the vast majority of “active” platform lifts in service prior to FMVSS No. 403, and remains in service today. Further, Ricon believes that this is the design feature that the NHTSA reviewed prior to concluding that there was no additional cost of compliance to meet this requirement. However, by the NHTSA requiring the interlock to function when the test weight is on “ *any position* ” rather than simply on the “centroid or standee” position, significant design changes, as well as additional costs, which were not anticipated are required. Ricon believes that the choice of language to include “ *any position* ” on the platform is inconsistent with prior industry practice as well as NHTSA's own intent which resulted in unintended consequences not foreseen by the regulation. As such, Ricon is requesting that the language in S6.10.2.3 be changed to specify placement of the 50-pound weight at the “centroid or standee” position. Analysis of Petition (S6.10.2.3 Anti-Stow Interlock Requirement) Under ADA, Subpart A, 38.23 *Mobility aid accessibility* ,
(b)*Vehicle lift* ,
(12)*Use by standees* it states that “lifts shall accommodate persons using walkers, crutches, canes or braces or who otherwise have difficulty using steps. The platform *may* be marked to indicate a preferred standing position.” The ADA also states under Subpart A, 38.23 *Mobility aid accessibility* ,
(b)*Vehicle lift,*
(2)*Controls* that the control shall not allow an occupied platform to fold or retract into the stowed position. The ADA does not specifically link “a preferred standing position” in the “ *Use by* standees” section to the anti-stow interlock requirement under the “ *Controls* ” section. Also, the ADA contains no test procedure. It was for this reason that the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board charged the NHTSA with the responsibility of developing safety tests for platform lifts. The NHTSA follows ADA's premise that the anti-stow interlock should protect standing passengers, as well as persons in mobility aids. Not all lift manufacturers designate a standing position on its platform and standing passengers have the option of standing on any useable portion of the platform even if a standing position is designated. It is for these reasons that the NHTSA chose to test the anti-stow interlock on any useable portion of the platform. The anti-stow interlock requirements in FMVSS No. 403, S6.10.2.3 not only protects heavy loads such as a passenger in a wheelchair completely on the lift platform, but it also protects lighter loads such as a small child standing on any useable portion of the platform, as well as passengers in wheelchairs that may be partially on the lift platform and partially on the vehicle floor. Ricon commented in its petition that the FRE did not include the anti-stow interlock in its discussion of hardware improvements necessary for existing lift designs to comply with FMVSS No. 403, and therefore NHTSA did not really intend the anti-stow interlock to protect passengers on any useable portion of the platform. The FRE talks in general terms and does not necessarily address the specifics of each and every individual lift model. It is NHTSA's intention that the anti-stow interlock protect all passengers whether standing or seated in mobility aids on any useable portion of the platform. This concept is feasible as proven by manufacturers that have interpreted and complied with the requirements correctly. Therefore, NHTSA is not persuaded to amend the interlock requirement in accordance with Ricon's petition. Summary of Petition (S6.10.2.7/S7.6 Occupied Inner Roll Stop Interlock Requirement and Related Test Procedure) Ricon, in its petition, recognizes that the occupied inner roll stop interlock in FMVSS No. 403 is intended to detect the presence of a passenger (either in a wheelchair or a standee) on the inner roll stop and prevent the inner roll stop from deploying when it is occupied. Ricon further mentions that the test procedure in S7.6 uses the front wheel of the WTD to simulate an occupied inner roll stop. Ricon indicates that there is significant latitude about the number of front wheels to be placed on the inner roll stop (either one or two front wheels), as well as where the front wheels are placed. Ricon believes that the degree of latitude is ambiguous and may cause test results that are not objective and repeatable. Ricon recommends changing S7.6 by substituting a 25-pound test weight for the WTD. Ricon said that a 25-pound test weight will exert the same force as the weight of one front wheel of an unoccupied WTD and at the same time would provide worst-case protection for standing passengers. Ricon further explained that for test purposes, it recommends placement of the entire 25-pound weight on any portion of the inner barrier. By this Ricon means that the weight should not be placed half on and half off the inner barrier. Ricon says that such an amendment to FMVSS No. 403 would allow for easy verification of the interlock outside of a laboratory environment which is important as it will eliminate the myriad of *ad hoc* tests that inspectors currently use when a wheelchair test device is not readily available. Ricon indicated that the proposed change will make the test procedure more objective and repeatable. Analysis of Petition (S6.10.2.7/S7.6 Occupied Inner Roll Stop Interlock Requirement and Related Test Procedure) The test procedure in FMVSS No. 403, S7.6 is a single test procedure that verifies both the interlock requirements in S6.10.2.4 and S6.10.2.7. The interlock in S6.10.2.4 is one that prevents further up or down movement of the platform if the inner roll stop fails to deploy at the point where it is designed to deploy. The interlock in S6.10.2.7 is one that prevents the inner roll stop from deploying when occupied. Therefore, if the platform is moving down from the vehicle floor level and a wheel of the WTD is on the inner roll stop, when the platform gets to the level where the inner roll stop is designed to deploy, the inner roll stop should not deploy and the platform should stop. This means that the S6.10.2.7 interlock sensed that the inner roll stop was occupied and did not deploy and the S6.10.2.4 interlock sensed that the inner roll stop did not deploy at the point it is designed to deploy and caused the platform to stop. Also, when the S6.10.2.7 interlock is activated and inhibiting deployment of the inner roll stop, it must not allow the inner roll stop to lift the wheel of the WTD vertically off the platform more than 13 mm (0.5 in). The test procedure instructs one to move the lift platform to the vehicle floor level and place the WTD on the lift platform facing toward the vehicle. The platform is moved down until the inner roll stop deploys and this location is noted. The platform is then moved back up to the vehicle floor level loading position. One front wheel of the WTD is placed on any portion of the inner roll stop. If the platform is too narrow to maneuver one front wheel of the WTD on any portion of the inner roll stop, two front wheels may be placed on any portion of the inner roll stop. Using the lift control move the platform down until it stops. The platform must not be at a lower level than the previously noted level where the inner roll stop is designed to deploy and the wheel or wheels of the WTD must not have raised vertically more than 13 mm (0.5 in). The NHTSA has not received any specific complaints relative to implementation or repeatability problems with the test procedure. The NHTSA chose the front wheel of the WTD to load the inner roll stop as it is probably the most common item that may be inadvertently on and restricting the deployment of the inner roll stop under real-world conditions. The NHTSA does not stipulate how the wheelchair test device's wheel is placed on the inner roll stop. It is permissible for the wheel to be completely on the inner roll stop so the full downward force exerted by the wheel is transferred to the inner roll stop. If S7.6 were amended to use a 25-pound test weight, then other tests that use the front wheel of the WTD would have to be amended for the sake of consistency. Therefore, the NHTSA is not in favor of changing the load to a test weight unless specific problems with detailed information and data are brought to our attention. As the NHTSA's regulations require self-certification, it is not prohibited that manufacturers and inspectors test with a 25-pound test weight as long as they determine that it will correctly indicate compliance of their particular lift design when the weight is placed on *any* portion of the inner roll stop. The NHTSA, however, will continue to conduct compliance tests using the front wheel of the WTD in accordance with S7.6. Therefore, the NHTSA, at this time, denies Ricon's petition to amend S7.6 to use a 25-pound test weight in place of the front wheel of the WTD. Conclusion In accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition for rulemaking. The NHTSA believes that the suggested amendments would not result in a substantial increase in the effectiveness and safety benefit of the requirements and related test procedures. The NHTSA also believes that the current requirements and test procedures are appropriate and objective ways of ensuring compliance. Thus, after considering the allocation of agency resources and agency priorities, NHTSA has decided that the rulemaking requested by the petitioner is not warranted. Accordingly rulemaking on the petition is denied. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: August 27, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-17374 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 72 169 Friday, August 31, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Tri-County Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393, as amended by Section 5401 of Public Law 110-28, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007) the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest's Tri-County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 18, 2007, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., in Philipsburg, Montana, for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public. DATES: Tuesday, September 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Forest Service office at 88 Business Loop, Philipsburg, Montana. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Ramsey, Designated Forest Official (DFO), Forest Supervisor, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, at
(406)683-3973. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics for this meeting include a review of projects proposed for funding as authorized under Title II of Public Law 106-393, and public comment. If the meeting location is changed, notice will be posted in local newspapers, including The Montana Standard. Dated: August 24, 2007. Bruce Ramsey, Designated Federal Official, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 07-4271 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 43
Traces to 43 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
65 references not yet in our index
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 11 CFR 100
  • Pub. L. 107-155
  • 337 F. Supp. 2d 28
  • 414 F.3d 76
  • 540 U.S. 93
  • 546 U.S. 410
  • 11 CFR 114
  • 251 F. Supp. 2d 176
  • 441 F.3d 773
  • 424 U.S. 1
  • 459 U.S. 87
  • 479 U.S. 238
  • 11 CFR 114.15
  • 11 CFR 114.15(a)
  • 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)
  • 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(i)
  • 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iii)
  • 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(ii)
  • 59 F.3d 1015
  • 518 U.S. 604
  • 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iv)
  • 466 F. Supp. 2d 195
  • 443 F. Supp. 2d 81
  • 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)
  • 447 U.S. 557
  • 517 U.S. 484
  • 533 U.S. 525
  • 354 U.S. 476
  • 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(i)
  • 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(iii)
  • 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(ii)
  • 11 CFR 114.14(d)(1)
  • 11 CFR 114.15(c)
  • 11 CFR 114.14(d)(2)
  • 11 CFR 114.14
  • 11 CFR 104
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 14 CFR 25
  • 14 CFR 91
+ 25 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of availability
U.S.C.§ 601
U.S.C.§ 451
U.S.C.§ 1031
U.S.C.§ 434
U.S.C.§ 441b
Stat.Public Law 107–154
U.S.C.§ 431
C.F.R.§ 100.29
C.F.R.§ 114.2
F. Supp.337 F. Supp. 2d 28
F. App'x414 F.3d 76
SCOTUS540 U.S. 93
Cites 108 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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